Here is part of what the windy's comment:
[quote]
I've seen the leaflets that DART circulated, with an image of turbines we estimated were 4 times bigger than the proposed ones. Who wouldn't be horrified by that and sign a petition?
[unquote]
Yes. I agree. But actually, I would bet that what the windy really meant was 4 times bigger than the propaganda images produced by their beloved developer .
As reported in ( This Article ), a prominent Scottish architect along with Stirling University has been conducting research into how various wind farm developers have been cleverly fiddling images to make their wind farms appear less intrusive.
Take these two example images taken from the same location (see the above article) that show the deception. Notice both images are the same width and you can see all of both images.
The top image uses a wide angle lens to give a panoramic view that is well outside the real field of view of an observer. This is then presented as an image at close range, so then all of the panorama is seen by the observer. The consequence is that the turbines (and buildings for that matter) are reduced and appear much less consequential than in reality. The bottom image shows the view more realistically with a field of view similar to that of a real observer.
There are rules governing these photo montages, but there are loopholes. These loopholes are ruthlessly exploited by the carpet baggers, leading to results similar to that achieved in the top image.
Now, when I look at the example images above, to me, it looks like the bogus pro-wind like propaganda image presents the turbines at about a quarter size of the more realistic bottom photograph.
I don't know if the DART flyer actually did present the turbines a four times larger than the Infinergy images. I didn't see it. But if they did it looks like DART probably got it about right.
So maybe, in the future, perhaps my windie commentator should do as they suggested and "be horrified and sign the petition".
You know it makes sense.
Love & Kisses
Billothewisp
2 comments:
Two tiny, tiny criticisms:2nd para line 6-7 "Of course they cannot but help to gild the lilly by then going on to claim that this figure could potentially over twice as much if all the wind power was directly offset by cycling coal plant". You need to insert a word between "potentially" and "over". I suggest "save" or "be". Also; Only one "L" in "lily. Otherwise a very engaging and enlightening account. Well said!
It's a fair cop. I'll correct it in the wink of an eye. Looks like you posted this on the wrong thread but never mind. Thanks for the corrections.
Post a Comment