911myths on Mineta, Cheney and Clarke

[pgimeno]

How am I making anything up? I can take your edited picture and draw the exact same lines that show three horizontal layers.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_70792560230b4256de.jpg[/qimg]

The first red line is somewhat hard to see, but it's there.

Why don't you draw lines where you think the layers are? Show me what you see that I don't.

Maybe we're saying the same thing. This is the end of the strand that I see:

My white line reached there. Your yellow line was shorter in this picture:

Once detached from the top and hanging (especially when the head is tilted down as in the second picture), I see no problem for that strand to reach eye level.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I can finally post pictures and links now.

Explain to me how it is possible for the hair on this person

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/385/19295977883_64a97dd459_b.jpg[/qimg]

to be the hair on this person.

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/365/19730326989_920e6c834e_b.jpg[/qimg]

In the first picture there is no possible way for her hair to get in her eyes. In the second picture her hair is now long enough to reach her eyes. How is this possible in less than 12 hours? Answer: It's not possible.

The fact that so many of you are trying to change the subject by asking why they would do this tells me I'm right. So, thanks, I appreciate it. You all did exactly what I expected.

Do you not understand people play with their hair throughout the day? Do you not understand people comb their hair sometimes throughout the day? Do you not understand that hairspray loses its effects over time?





OMG the girl in the video is actually six different people!!!

 

[FalseFlag]

Maybe we're saying the same thing.

OK. Your arrow confirms we see the same end of the strand. My position is that the strand can not reach eye level. Your position is that it can. Now I have to figure out a way to see what you see, or for you to see what I see. Give me some time.

I do understand that you think gravity can pull it down to eye level. I don't think she could pull it down that far, so gravity would not be an issue. Again, give me some time.

 

[FalseFlag]

Do you not understand people play with their hair throughout the day? Do you not understand people comb their hair sometimes throughout the day? Do you not understand that hairspray loses its effects over time?

I do understand all of this. If you took the time to read my posts you would see that I have taken all of this into account.

 

[TJM]

That post has no pictures. What is the problem?

You tell us.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Instead of attempting to discredit me with words, why don't you post a picture using your measurements? Simply saying I'm wrong is meaningless. Prove I'm wrong. Show me what you see by posting your own pictures.

That's not how it works here sport. This is a skeptic site. Your claim, you prove it.

So far you're failing badly.

 

[FalseFlag]

Once detached from the top and hanging (especially when the head is tilted down as in the second picture), I see no problem for that strand to reach eye level.

OK. Here is the picture with her hair down to eye level. Where are the three horizontal layers?

 

[FalseFlag]

Here she is with her head tilted down. The front of her hair is clearly tucked behind her ear in order to keep it out of her eyes. How is it possible for the hair in the Cheney office pic to be long enough to go behind her ears? Also, where are the three horizontal layers?

 

[FalseFlag]

That's not how it works here sport. This is a skeptic site. Your claim, you prove it.

So far you're failing badly.

I appreciate your opinion, however wrong it may be.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I do understand all of this. If you took the time to read my posts you would see that I have taken all of this into account.

No you haven't, you've just displayed a massive ignorance when it comes to women's hair or any hair for that matter.

But for ***** and giggles, let's say you're right, the photos were faked. What does any of this have to do with 19 hijackers crashing planes, two of them into buildings? How did the buildings come down. Please answer in detail.

 

[FalseFlag]

No you haven't, you've just displayed a massive ignorance when it comes to women's hair or any hair for that matter.

But for ***** and giggles, let's say you're right, the photos were faked. What does any of this have to do with 19 hijackers crashing planes, two of them into buildings? How did the buildings come down. Please answer in detail.

LOL. It's like your eyes are closed and you're blindly swinging hoping you will eventually hit something.

I'm not going to take the bait, no matter how hard you try.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I appreciate your opinion, however wrong it may be.

Thanks, let us know when you have some proof.

 

[FalseFlag]

Thanks, let us know when you have some proof.

The pictures I have posted are possible proof of my claims. So far, not one post has conclusively proven that I'm wrong. You can say I have no proof all you want, but your meaningless words prove nothing.

Why don't you try contributing to the discussion by actually examining her hair? Actually, I already know the answer. If you took the time to do so, you would see what I see. The problem is that you absolutely can't accept that.

 

[ProBonoShill]

LOL. It's like your eyes are closed and you're blindly swinging hoping you will eventually hit something.

I'm not going to take the bait, no matter how hard you try.

Well thanks for admitting you're clueless about human hair.

The fact you won't answer my question just confirms you're just another run of the mill truther troll JAQing off.

Have fun with your paranoid delusions!

 

[FalseFlag]

Well thanks for admitting you're clueless about human hair.

The fact you won't answer my question just confirms you're just another run of the mill truther troll JAQing off.

Have fun with your paranoid delusions!

Have you posted anything to prove I'm wrong about her hair? Anything? I mean ANYTHING? Nope.

The fact that I won't answer your questions is because I am not going to derail this thread anymore than it already has been.

Delusions? Um, OK. Whatever you say.

 

[ProBonoShill]

The pictures I have posted are possible proof of my claims. So far, not one post has conclusively proven that I'm wrong. You can say I have no proof all you want, but your meaningless words prove nothing.

Why don't you try contributing to the discussion by actually examining her hair? Actually, I already know the answer. If you took the time to do so, you would see what I see. The problem is that you absolutely can't accept that.

Those aren't proof of anything. Her hairstyle changed at times throughout a stressful day, happens all the time. My wife's hair looks completely different when she returns home from work as well. The fact you don't understand this rudimentary fact is very telling.
Your paranoia isn't proof, it's a common mental disorder.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Have you posted anything to prove I'm wrong about her hair? Anything? I mean ANYTHING? Nope.

The fact that I won't answer your questions is because I am not going to derail this thread anymore than it already has been.

Delusions? Um, OK. Whatever you say.

Yes plenty, have you posted anything to prove you're right? nope.

Your claim, you prove it. Right now your evidence is laughable.

We all know why you won't answer questions, been there done that many times.

Would you like me to resurrect an old thread and you can answer them there?

 

[FalseFlag]

Those aren't proof of anything. Her hairstyle changed at times throughout a stressful day, happens all the time. My wife's hair looks completely different when she returns home from work as well. The fact you don't understand this rudimentary fact is very telling.
Your paranoia isn't proof, it's a common mental disorder.

Your personal attacks on me are a classic method of trying to discredit someone. They aren't working.

Your screen name tells me what you are and who you are. It's a shame you're pro bono and not making any money for doing this. No, I don't think you should get paid because you're good at this; I just think incompetent people deserve to make a living, too.

As I have said before, I know this was a stressful day. I know that she was outside running for a brief period of time. I understand that any hairspray she had at the beginning of the day would have had less effect throughout the day. I have also said that camera effects, lighting, messiness and general wear should not be considered when looking at these pictures. What I have said is that the length changes too much for these pictures to have been taken on one day. I stand by that claim.

I have given you an opportunity to prove me wrong, but you refuse to do so. All you can do is attack and ridicule me. None of that changes the fact that her hair is different.

 

[FalseFlag]

Yes plenty, have you posted anything to prove you're right? nope.

Your claim, you prove it. Right now your evidence is laughable.

We all know why you won't answer questions, been there done that many times.

Would you like me to resurrect an old thread and you can answer them there?

Not. Taking. The. Bait.

Besides.

I would absolutely shred you.

You lack the ability to competently argue anything. I'm not going to waste my time on you.

 

[Oystein]

I agree that the picture of Mary Matalin in Cheney's office [V1546-03] was allegedly taken between 9:03 and 9:36am. How do you know it was allegedly taken at 9:29?

https://dotmafia.wordpress.com/newl...norman-mineta-testimony-and-the-implications/

How do you know David Bohrer is using a wide-angle lens? ...

Look at the door frame - the angle is much smaller than 90°. That's heavy wide-angle distortion.

You can see Bohrer's camera equipment here:
P7151-22 (that picture taken by Bush's photographer, Eric Draper).
I have made no attempt to identify make and model of camera, lens and flash light. Of course it's possible Bohrer has more than one of each.