Proof of Photomanipulation

Dave Rogers said:
Again, is this some kind of joke? There is nothing in photo #2 to indicate where 1, 2 or A are relative to the cab,
Of course there is. There is pole B and the cab. We know that poles 1 and 2 are to the left of the cab. We know pole A is to the right of the cab.

so how can you draw a line between things you can't see?
Click to expand...
Because we know where they are. The same way a person knows the locations of windows on their house, or where their house is, and where is in relation to other landmarks in the area.

The line of sight is crossing the highway at an acute angle, and there's foreshortening so that B looks closer than you might expect, but 1, 2 and A aren't even in the picture. You have no way of telling, therefore, where the line should go; you're simply guessing.
Click to expand...
We know the line will never cross the cab.

Go back to the line of sight, and compare the positions of the light poles you can see in photo #2 with where they should be. They're all there.
Click to expand...
Yes, lightpoles B, C, D appear to be in proper relation to each other. The question is is what does light pole B tell us about where the bridge is.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
In Photo #1, there is an unlabelled TA on the right margin. Isn't that TA1, and consequently, should you not relabel
TA1->TA2
TA2->TA3
TA3->TA4
?

In the Commentary on Photo #1, you'd have to conclude that the cab between TA3 and TA4, not?
 
Oystein said:
In Photo #1, there is an unlabelled TA on the right margin. Isn't that TA1, and consequently, should you not relabel
TA1->TA2
TA2->TA3
TA3->TA4
?

In the Commentary on Photo #1, you'd have to conclude that the cab between TA3 and TA4, not?
Click to expand...
He claims there's an "extra" one.


:boggled:
 
Senenmut said:
ill put up just these:
see anything strange?
Click to expand...
Yes, at the very bottom of your post I see a fake quote mis-attributed to William Colby. You should fix that, or people might get the impression that you are a liar.
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--Former CIA Director William Colby
Click to expand...
Mobertermy, about 10 people have asked you to simply take your photos, and figure out the line of sight. You have wasted a whole day defending things like "traffic arm blocking 3 lanes of traffic" and such. It's 4 photos and one of them has already been done for you. If you don't know how, just ask and someone will help. This will help you figure out your problems with perspective and parallaxWP. As Oystein pointed out, when you say things like "unambigious" or "preposterous" or whatever about trivial mistakes, you are just seen to be blustering.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree that the thing in Photo 2 between the car door and the man in the blue shirt is a TA, but it's not TA2, it's TA3, and yes, the taxi is next to it.

Consequently, the X marking on the overview map should be moved north, much closer to TA3.




(I am absolutely sure, and whoever disagrees is talking preposterously :D)
 
Oystein said:
He should then put evidence for that claim in his presentation ;)
Click to expand...
He did say you couldn't trust the image because it was "manipulated". In reality it's his inability to correct for perspective and misidentification of features. Several here have suggested he plots a line of sight on the overhead for each of his pictures to help clear this up. He flat out refuses.
 
carlitos said:
Mobertermy, about 10 people have asked you to simply take your photos, and figure out the line of sight. You have wasted a whole day defending things like "traffic arm blocking 3 lanes of traffic" and such. It's 4 photos and one of them has already been done for you. If you don't know how, just ask and someone will help. This will help you figure out your problems with parallaxWP. As Oystein pointed out, when you say things like "unambigious" or "preposterous" or whatever about trivial mistakes, you are just seen to be blustering.
Click to expand...

Carlito, did you not see my last post to you. I acknowledged that the abscence of sight lines is an issue for people (I personally do not think this necessarily matters, because obviously there is more way to prove a photo faked than just sight lines). That being said at some point I will do some work on the sight line issue - I've actually looked at some of the photos and I think the sight lines will help me. At the same time if sight lines are such an easy and obvious way to "debunk" the presentation, then why hasn't any one produced one that demonstrates this?

Secondly, maybe you can help with my quandry. I don't think the photos correlate with reality, which is to say the photos represent one sight line, but the reality will be different. How do you suggest I deal with that issue?
 
I'd like to point out my opinion to those of you who are now comparing location 1 with location 2. It is my opinion that the plane flew and (probably) impacted from the NoC path. Therefore all the witnesses would have seen the plane impact from an NoC path and hit the building roughly at a 90 degree angle (as opposed to 37 degree angle). What the Ingersoll photos are attempting to do in part is blend SoC and NoC, so that the cab driver and any other witness that looks at the photos will see elements which correlate with what they saw, but if they looked at them closely some things just wouldn't add up - and Lloyde saw this really quick.

Keep in mind that many other witnesses actually place the cab NoC as well. For instance Sgt. Lagasse said he saw the poles on the ground NoC with his own eyes. He also insisted the cab wasn't on the bridge! Or think about Father McGraw...he was North of the bridge and he said the cab was a few feet from him. So, if you look into it Lloyde actually has alot of corroboration that he was North of the Bridge.
 
Mobertermy said:
I'd like to point out my opinion to those of you who are now comparing location 1 with location 2. It is my opinion that the plane flew and (probably) impacted from the NoC path. Therefore all the witnesses would have seen the plane impact from an NoC path and hit the building roughly at a 90 degree angle (as opposed to 37 degree angle). What the Ingersoll photos are attempting to do in part is blend SoC and NoC, so that the cab driver and any other witness that looks at the photos will see elements which correlate with what they saw, but if they looked at them closely some things just wouldn't add up - and Lloyde saw this really quick.

Keep in mind that many other witnesses actually place the cab NoC as well. For instance Sgt. Lagasse said he saw the poles on the ground NoC with his own eyes. He also insisted the cab wasn't on the bridge! Or think about Father McGraw...he was North of the bridge and he said the cab was a few feet from him. So, if you look into it Lloyde actually has alot of corroboration that he was North of the Bridge.
Click to expand...

