 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: New website |
| From: | |
Stu
|
posted
Sun, Oct 18 2009, 9:38am
|
On the site, he says:
"No photos on this site have been taken by me nor do I legally own them. The credits and ownership of pictures belong to those that took/made them."
Yet there are no credits for the photographers in question, by or on the images themselves. This implies that, for instance, with many of the older ones, there ARE no credits, especially the ones that are either obvious hoaxes or have been proven to be hoaxed photos long since they were taken. If this isn't the case, he is in breach of copyright law on a number of occasions & his site runs the risk of being shut down if investigated after due complaints, should any be made.
Credits - True Dinos
As to a lot of the artwork, it looks PC-rendered. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: New website |
| From: | |
cloudyboy87
|
posted
Mon, Oct 19 2009, 2:43am
|
Hi "Stu". as of right now this is the closest I could find regarding your question about the Rines photos.
As for the other stuff. I have no photo shopped images or hoaxes on my site. If I believed that somersetting was false I would not present it as evidence. Case in point is the Ica stones. I know that many people regard them as hoaxes but this seems to be in opposition to the fact that they have been tested in several different ways for authenticity and passed every test they were submitted to. And as for the man admitting he faked them, who wouldn't sign the paper saying that they had faked an artifact and got off the hook when if they didn't they would go to prison? And then later retracted his statement about faking them. Yes there are fake ones but they can be easily distinguished from the real ones. You do however have a point about the photo credits, and yes I am working on that because I giving people credit where it is due.
Also, yes you haven't ranted and raved about anything I have said or presented so far and I thank you for being civil about it. And which artwork do you mean is PC rendered?
Thank you and God bless
Aaron Tullock |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: New website |
| From: | |
Stu
|
posted
Mon, Oct 19 2009, 3:30am
|
The main icon (the saurian eye) looks PC-rendered. Nice job, but a bit too much like the cover of a Rodrigo y Gabriela album :~}
Hi "Stu". as of right now this is the closest I could find regarding your question about the Rines photos
But you've not said anything about it. I can assure you, Aaron, as a long-time 'Nessie' follower, that neither the 'flipper' nor 'body' sonar images captured by the Rines team have been declared "real and authentic". It may APPEAR real & authentic to you, & you may believe it's real & authentic. But no-one, including Bob Rines himself, has said it's so. The concensus opinion is that the 'body' shot's most likely an upturned tree stump/clump of wood. The same is true of the 'flipper' image.
There ARE a number of proven hoax photos on your site. I can go through them one by one with you if you like. These were made, obviously, in the days long before the Internet & Photoshop came along, when small-scale, built models were used to pose, sometimes superimposed, as 'dinosaurs'.
Stu |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
