Proof of Photomanipulation

carlitos said:
You have asked me two questions, while not answering mine. This is not an encouraging trend.
Click to expand...

I will work on the sight lines next week when I have time. Now that I've answered your question answer mine - would the Eiffel tower behind the Pentagon be evidence of photo manipulation or not?
 
Mobertermy said:
I will work on the sight lines next week when I have time. Now that I've answered your question answer mine - would the Eiffel tower behind the Pentagon be evidence of photo manipulation or not?
Click to expand...


Yes, and in other news, if my Grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
 
Mobertermy said:
I will work on the sight lines next week when I have time. Now that I've answered your question answer mine - would the Eiffel tower behind the Pentagon be evidence of photo manipulation or not?
Click to expand...

Yes. Much as a giant Mickey Mouse or a flying saucer behind the Pentagon would also be likely evidence of photo manipulation.

Now, please stop wasting everyone's time and get to the sight line analysis. Every second you spend posting in this thread without doing it is evidence that you aren't serious. Please re-read the posts on the scientific method. They were posted with sincerity; you really need to stop and re-think your hypothesis.
 
Mobertermy said:
So proof of photo manipulation doesn't always require sight lines.
Click to expand...


Sorry to say this isn't quite the "gotcha!" you were hoping for. This isn't a question of some obvious dead giveaway, it's about subtle questions of optics that require a bit of work to fully grasp. You yourself have acknowledged some flaws in your own arguments. There comes a point where if there are enough flaws, you have to question your underlying premise.

Maybe you should lay off the bluster, hyperbole and false dilemmas for a couple of days, take a deep breath and approach the evidence being presented to you here with an open mind?
 
JohnG said:
Sorry to say this isn't quite the "gotcha!" you were hoping for.
Click to expand...
Yes it is.

This isn't a question of some obvious dead giveaway,
Click to expand...
Yes it is.

it's about subtle questions of optics that require a bit of work to fully grasp. You yourself have acknowledged some flaws in your own arguments. There comes a point where if there are enough flaws, you have to question your underlying premise.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen you personally find anything wrong with the ppt whatsoever.

Maybe you should lay off the bluster, hyperbole and false dilemmas for a couple of days, take a deep breath and approach the evidence being presented to you here with an open mind?
Click to expand...
Take your own advice.
 
Mobertermy,

Think back to my recent post. Anyone claiming that the Eiffel Tour is taller than a 6-year-old girl is unambiguously wrong. To argue otherwise is preposterous.

Ya feeling me yet?

Seriously, stop posting in this thread. Go do the sight-line analysis. There is no rush; it's been 9+ years. Then, come back and report your findings.
 
Mobertermy said:
If the Eiffel Tower was behind the Pentagon in these photos would you still be insisting I have to do sight lines?
Click to expand...

if the Eiffel Tower was behind the Pentagon in these photos there would have been an entirely different discussion.

The fact is, the Eiffel Tower is not in these photos, so your entire argument was based on the absence of the Eiffel Tower. If you really wanted that to be part of your logic, you should have included it in your presentation.

Admit it. You have had your posterior handed to you on a platter in a full stadium, in front of a live television audience, in prime time. Yet you're still trying to say "that's not my posterior" as your trousers again fall towards your ankles over your absent buttocks.
 
Mobertermy said:
Yes it is.
Click to expand...


Why?

Yes it is.
Click to expand...


Why?

I haven't seen you personally find anything wrong with the ppt whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Because others here have done a far better job than I could have. Part of being an adult is having the wisdom and maturity to know when to defer to your betters on subjects you are not a master of. I get this, why don't you?

Take your own advice.
Click to expand...


Where in this thread have I been guilty of "bluster, hyperbole and false dilemmas"?
 
Kid Eager said:
if the Eiffel Tower was behind the Pentagon in these photos there would have been an entirely different discussion.

The fact is, the Eiffel Tower is not in these photos, so your entire argument was based on the absence of the Eiffel Tower. If you really wanted that to be part of your logic, you should have included it in your presentation.

Admit it. You have had your posterior handed to you on a platter in a full stadium, in front of a live television audience, in prime time. Yet you're still trying to say "that's not my posterior" as your trousers again fall towards your ankles over your absent buttocks.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to explain in plain english how the cab can be on the bridge in photo #2.
 
Mobertermy,

If you aren't going to do the proper analysis, could you please give a reason for your continued postings on this topic?
 
Mobertermy said:
1) Do you agree that the labels of TA2 and TA3 are labeled correctly in photo #1?

2) Do you agree that the cab is not on the bridge?.
Click to expand...

1) There's another gate that doesn't appear in any photos which messes up that numbering system anyhow. I labelled it as TA3 because that's the convention that seems to have been settled on. Actually it's TA4 unless you're a programmer and start counting from zero. That's why I prefer the official designation of 'gate 36'

2) It probably isn't ( where does the bridge actually start?) but that's getting into pointless semantics.

Depending on which pole hit the cab and how far it travelled after being hit, it may well have travelled over the bridge carrying the pole with it. That may be where some of the confusion arrives.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
I'm still waiting for you to explain in plain english how the cab can be on the bridge in photo #2.
Click to expand...

The cab isn't on the bridge in photo #2, according to the boundaries you've defined for the bridge. Every aspect of photo #2 is consistent with the cab not being on the bridge. Drewid's excellent piece of modelling (welcome to the forum, BTW, drewid, nice to have you around!) is based on the assumption that the cab is not on the bridge, and reproduces all the major features to an acceptable level of accuracy. If you would actually work out the sight lines, as everybody has been telling you since page 1, you would be able to see that photo #2 does not indicate that the cab is on the bridge.

Did I mention that the cab isn't on the bridge in photo #2?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Yes it is.


Yes it is.


I haven't seen you personally find anything wrong with the ppt whatsoever.


Take your own advice.
Click to expand...

You were wrong dude....get over it.

You posted some "evidence" of photo manipulation but you made several mistakes...you didn't fully account for perspective/optics and you assumed that the only explanation for any "anomolies" were that there is some stupid conspiracy by illumaniti/reptiles/aliens/freemasons/jews/whatever....

The bottom line is that you don't have evidence of anything beyond your epic failure at analysis.

Get over it and move on.
 
Welcome to the jref forums drewid. Nice work. Moberty, if you have a point, make it, and stop with your assinine semantics. It has been shown that Lloyd's cab is just south of the bridge span within 20 or 30 feet of gate 36. I accept Drewids through analysis which puts Lloyd's cab about 20 feet further south than my place mark. You can verify this by aligning the highway striping with known landmarks. Google earth timeline will show weather the spacing, length, interval, or location of the Striping has changed. The ruler function will further confirm locations. You have utterly failed to prove any photo manipulation. You came here for what you call "peer review" yet you refuse to accept anything critical of your pre conceived conclusion. All you have exposed is your own confirmation bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom