Proof of Photomanipulation

I Ratant said:
.
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!
Click to expand...
What about Rob Menard?
 
carlitos said:
Earlier, you indicated that you are familiar with the bare assertion fallacy. Good. Now, do you see what you did there?
Click to expand...
The problem is that the cab is between TA2 and TA3...anyone who has looked at the photos or has been involved in this debate knows that that is an uncontested fact.

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.
Click to expand...
It's actually not annoying me at all. I've heard from multiple people that they have a problem with the abscence of sight lines.

But let me ask you a hypothetical question: Let's say we had a photo which was undeniably altered - say we took some objects and moved them south in the photo...doesn't that present a problem when doing the sight line? Wouldn't it be impossible in such a situation to do an accurate sight line? I'm speaking purely hypothetically.
 
Mobertermy said:
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately none of what you said is in reference to any point I made in the presentation. I am interested in seeing specific refutations...not assumptions.

Please view the presentation...I'd be especially interested in anything you have to say since you are a photographer.

I would also like to point out that the only actual line of sight/perspective "debunk" attempted in this thread failed miserably because the "debunker" in question didn't even have the objects labeled correctly. I am not interested in hearing that this can all be explained away simply with perspective...if you think you can show me wrong then you have to demostrate it. Don't just make bare assertions.
Click to expand...

Okay, if you insist:

Commentary on slide 17 is unambiguously incorrect on you own evidence presented:

Slide 10 shows the line of view from the cab to the edge of the Pentagon. As a straight line it subtends an angle of around 60 degrees from the x-axis formed by the road going under the bridge.

So far so good?

Now look at slide 15. This is a tight telephoto shot taken some distance back from the cab, looking towards the burning Pentagon. You can tell this is the case because of the foreground-background compression (a characteristic of longer telephoto lenses, combined with both the foreground and background being in focus. Without knowing the actual camera used I can't be more specific, but you have a fairly narrow angle of view.

Furthermore, you can calculate roughly where the photographer was standing by doing a conical projection back from how much of the Pentagon face you can see to the 12 foot width of view at the cab, back to the photographer's feet. This places the photographer adjacent the point marked TA2, on the grass.

If pole A were in the shot it would have been a fake. You cannot take a telephoto shot as shown and have both the cab and the Pentagon in shot with the light poles shown, yet still include pole A - it's several degrees to the right of the field of view of the photo.
 
JohnG said:
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?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that only Arabs are capable of thorough, bottomless evil?
 
Kid Eager said:
Okay, if you insist:

Commentary on slide 17 is unambiguously incorrect on you own evidence presented:

Slide 10 shows the line of view from the cab to the edge of the Pentagon. As a straight line it subtends an angle of around 60 degrees from the x-axis formed by the road going under the bridge.
Click to expand...

By slide 10 do you mean the one labeled "Slide #4: Everything Together"?
 
Mobertermy said:
This claim is absolutely preposterous...anyone can look at photo #3 and see that TA3 is unambiguously blocking the lane the cab is in.
Click to expand...

LOL you are wrong. its in the the lane beyond Lloyd and the Taxi as they all are.
A continuous concrete barrier separates that lane from the one Lloyd is in
 
Kid Eager said:
Okay, if you insist:

Commentary on slide 17 is unambiguously incorrect on you own evidence presented:

Slide 10 shows the line of view from the cab to the edge of the Pentagon. As a straight line it subtends an angle of around 60 degrees from the x-axis formed by the road going under the bridge.

So far so good?

Now look at slide 15. This is a tight telephoto shot taken some distance back from the cab, looking towards the burning Pentagon. You can tell this is the case because of the foreground-background compression (a characteristic of longer telephoto lenses, combined with both the foreground and background being in focus. Without knowing the actual camera used I can't be more specific, but you have a fairly narrow angle of view.

Furthermore, you can calculate roughly where the photographer was standing by doing a conical projection back from how much of the Pentagon face you can see to the 12 foot width of view at the cab, back to the photographer's feet. This places the photographer adjacent the point marked TA2, on the grass.

If pole A were in the shot it would have been a fake. You cannot take a telephoto shot as shown and have both the cab and the Pentagon in shot with the light poles shown, yet still include pole A - it's several degrees to the right of the field of view of the photo.
Click to expand...

