Proof of Photomanipulation

Mobertermy said:
Why are you trying to get me to do your work? If you think the line of sight will prove something then go ahead and do it? All I keep hearing from you guys is how "perspective" can explain this all away and yet you refuse to demonstrate that this is so.
Click to expand...
Your the one trying to prove something. We don't buy it, and state several reasons why. Show us up and do YOUR work.
 
carlitos said:
Your definition of "unambiguously" differs from mine.
Click to expand...
Apparently so since I unambiguously see the arm of TA3 blocking the lane Lloyde is in...see the guy in the white shirt? He's standing in front of the arm. Are your eyes strained? Take a break from Warhammer and put your glasses on if its not obvious to you the TA3 arm is down in the lane Lloyde is in.

You seem to be having trouble with parallax. Why don't you do as many here are suggesting and go back to the overhead view and draw lines of sight for each photo?
Click to expand...
You are the ones that insist it will prove something...you do it.
 
DGM said:
Your the one trying to prove something. We don't buy it, and state several reasons why.
Click to expand...
Yes, you've made a bare assertion that this can all be explained away with perspective and yet refuse to demonstrate it.

Show us up and do YOUR work.
Click to expand...

It's actually YOUR work buddy. I'm not going to spend my time disproving every silly bare assertion you care to make. Would you do that? I didn't think so.
 
NYCEMT86 said:
Except your claim is just incorrect period. I provided you with sources that explain what the purpose of these barriers are for. They are for the HOV lanes, you continue to deny this. You can contact the Virginia Department of Transportation if you do not want to believe me.[./quote]
It doesn't matter that you say that the arm can't be down. It is down. If you insist that this is impossible that is just another proof of photo manipulation.
Click to expand...
 
Mobertermy said:
Yes, you've made a bare assertion that this can all be explained away with perspective and yet refuse to demonstrate it.
Click to expand...

I can look at this thread and see quite a few demonstrations of their objections to your conclusions.
 
Mobertermy said:
Yes, you've made a bare assertion that this can all be explained away with perspective and yet refuse to demonstrate it.



It's actually YOUR work buddy. I'm not going to spend my time disproving every silly bare assertion you care to make. Would you do that? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...
I can solve this very easy. I can ignore you like everyone else. Do you see why it's YOUR job to convince us?
 
Mobertermy said:
It doesn't matter that you say that the arm can't be down. It is down. If you insist that this is impossible that is just another proof of photo manipulation.
Click to expand...


Nice strawman, but no.

I clearly said that it could NOT go down in the direction in which you believe it is down (i.e. blocking the cab's lane).
 
I'll try in really simple terms.

The cab was in a 3-lane-wide section of I-395.
In the real world, gates don't exist in the 3-lane section.

Make sense?
 
Mobertermy said:
In that photo there are two TAs...which is 2 and which is 3 in your opinion?
Click to expand...

If I follow your outlines and your overheads, the one on the right would be TA2 and the one on the left would be TA3.

However, as I and others have proven in this thread, that is not the case. The one on the right would be TA3 and the one on the left would be TA4.
 
NYCEMT86 said:
If I follow your outlines and your overheads, the one on the right would be TA2 and the one on the left would be TA3.

However, as I and others have proven in this thread, that is not the case. The one on the right would be TA3 and the one on the left would be TA4.
Click to expand...


Okay...so are you saying the cab is on the bridge then between TA3 and TA4?
 
carlitos said:
I'll try in really simple terms.

The cab was in a 3-lane-wide section of I-395.
In the real world, gates don't exist in the 3-lane section.

Make sense?
Click to expand...


Okay guys you guys might be right about which way the gate is down. Is the cab between TA3 and TA2 or TA4 and TA3?
 
Mobertermy said:
The problem is that is just factually incorrect. The cab was between TA2 and TA3, The cab was not on the bridge, it was south of it.
Click to expand...

Earlier, you indicated that you are familiar with the bare assertion fallacy. Good. Now, do you see what you did there?

ETA - Here's a suggestion that might prove more fruitful than posting a finished powerpoint as "proof of photo manipulation." Step 4 through 6 would be where you control for parallax by drawing sight lines on the overhead view. Your skipping to step 7 has caused some here to do bits of step 8, and it's annoying you.

1.Define the question
2.Gather information and resources (observe)
3.Form hypothesis
4.Perform experiment and collect data
5.Analyze data
6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7.Publish results
8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
The problem is that is just factually in correct. The cab was between TA2 and TA3, The cab was not on the bridge, it was south of it.
Click to expand...
TA3 is not on the bridge. I think your picture where you claimed the cab is next to TA2 (picture #2) is TA3. Looking at picture #2 the cab might be favoring the TA2 side. It's tough to tell due to perspective (there's that damn word again).
 









All of these photo show the cab is north of the overhead signs, which is lined up with TA2, and right next to TA3.


ETA- added last photo
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy: You seem to be obliquely hinting at what had to be a perversely complicated scheme on the part of the conspirators. Why would they come up with such a scheme? Why would everyone involved sign off on it? You apparently have no trouble believing that the US Government is thoroughly, bottomlessly evil but you can't wrap your head around the idea that others may believe as you do and may be sufficiently angry and motivated enough to occasionally take a jab at the "great satan" in the form of what we'd call a "terrorist" attack?
 
Interesting place, this JREF.
Every time one thinks the bar for credulity and self-delusion has achieved its nadir, along comes another soul to Limbaugh underneath it.
"Reasoning", to use the word very loosely, from a bizarre conclusion and misinterpreting and miscomprehending all the evidence, and ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to the bizarre conclusion is a continuing problem with the antis-- CTwits.
It's almost like they go to the same sewer to get their conclusions, and how to misrepresent reality to justify obvious silliness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom