• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

911myths on Mineta, Cheney and Clarke

Dave Rogers said:
A photo shows a TV in the background, and when zooming in on the TV the image on the screen is blurred, therefore conspiracy? Are you serious? Have you never before seen - for example - the distortion that a still photo causes in a TV picture by showing the scan in mid-refresh, or from the interference between the periodicity of the pixels on the screen and the pixels in a digital photo?

I'm calling Dunning-Kruger. Either that or this is Ace Baker style performance art. It's certainly not intelligent analysis.

Dave
Click to expand...

This is amusing. You do see post #6, in this thread, that references TV time stamps, right?

Look who's "flouncing" now. Hint: It's not me. :)
 
DGM said:
She was the one that noticed she had her hair tucked behind her ear in all the photos. You have not shown evidence this is not true. In fact, you skipped my posts asking you to show this.
Click to expand...
LOL.

I'm not even going to waste my time with this one.
 
FalseFlag said:
I will, but I need time. Now that I know what is required, it will take time to do it. It might take a few days, but it will happen.
Click to expand...

I look forward to the irrefutable evidence that a woman's hair does not go limp as time goes on; I'm sure women the world over will be pleased as punch to hear it.
 
DGM said:
Because you can't? Show me one picture where her hair (or some portion) is not tucked behind her ear. Bet you can't.
Click to expand...
The fake Mary in Cheney's office. Her hair is not tucked behind her ear.

Next lame question?
 
Sabrina said:
I look forward to the irrefutable evidence that a woman's hair does not go limp as time goes on; I'm sure women the world over will be pleased as punch to hear it.
Click to expand...
You will be waiting forever for that evidence, because I can't provide it. Hair goes limp over time. Unfortunately for the people who perpetrated this fraud, hair also grows over time; it just doesn't grow as much as it would have had to in a few hours for this scam to have been plausible.
 
Her hair is tucked behind her ear in that picture. That's one of the first things I noticed about it.
 
Sabrina said:
I believe he's referring to the picture on the television set in the background.

You know, the one that's absolutely tiny and impossible to make out any details on to begin with beyond that one of the towers has already been hit.
Click to expand...
It looks to me that that TV has an overlay text in the bottom right corner (probably channel or time info). That's what our expert analyst believes is the tampering.

As I said, Simon Shack-grade analysis.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
This is amusing. You do see post #6, in this thread, that references TV time stamps, right?
Click to expand...

Sorry, no; this is insane. The picture on the screen is correct for the time that the photo was supposed to have been taken. So you're arguing that photoshop was used to obscure the fact that the photo was taken at exactly the time it was supposed to have been taken, based on your inability to perceive that distortion of a television picture at some distance away in a photograph is utterly commonplace, and based on this misconception you deduce that some other photographs may have been digitally altered and advance this as support for your specific claims about other photos. It's as obvious to me that your argument is groundless and incoherent as it seems to be to you that there are two Mary Matalins, except that in the former case I don't think I'm the only one who's able to see it.

Like I said, Dunning-Kruger in action.

Dave
 
pgimeno said:
It looks to me that that TV has an overlay text in the bottom right corner (probably channel or time info). That's what our expert analyst believes is the tampering.
Click to expand...

It looks to me like it has exactly the time stamp and ABC logo it's supposed to have, but it's too blurred to see because in real life you can't zoom images infinitely without losing detail. Do you think our amateur detective has watched too much CSI?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Sorry, no; this is insane. The picture on the screen is correct for the time that the photo was supposed to have been taken. So you're arguing that photoshop was used to obscure the fact that the photo was taken at exactly the time it was supposed to have been taken, based on your inability to perceive that distortion of a television picture at some distance away in a photograph is utterly commonplace, and based on this misconception you deduce that some other photographs may have been digitally altered and advance this as support for your specific claims about other photos. It's as obvious to me that your argument is groundless and incoherent as it seems to be to you that there are two Mary Matalins, except that in the former case I don't think I'm the only one who's able to see it.

Like I said, Dunning-Kruger in action.

Dave
Click to expand...
A reason "why" is not an element required to prove my claim.

The fact that you're fighting this so hard tells me those black dots mean something. They might not have needed to obscure the time stamp and bug, but the black dots might be artifacts from the device playing the video, which absolutely would have needed to be obfuscated. No, I don't know this as fact, but your efforts to disprove me confirm that I'm on to something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom