<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Jackie Chan comes to Hafizabad, Pakistan?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pakistaniat.com/2007/10/10/pakistan-jackie-chan-train-faisalabad-hafizabad-stunt/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pakistaniat.com/2007/10/10/pakistan-jackie-chan-train-faisalabad-hafizabad-stunt/</link>
	<description>Pakistan. Pakistani. Pakistaniat.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:04:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: dr.mohsin virk</title>
		<link>http://pakistaniat.com/2007/10/10/pakistan-jackie-chan-train-faisalabad-hafizabad-stunt/comment-page-3/#comment-178700</link>
		<dc:creator>dr.mohsin virk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:52:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pakistaniat.com/2007/10/10/pakistan-jackie-chan-train-faisalabad-hafizabad-stunt/#comment-178700</guid>
		<description>he is in his childhood therefor he dont know about the complication of this jackei &#039;s acting.....but one thing is clear that chines actor mr.jacki chan is from our area....but he is living in our neighbouhood....he is our jackei in futur.......very good.keep it up man</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>he is in his childhood therefor he dont know about the complication of this jackei &#8216;s acting&#8230;..but one thing is clear that chines actor mr.jacki chan is from our area&#8230;.but he is living in our neighbouhood&#8230;.he is our jackei in futur&#8230;&#8230;.very good.keep it up man</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Faraz</title>
		<link>http://pakistaniat.com/2007/10/10/pakistan-jackie-chan-train-faisalabad-hafizabad-stunt/comment-page-3/#comment-81592</link>
		<dc:creator>Faraz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:58:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pakistaniat.com/2007/10/10/pakistan-jackie-chan-train-faisalabad-hafizabad-stunt/#comment-81592</guid>
		<description>About the train having less pixels theory,  I think it&#039;s just the texture and color of the boggies that make it look like less detailed than other surfaces. If this was fake, the easiest way to do that would be to take a picture of boggies and put a boy on top. Why would you put four pictures together. How absurd. Sure someone can fake it, but if you start thinking like that you wouldn&#039;t be able to trust anything or anyone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About the train having less pixels theory,  I think it&#8217;s just the texture and color of the boggies that make it look like less detailed than other surfaces. If this was fake, the easiest way to do that would be to take a picture of boggies and put a boy on top. Why would you put four pictures together. How absurd. Sure someone can fake it, but if you start thinking like that you wouldn&#8217;t be able to trust anything or anyone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nabeel</title>
		<link>http://pakistaniat.com/2007/10/10/pakistan-jackie-chan-train-faisalabad-hafizabad-stunt/comment-page-3/#comment-81269</link>
		<dc:creator>Nabeel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:49:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pakistaniat.com/2007/10/10/pakistan-jackie-chan-train-faisalabad-hafizabad-stunt/#comment-81269</guid>
		<description>i think some people here are making the wrong conclusions...
the brick/wall may seem to have two layers but then it looks like there ARE two layers...if you look just in front of the boy (to the left) there is a very small shadow cast by the bricks on the wall next to them...

and there is no reason there should be any shadow of the boy on the train on the grass-look at the shadow of the bogey on the right! it suggests that the sun is to the right and behind the photographer,and the angle is such that the boy&#039;s shadow would be to the left,beyond the left border of the photo.remember this is a cropped photo.

the &#039;grey background&#039; is simply the platform beyond the bogeys...

and the pixelation is simply less obvious on the bogeys....

oh,the lighting matches,of course it does...

the train may or may not be motionless-what i think happened here is that the shutter speed was slow and the photographer&#039;s hand may have moved...because the grass in the background is blurred too...and if the timing was right,it is perfectly possible that the only moving object in the picture (the boy) was NOT blurred.

this doesn&#039;t seem manipulated.

owais,any chance we could get the EXIF data for the photo? that&#039;s the shutter speed,aperture,time photo was taken,etc...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i think some people here are making the wrong conclusions&#8230;<br />
the brick/wall may seem to have two layers but then it looks like there ARE two layers&#8230;if you look just in front of the boy (to the left) there is a very small shadow cast by the bricks on the wall next to them&#8230;</p>
<p>and there is no reason there should be any shadow of the boy on the train on the grass-look at the shadow of the bogey on the right! it suggests that the sun is to the right and behind the photographer,and the angle is such that the boy&#8217;s shadow would be to the left,beyond the left border of the photo.remember this is a cropped photo.</p>
<p>the &#8216;grey background&#8217; is simply the platform beyond the bogeys&#8230;</p>
<p>and the pixelation is simply less obvious on the bogeys&#8230;.</p>
<p>oh,the lighting matches,of course it does&#8230;</p>
<p>the train may or may not be motionless-what i think happened here is that the shutter speed was slow and the photographer&#8217;s hand may have moved&#8230;because the grass in the background is blurred too&#8230;and if the timing was right,it is perfectly possible that the only moving object in the picture (the boy) was NOT blurred.</p>
<p>this doesn&#8217;t seem manipulated.</p>
<p>owais,any chance we could get the EXIF data for the photo? that&#8217;s the shutter speed,aperture,time photo was taken,etc&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

