Here's what changing the angle does for an image where the "incident light" is projected through the body and therefore has no preferred angle.
That is a lie. The offset is obvious—and done deliberately to provide garbage.I did ask the question. Do you think we're stupid? Obviously, you do because you think you can foist off a fraud on us. It doesn't work.
I took an image from the internet, applied the Photoshop auto contrast correction, and then applied the same emboss filter that, with a different angle, produces a plausible 3D rendering.
No, you didn't. You applied an offset of almost 2" in the X axis and almost 1" in the Y axis, deliberately producing a blurry, mis-registered image to make your point. This is fraud... and a lie. There is absolutly no effort to properly reproduce the technique. Either you completely misunderstand how its done, or you have deliberately FAKED your evidence. This is what we've come to expect from those who fallow that other evidence faker, McCrone.You are either a Fruad, or you are incompetent.
Here's what changing the angle does for an image where the "incident light" is projected through the body and therefore has no preferred angle.