Okay, you appear to have done an in depth analysis. You appear to agree with the labels I've applied to the objects. Now since we agree that pole B is in frame and pole A is out of frame to the right, and we know that the bridge is between pole A and B, can you tell me, where is the bridge according to photo #2? Is it to the right of the cab? Or the left?
 
Mobertermy said:
Your amateur psychologizing is irrelevant. Lloyde claims the photos are wrong. Period.
Click to expand...


did I deny that he did?

I simply explained possibly why he did, which you have to admit is relevant. He is first mislead by CIT and makes the error in thinking that they are not lying to him. If the plane really was further down then the pictures have to be wrong....he likely has no clear recollection other than he was almost killed by the pole and the plane.

an alternative is he chooses to dispute the pictures rather than the two young white men who drove him there....... he is of a generation and in a State where a black man arguing with a white man would at one time been extremely unwise. Its the safe choice as he did not take the pictures.
 
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...


OUR WORK???????:mad: This is your work we are talking about here not ours. Your task is to convince others that YOU are right so its YOUR task to present the evidence so that we can clearly see that you are right. You have failed to do so!
 
Mobertermy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Besides leading readers into yet another pointless and flawed analysis, you have lost all credibility.

Grievous mistakes made so far:

1) Mislabeling one of the TA's in your picture.
2) Insisting that the cab was in the HOV lane, when it clearly wasn't.


You've proved nothing, and made an ass out of yourself in the process. Keep up the good work:eek:
 
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 think i found something here. its pics 0412, 0413, and 0417. it looks like they "hid" the cab???? anyone see what im talking about.
from cits website:
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm





 
Just checked google earth..........that whole area between the bridge and the Pentagon has changed. That whole whole loop of the cloverleaf is gone so you are using the wrong Googlemap image to show the area. The April 1999 image is clear and shows what you need to see. The TAs (as you call them) are all clearly in the lane beyond the one Lloyd was in.

I'd check to see if the lights are in the same place as you think they were but that would be doing your work :)
 
alienentity said:
Besides leading readers into yet another pointless and flawed analysis, you have lost all credibility.

Grievous mistakes made so far:

1) Mislabeling one of the TA's in your picture.
Click to expand...

Wrong...if you change that TA to what you guys think it should be then you have to place the cab between TA4 and TA3 which is wrong. If you understood this you would understand how that picture in and of itself proves photmanipulation.
2) Insisting that the cab was in the HOV lane, when it clearly wasn't.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I never said the cab was in the HOV lane.
 
Mobertermy said:
Wrong. I never said the cab was in the HOV lane.
Click to expand...

Liar. 'anyone can look at photo #3 and see that TA3 is unambiguously blocking the lane the cab is in'

Please, please tell us again how the lane is being blocked by TA3 in this photo.........LOL
Your lies aren't even good ones. Try harder.
thum_181714d279ad6dba55.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Okay, you appear to have done an in depth analysis. You appear to agree with the labels I've applied to the objects. Now since we agree that pole B is in frame and pole A is out of frame to the right, and we know that the bridge is between pole A and B, can you tell me, where is the bridge according to photo #2? Is it to the right of the cab? Or the left?
Click to expand...

The bridge is to the left. To be more precise, the positioning of the cab (assuming your labelling of the position of the cab), has it having just gone over the bridge heading south.

As I said, your slide 17 is incorrect, because you believe for this photo to be taken the cab must have been on the bridge. Not so.
 
alienentity said:
Liar. 'anyone can look at photo #3 and see that TA3 is unambiguously blocking the lane the cab is in'
Click to expand...

LOL well to be fair he made the mistake of thinking the TA was not in the HOV lane..........so not so much lying as simply incompetent.

The irony is that he could "possibly" be right about the pictures being "manipulated" but by demonstrating himself to be both utterly incompetent on the basics and compounding that by refusing to admit he is wrong and quieting going back and correcting those errors and resubmitting his data in a clearer and error free format only the most bored debunker is going to bother to really check.

The Truth may well be out there but with work this bad who is ever going to know or care?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom