Proof of Photomanipulation

[Mobertermy]

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.)

 

[triforcharity]

delete.

 

[carlitos]

Wheels within wheels brother. This thing runs deep.

 

[Reheat]

Jack White strikes again!

 

[twinstead]

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!

 

[Mobertermy]

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?

 

[twinstead]

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?

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".

 

[Mobertermy]

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".

I agree with you completely that Jack White is an idiot

 

[carlitos]

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.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

 

[R.Mackey]

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?

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.

 

[Mobertermy]

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.

Re: averse

Thanks, I did not know that.

 

[Mobertermy]

Au contraire... the actual evidence isn't limited to a few photos,

Yes, but all the photos are evidence.

and Lloyde England isn't even required to understand what happened at the Pentagon.

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.

You don't have to be a "rocket scientist" to realize that photos are actual evidence.

So given the impossibility of your logical conclusion,

And where exactly did you show this again?

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

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.

 

[calebprime]

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?

What say you to post #10 by Dave Rogers? It took an hour after the OP.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

 

[Mobertermy]

Firstly, posting this as a link and requesting comments is entirely appropriate, as I understand the forum rules.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Thanks again for viewing and your criticism.

 

[Mobertermy]

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.

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.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Lightpole A would be out of shot to the right.

Yes. Typo.

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

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.

 

[Mobertermy]

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.

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.)

 

[Senenmut]

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 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.