Mobertermy, what is any of this supposed to prove?
 
Mobertermy said:
I'd like to point out my opinion to those of you who are now comparing location 1 with location 2. It is my opinion that the plane flew and (probably) impacted from the NoC path. Therefore all the witnesses would have seen the plane impact from an NoC path and hit the building roughly at a 90 degree angle (as opposed to 37 degree angle). What the Ingersoll photos are attempting to do in part is blend SoC and NoC, so that the cab driver and any other witness that looks at the photos will see elements which correlate with what they saw, but if they looked at them closely some things just wouldn't add up - and Lloyde saw this really quick.

Keep in mind that many other witnesses actually place the cab NoC as well. For instance Sgt. Lagasse said he saw the poles on the ground NoC with his own eyes. He also insisted the cab wasn't on the bridge! Or think about Father McGraw...he was North of the bridge and he said the cab was a few feet from him. So, if you look into it Lloyde actually has alot of corroboration that he was North of the Bridge.
Click to expand...
So the poles and such were "planted"?
 
DGM said:
Post #15.
Click to expand...

That line of sight can't be right if you want to claim that is TA3. As Eager Kid pointed out, the cab is roughly parallel to the guardrail, therefore from the line of sight Dave drew we would see TA# on the left of the car in photo #3.
 
DGM said:
He did say you couldn't trust the image because it was "manipulated". In reality it's his inability to correct for perspective and misidentification of features. Several here have suggested he plots a line of sight on the overhead for each of his pictures to help clear this up. He flat out refuses.
Click to expand...

I don't flat out refuse. I'm not going to have time to work on this til next week. I'd also like to point out that you guys claim that line of sight plots could debunk this whole thing very easily...why haven't any of you produced any yet then?

To be honest, I am looking forward to the line of sight thing because it is going to help me.
 
Triterope said:
Mobertermy, what is any of this supposed to prove?
Click to expand...

You have to watch the presentation, decide if I am right or not, and then draw your own conclusions. I wrote out some of the implications, but for the most part I think people can draw their own conclusions.
 
Mobertermy said:
I'd like to point out my opinion to those of you who are now comparing location 1 with location 2. It is my opinion that the plane flew and (probably) impacted from the NoC path. Therefore all the witnesses would have seen the plane impact from an NoC path and hit the building roughly at a 90 degree angle (as opposed to 37 degree angle). What the Ingersoll photos are attempting to do in part is blend SoC and NoC, so that the cab driver and any other witness that looks at the photos will see elements which correlate with what they saw, but if they looked at them closely some things just wouldn't add up - and Lloyde saw this really quick.

Keep in mind that many other witnesses actually place the cab NoC as well. For instance Sgt. Lagasse said he saw the poles on the ground NoC with his own eyes. He also insisted the cab wasn't on the bridge! Or think about Father McGraw...he was North of the bridge and he said the cab was a few feet from him. So, if you look into it Lloyde actually has alot of corroboration that he was North of the Bridge.
Click to expand...

:s2:
 
Mobertermy said:
Carlito, did you not see my last post to you. I acknowledged that the abscence of sight lines is an issue for people (I personally do not think this necessarily matters, because obviously there is more way to prove a photo faked than just sight lines).
Click to expand...
The highlighted portion is your problem. You are starting from a conclusion, not using the scientific method.

  • Null Hypothesis = photos are real
  • How to disprove the above = show they are fake
  • How to show they are fake = sight line analysis of perspective, etc.
The sight line analysis will show what should be where in the frame. Then you can compare what is in the frame to what should be in the frame. Then you can ask photographers about things like forced perspective and how tight telephoto shots can compress foreground and background. Tweak your findings, get feedback here and add a sightline slide to each of the 4 photos in your presentation.

There are several good posts in this thread you can use to correct your perspective issues.

Mobertermy said:
That being said at some point I will do some work on the sight line issue - I've actually looked at some of the photos and I think the sight lines will help me.
Click to expand...
Good. Just remember announcing "I have proof of photo manipulation" without having done the basic step of analyzing perspective isn't going to convince people, and that ...

Mobertermy said:
At the same time if sight lines are such an easy and obvious way to "debunk" the presentation, then why hasn't any one produced one that demonstrates this?
Click to expand...
...the burden of proof is on you, the one claiming photo manipulation. (but you REALLY should go back and read post 15 in this thread, now that you know where the traffic arm should be)
Mobertermy said:
Secondly, maybe you can help with my quandry. I don't think the photos correlate with reality, which is to say the photos represent one sight line, but the reality will be different. How do you suggest I deal with that issue?
Click to expand...
Reality is reality. Again, you seem to be starting from a conclusion, which is the wrong way to go about it. Stop assuming and start testing scientifically. There are people here and elsewhere who really understand photography. Asking questions with an open mind will get you answers.

I, for one, won't be bothered to look into this because I find the whole issue of comparing google earth, photos, and the like against what some guy remembered 6 years after a traumatic event to be a waste of my time. The whole idea is ridiculous, and the CIT guys appear to be bat guano insane.

That said, if you provide proper analysis, I'll view your presentation again with an open mind. Deal?
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
That line of sight can't be right if you want to claim that is TA3. As Eager Kid pointed out, the cab is roughly parallel to the guardrail, therefore from the line of sight Dave drew we would see TA# on the left of the car in photo #3.
Click to expand...
No. Different photo, different line.


You never answered my question as to the identity of the TA in the cab close-up. Do you still maintain it's TA2 (despite photos showing it can't be)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom