• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Proof of Photomanipulation

Mobertermy

Muse
M
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
548
Hey,
I just made a new powerpoint presentation which proves photo manipulation at the Pentagon. It specifically deals with the cab driver Lloyde England, the man CIT accused of being an accomplice. If you have the time you can view it at my blog http://slothrop-blogjammin.blogspot.com/ I'm interested in seeing what you hard core debunkers have to say about it.

Don't be gentle.

(Note: this isn't a plug for my "blog"...it's just that I can't post a powerpoint presentation here.)
 
I trust Jack White's photo and video interpretation abilities without question. Hell, didn't he blow the lid of that whole moon landing hoax thing?

The man's a genius! :rolleyes:
 
Wow, I forget how adverse you guys are to actually looking at the evidence and then providing a rational critique. But, then "debunking" wouldn't exist if you actually did that...would it?
 
Mobertermy said:
Wow, I forget how adverse you guys are to actually looking at the evidence and then providing a rational critique. But, then "debunking" wouldn't exist if you actually did that...would it?
Click to expand...

That will come later from somebody I'm sure. I just think Jack White is an idiot, but I do not ad hom; I have not stated my opinion of this particular work one way or another in relation to Jack White's "idiotness".
 
twinstead said:
That will come later from somebody I'm sure. I just think Jack White is an idiot, but I do not ad hom; I have not stated my opinion of this particular work one way or another in relation to Jack White's "idiotness".
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely that Jack White is an idiot:)
 
I'm not sure about Jack White, but I do like the last Loretta Lynn album he produced and played on.

Mobertermy, the word you are looking for is "averse." Pet Peeve. :)
 
Firstly, posting this as a link and requesting comments is entirely appropriate, as I understand the forum rules.

Secondly, slide 4 (of the presentation, not the one labelled as slide 4) is a classic conspiracy theorist's false dilemma. Lloyd England is either lying, or telling the truth, or mistaken. Witness recollections are rarely perfectly accurate.

Thridly, there's nothing impossible about the view in photo #2. Go to the one you label as slide #1, draw in the cab position, and take a sight line roughly along the airliner path, and you'll see that it's trivially simple to find a line such that light pole B appears to the right of the cab, and poles C and D are behind it. Photo #3 looks equally easy to explain.

You're treating the bridge as if it were an object of zero depth in the same plane as light poles A and B. In fact, its depth is greater than its width, and it's nearer the camera than poles A and B.

As is so often the case with these proofs of photo fakery, you're being deceived by a poor appreciation of three-dimensional geometry. I could probably draw in the sight lines on slide 1 for all the views you've claimed are impossible. If I can be bothered, I'll do it.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
Wow, I forget how adverse you guys are to actually looking at the evidence and then providing a rational critique. But, then "debunking" wouldn't exist if you actually did that...would it?
Click to expand...

Au contraire... the actual evidence isn't limited to a few photos, and Lloyde England isn't even required to understand what happened at the Pentagon. Go read the ACSC Pentagon Building Performance Report, and go read Firefight, and there you'll find actual evidence.

So given the impossibility of your logical conclusion, the only explanation is that your uncorroborated suspicions are wrong. Bye now.
 
R.Mackey said:
Au contraire... the actual evidence isn't limited to a few photos,
Click to expand...
Yes, but all the photos are evidence.

and Lloyde England isn't even required to understand what happened at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
Who said he was? I merely made a ppt that shows the photos were manipulated. Lloyde had maintained that and I proved it.

Go read the ACSC Pentagon Building Performance Report, and go read Firefight, and there you'll find actual evidence.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be a "rocket scientist" to realize that photos are actual evidence.

So given the impossibility of your logical conclusion,
Click to expand...
And where exactly did you show this again?

the only explanation is that your uncorroborated suspicions are wrong. Bye now.
Click to expand...


That's interesting...this thread is about the 29 page slide show I made about photo manipulation, and you didn't address a single point made therein.
 
Mobertermy said:
Wow, I forget how adverse you guys are to actually looking at the evidence and then providing a rational critique. But, then "debunking" wouldn't exist if you actually did that...would it?
Click to expand...

What say you to post #10 by Dave Rogers? It took an hour after the OP.
 
OK, here's the sight line for photo #2.



Green X is Lloyd England's cab, sight line is orange. Light pole B is to the right of the cab, C and D are behind it, with C to the left of D, exactly as in the photo. Light pole A is out of shot ot the left. The cab is not on the bridge.

Your deduction is incorrect; photo #2 is entirely consistent with the spatial relationships required for England's cab to have been in the place claimed.

Since this is so trivially refuted, I won't bother with the rest.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Firstly, posting this as a link and requesting comments is entirely appropriate, as I understand the forum rules.
Click to expand...
Thanks for viewing.

Secondly, slide 4 (of the presentation, not the one labelled as slide 4) is a classic conspiracy theorist's false dilemma. Lloyd England is either lying, or telling the truth, or mistaken. Witness recollections are rarely perfectly accurate.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, interesting point. Lloyde could simply be wrong about where he was.
(I don't think this false dilemma is limited only to CTers though, I could easily see a cop or prosecutor saying the same thing. Then again one could argue that cops and prosecuters are essentially CTers).

But your point is absolutely valid.

Thridly, there's nothing impossible about the view in photo #2. Go to the one you label as slide #1, draw in the cab position, and take a sight line roughly along the airliner path, and you'll see that it's trivially simple to find a line such that light pole B appears to the right of the cab, and poles C and D are behind it. Photo #3 looks equally easy to explain.
Click to expand...
That's not the issue. The issue is where the bridge is in relation to lightpole B and the cab. We know that the bridge goes beneath light pole B and A. According to photo 2 the bridge would have to be going beneath the cab, but the bridge is definitively and completely to the left of the cab past TA3....this is plain and simply impossible.

You're treating the bridge as if it were an object of zero depth in the same plane as light poles A and B. In fact, its depth is greater than its width, and it's nearer the camera than poles A and B.
Click to expand...
I fail to understand what the depth of the bridge has to do with anything.

As is so often the case with these proofs of photo fakery, you're being deceived by a poor appreciation of three-dimensional geometry. I could probably draw in the sight lines on slide 1 for all the views you've claimed are impossible. If I can be bothered, I'll do it.
Dave
Click to expand...

Please do the sight lines. I am hoping at some point to see a visual "debunk."

Thanks again for viewing and your criticism.
 
Dave Rogers said:
OK, here's the sight line for photo #2.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/147644d2739ea17883.bmp[/qimg]

Green X is Lloyd England's cab, sight line is orange. Light pole B is to the right of the cab, C and D are behind it, with C to the left of D, exactly as in the photo. Light pole A is out of shot ot the left. The cab is not on the bridge.
Click to expand...
Lightpole A would be out of shot to the right.

Also your sight line can't be right be cause we would be able to see TA3 if it were.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Lightpole A would be out of shot to the right.
Click to expand...

Yes. Typo.

Mobertermy said:
Also your sight line can't be right be cause we would be able to see TA3 if it were.
Click to expand...

What is a traffic arm, and what does it look like? I'm not familiar with the term.

Dave

ETA: Is it the object you've labelled as "TA2" on the photo? If so, that's it. On this sight line, TA3 is just in shot to the right, where you've labelled TA2; TA2 is well out of shot to the right.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Yes. Typo.



What is a traffic arm, and what does it look like? I'm not familiar with the term.

Dave

ETA: Is it the object you've labelled as "TA2" on the photo? If so, that's it. On this sight line, TA3 is just in shot to the right, where you've labelled TA2; TA2 is well out of shot to the right.
Click to expand...


Dave, you clearly don't understand the picture because this is the second time you've got left and right wrong. TA3 would be out of frame to the left.

Your explanation doesn't work because the cab is between TA2 and TA3. The cab can't be on the wrong side of TA2 or TA3...which your explanation would neccesitate.

(Also, the reason I left some pictures without notation so that you could clearly see the objects.)
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Hey,
I just made a new powerpoint presentation which proves photo manipulation at the Pentagon. It specifically deals with the cab driver Lloyde England, the man CIT accused of being an accomplice. If you have the time you can view it at my blog http://slothrop-blogjammin.blogspot.com/ I'm interested in seeing what you hard core debunkers have to say about it.

Don't be gentle.

(Note: this isn't a plug for my "blog"...it's just that I can't post a powerpoint presentation here.)
Click to expand...

i have to ask a fairly obvious question. in photos 5 and 6, there are multiple black poles with lights on them. in photo 7, they are gone. whats up with that.
 
Senenmut said:
i have to ask a fairly obvious question. in photos 5 and 6, there are multiple black poles with lights on them. in photo 7, they are gone. whats up with that.
Click to expand...

Damn, I never even noticed that. The guy who was taking a picture was walking down a hill so it is possible he was just in a new location...so I'm not sure their abscence means anything, but if you figure anything out about them let me know.
 
Mobertermy said:
Dave, you clearly don't understand the picture because this is the second time you've got left and right wrong. TA3 would be out of frame to the left.
Click to expand...

No. Plot it on the overhead shot; TA3 is just to the right of the cab on this line of sight, and TA2 is well out of shot to the left.

Mobertermy said:
Your explanation doesn't work because the cab is between TA2 and TA3. The cab can't be on the wrong side of TA2 or TA3...which your explanation would neccesitate.
Click to expand...

I can see what your problem is, I think. You're talking as if left and right were absolutes, rather than defined relative to a specified direction. TA3 is to the left of the car relative to a direction at right angles to the road. However, since the photo is clearly taken at an oblique angle to the road, parallax has shifted the apparent position of TA3 relative to the cab so that it now appears on its right.

Here's a quick sketch to explain.



Viewed along the direction of the red arrow, TA3 is to the left of the cab. Viewed along the direction of the green arrow, TA3 is to the right of the cab.

All your observations are just variations on this.

Dave
 
Photos 5 and 6 appear to have been taken from further to the right than photo seven. The bush on the right of photo 7 is to the left in photos 5 and 6.
 
Dave your explanation about TA2 and TA3 doesn't work for the simple explanation that the traffic arms are down (the red and white arms). We know that what you are taking to be TA3 can't be TA3 because the traffic arm is down the wrong way.
 
Just a couple more observations. Photo #3 is taken at an even more oblique angle, and the object labelled as TA2 is, again, actually TA3. Photo #4 looks to be taken at about the same angle as #3. #7 and #8 are taken from somewhere to the left of where #5 and #6 are taken from, from the relationship between the overhead gantry and the buildings in the background.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
Dave your explanation about TA2 and TA3 doesn't work for the simple explanation that the traffic arms are down (the red and white arms). We know that what you are taking to be TA3 can't be TA3 because the traffic arm is down the wrong way.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't know exactly what "traffic arms" are, so I don't really know what you're talking about here. What are they?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Just a couple more observations. Photo #3 is taken at an even more oblique angle, and the object labelled as TA2 is, again, actually TA3. Photo #4 looks to be taken at about the same angle as #3. #7 and #8 are taken from somewhere to the left of where #5 and #6 are taken from, from the relationship between the overhead gantry and the buildings in the background.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, your analysis of TA2 and 3 is just plain and simply wrong because the traffic arms are down. TA3's arm is down to the left (if you are facing north) and TA2's is down in the other direction.
 
Fourbrick said:
Photos 5 and 6 appear to have been taken from further to the right than photo seven. The bush on the right of photo 7 is to the left in photos 5 and 6.
Click to expand...

true, look at that tree on the far left in photo 6. its the same tree in photo 7. we just have a better view of the tree in photo 7. the black pole should be seen in photo 7 because of its position in photo 6 being in front of the tree.

where did ya get the pics?
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
As I said, I don't know exactly what "traffic arms" are, so I don't really know what you're talking about here. What are they?

Dave
Click to expand...


Traffic arms are things that block road and move up and down. Have you ever driven on a toll road? The traffic arm will be down blocking you...pay the toll and the traffic arm comes up.

The traffic arms in the pictures look like tan metal machinery and the arms themselves are essentially boards painted red and white.
 
Senenmut said:
true, look at that tree on the far left in photo 6. its the same tree in photo 7. we just have a better view of the tree in photo 7. the black pole should be seen in photo 7 because of its position in photo 6 being in front of the tree.

where did ya get the pics?
Click to expand...

Wait, so are you saying the black light poles are evidence of manipulation too?

Let me see if I can find my link for the pics, but if you want you can try search terms like "Jason ingersoll photos, pentagon" or "Lloyde England photos, Jason Ingersoll" etc. He took over 200 pics. Let me see if I can dig up a good link.

Here is a link but not very user friendly....also if you scroll down there is a movie CIT made which just shows the pics in chronological order. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread300597/pg1

I'll try and find the page I first got them from.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Dave, your analysis of TA2 and 3 is just plain and simply wrong because the traffic arms are down. TA3's arm is down to the left (if you are facing north) and TA2's is down in the other direction.
Click to expand...

If you mean the red-and-white striped barrier arms, then there isn't one visible in photo #2. The object by the cab door may be some other object that you've mistaken for TA2, possibly part of the fire truck visible in photo #3 in roughly the right location.

In any case, your comments on the positions of the light poles are very obviously completely wrong. I think you need to start all over again. This time, draw in where you think the sight lines are for each photo, and work out what is actually visible and how it appears. There are so many things wrong with your analysis that it's pretty much worthless at this point.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
If you mean the red-and-white striped barrier arms, then there isn't one visible in photo #2. The object by the cab door may be some other object that you've mistaken for TA2, possibly part of the fire truck visible in photo #3 in roughly the right location.
Click to expand...
No Dave. It's TA2. You can't see the red and white part because it is down facing away from the cab. Take a close look at the photos and you will see it is in fact a traffic arm...and we know it is TA2 because the direction the arm is down.

In any case, your comments on the positions of the light poles are very obviously completely wrong.
Click to expand...
Says someone who has mixed up left and right twice and has gotten the traffic arm locations wrong, which is to be expected since you didn't even tak the time to figure out what the traffic arms are, but instead chose to comment on the traffic arms as if you had. You literally do not know what you are talking about.

I think you need to start all over again.
Click to expand...
I think you need to figure out what TA2 and TA3 is referring to before you tell me I'm wrong about it.

This time, draw in where you think the sight lines are for each photo, and work out what is actually visible and how it appears.
Click to expand...
No, I've made my presentation. If you want to "debunk" it feel free going about that however you wish. But you might want to start by knowing what the notations refer to...I suggest you start with TA2 and TA3.

There are so many things wrong with your analysis that it's pretty much worthless at this point.
Click to expand...
Says someone that said I was wrong about the traffic arms but then admitted you didn't even know what they are. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your "debunking" very seriously so far.
 
Mobertermy said:
No Dave. It's TA2. You can't see the red and white part because it is down facing away from the cab. Take a close look at the photos and you will see it is in fact a traffic arm...and we know it is TA2 because the direction the arm is down.
Click to expand...

I've taken a close look, and it's not clear that it's definitely TA2. Apart from that, there are no inconsistencies.


Mobertermy said:
Says someone that said I was wrong about the traffic arms but then admitted you didn't even know what they are. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your "debunking" very seriously so far.
Click to expand...

Look, you can either assess it on its merits - which you've made no attempt to do - or admit that you never had any intention of serious debate here. Apart from the possibly misidentified TA2, there is nothing about your presentation that contains any anomalies, and I've demonstrated with a picture that this is true of the first of your photographs. You've made no attempt to discuss the light pole positions, despite the fact that they're the main body of your argument.

If you're so completely convinced you're right, why did you post your presentation for discussion?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Yes, but all the photos are evidence.
Click to expand...

Good grief, man, he's not saying exclude the photos. He's saying there's evidence beyond them. And that when you take photos plus all that other evidence - such as the Pentagon Building Performance Report, etc. - you get a clear picture of what happened.

He's doing the opposite of what you're doing: He's referring to being inclusive and analytic about evidence. Not isolating one class of evidence, drawing overarching conclusions from just that, and ignoring what the rest of the evidence tells you.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I've taken a close look, and it's not clear that it's definitely TA2. Apart from that, there are no inconsistencies.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. Anyone can see that the arms of TA2 and TA3 go down in different directions.

Look, you can either assess it on its merits - which you've made no attempt to do - or admit that you never had any intention of serious debate here.
Click to expand...
Of course I did. It's just that I don't consider someone that doesn't even know what a traffic arm is telling me I'm wrong about the traffic arms serious debate.
Apart from the possibly misidentified TA2, there is nothing about your presentation that contains any anomalies,
Click to expand...
Bare assertion.
Secondly, you got TA2 and TA3 wrong. One of the reasons I labeled all the objects was so that the people could talk about the pictures very precisely. You got TA2 and TA3 completely wrong and then you want to just try and gloss over that fact as if it doesn't matter. Sorry buddy, that's not how "serious debate" works.

and I've demonstrated with a picture that this is true of the first of your photographs. You've made no attempt to discuss the light pole positions, despite the fact that they're the main body of your argument.
Click to expand...
Here is a picture of what Photo#1 depicts - the blue line would be where the bridge has to be. We know this because of Pole A and B.


If you're so completely convinced you're right, why did you post your presentation for discussion?
Click to expand...
As a form of peer-review, and to show people the proof of what I consider something that has important implications.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Good grief, man, he's not saying exclude the photos. He's saying there's evidence beyond them. And that when you take photos plus all that other evidence - such as the Pentagon Building Performance Report, etc. - you get a clear picture of what happened.

He's doing the opposite of what you're doing: He's referring to being inclusive and analytic about evidence. Not isolating one class of evidence, drawing overarching conclusions from just that, and ignoring what the rest of the evidence tells you.
Click to expand...

If you are not going to discuss the presentation I suggest starting another thread.
 
twinstead said:
I trust Jack White's photo and video interpretation abilities without question. Hell, didn't he blow the lid of that whole moon landing hoax thing?

The man's a genius! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
.
Jack is one of my dearest friends! Whenever there's a discussion of blatant silliness and inability to comprehend reality, I mention Jack as the poster child for such.
He has no peers!
As to this thread, it appears to be about as silly as anything Jack would be in favor of.
 
Mobertermy said:
Of course it is. Anyone can see that the arms of TA2 and TA3 go down in different directions.
Click to expand...

Based on your explanation of what a traffic arm is, I agree now that it's not TA3. However, that doesn't rule out the possibility of it being something else; it's not clear to me that it's the base of a traffic arm at all. I notice that there's a fire truck in roughly the right position for some part of it to be visible there. There may be other possibilities. Have you ruled out every other possible identification of this object?

Mobertermy said:
Of course I did. It's just that I don't consider someone that doesn't even know what a traffic arm is telling me I'm wrong about the traffic arms serious debate.
Click to expand...

Then you have to re-assess your definitions. I'm not claiming to have been right at every point; I tried to give you a timely reply, and made a couple of mistakes. But now, you're avoiding debate of the light pole positions by focusing on those mistakes and ignoring the remainder of what I've posted. That suggests that you're not all that interested in serious debate.

Mobertermy said:
Bare assertion.
Click to expand...

No, as you can see I've dealt with all your other claimed anomalies.

Mobertermy said:
Secondly, you got TA2 and TA3 wrong. One of the reasons I labeled all the objects was so that the people could talk about the pictures very precisely. You got TA2 and TA3 completely wrong and then you want to just try and gloss over that fact as if it doesn't matter. Sorry buddy, that's not how "serious debate" works.
Click to expand...

Again, you're avoiding the issue of the light poles.

For some reason, this is typical of people who claim photo fakery. They come here all friendly, asking for feedback, then when it's offered they dismiss it angrily. The normal pattern is that they start ranting about government shiolls by about page 3 of the thread, and never actually address substantive criticisms. Your entire analysis is based on a very comprehensive misunderstanding of parralax, as is virtually every other argument of this sort that I've seen, and until you realise that you'll never have a clue what your pictures actually mean.

But there's very little point saying any more. You'll probably look for a spelling mistake so you can ignore it. Well, I've left you two to work with.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom