Proof of Photomanipulation

sheeplesnshills said:
QED Excellent work.


Now mobertermy are you going act like an adult? Admit you were wrong and learn a valuable lesson from this? Just because you "know" that something is true does not actually make it so.

or are you going to behave like a child and simply put your fingers in your ears and scream "I'm not listening"!

Note that debunking you does not prove that their was no elaborate plot by reptile people or whatever on 911, all we are showing you that what you presented is not evidence of anything other than those pictures were not manipulated as you said they were.
Follow JREF and you will find EVERY piece of evidence of foul play presented by the truth movement has been shown to be simply wrong and that might hopefully lead you to a logical conclusion re 911 and CTs in general.:cool:
Click to expand...



He chose the "or are you going to behave like a child and simply put your fingers in your ears and scream "I'm not listening" option.
Why am I not very surprised :(
 
Mobertermy said:
Exactly! But the cab is not between TA3 and TA4 in reality. Get it? The photo can't be right. If you label TA2 and TA3 correctly in relation to the cab you end up with an impossible extra TA. If you label the TA by the turn off correctly you end up with the cab impossibly between TA3 and TA4.

The photo is impossible.
Click to expand...

Uhm - how do you know where the cab is "in reality", if not from photos? :confused:
Which photo shows the cabe elsewhere?

I think the cab in reality was between TA3 and TA4, but very much closer to TA3. and haven't seen a photo that disagrees with this
 
Mobertermy said:
I will work on the sight lines next week when I have time.
Click to expand...

You'll note that an hour and a quarter after your OP I was able to produce a sight line that refuted your principal points, and that subsequent analysis by other forum members has shown my initial deductions to be substantially correct: (1) The light poles are in the relative positions that would be expected from the position of the cab and the sight line of the photographs, and (2) the traffic arm visible behind the door of the cab is incorrectly labelled as TA2.

It really doesn't take all that long.

Mobertermy said:
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, as would any object appearing in the photograph which is known not to have been in the vicinity of the Pentagon on 9/11/01. Please provide a list of all such items you have identified in these photographs. If there aren't any, why are you wasting time hypothesising about them? Your analysis claims that the relative positions of objects in the photographs proves manipulation, not that objects are visible that were known not to be in this area at this time. Therefore, I suggest you try to defend your own position rather than making up imaginary ones.

Dave
 
Oystein said:
Uhm - how do you know where the cab is "in reality", if not from photos? :confused:
Which photo shows the cabe elsewhere?

I think the cab in reality was between TA3 and TA4, but very much closer to TA3. and haven't seen a photo that disagrees with this
Click to expand...

Look at the photo in post 245 for instance.
 
drewid said:
1) There's another gate that doesn't appear in any photos which messes up that numbering system anyhow.
Click to expand...
Please explain.
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'
Click to expand...
So you are saying the cab is between TA3 and TA4? Or TA2 and TA3?

Also, I have a problem with your placement of the cab in your diagrams. As you can see from the picture in post 245 the cab is parallel to the guard rail , and very near the base of the overhead sign.
 
Mobertermy said:
Look at the photo in post 245 for instance.
Click to expand...

I did, and looked at your slide "Everything together", and it is pretty clear that TA2 is well outside to the right of the photo in 245, and that the TA we see there must be TA3. I did this by holding a ruler at the screen in your slide, and constructing a line of sight. Everything fits, with the notable exception of the position (X) of the cab - you should move it further north, so that it is almost on the bridge, as defined by your outlines in that slide.
 
Was this picture faked too?


ing3.jpg



Shows the cab location pretty freaking good.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Also, I have a problem with your placement of the cab in your diagrams. As you can see from the picture in post 245 the cab is parallel to the guard rail , and very near the base of the overhead sign.
Click to expand...

No, you can't see any such thing. Foreshortening makes it impossible to say with certainty how far the cab is from the overhead sign base from that photograph alone, and will also cause you to underestimate any angle between the front edge of the cab and the direction of the guard rail.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
Please explain.

So you are saying the cab is between TA3 and TA4? Or TA2 and TA3?
Click to expand...

Seeing as it seems to be a source of some ongoing confusion it's best to stick to the official designation. Gate 35 is just south of the overhead sign, Gate 36 is about 100 feet north, and coloured red in my shots. It's really not difficult.

Mobertermy said:
Also, I have a problem with your placement of the cab in your diagrams. As you can see from the picture in post 245 the cab is parallel to the guard rail , and very near the base of the overhead sign.
Click to expand...

It's not at all clear that it's "parallel to the guard rail" from that shot and from that distance. Neither does it look "close to the base" of the sign, that's the foreshortening effect of a long camera lens.
 
drewid said:
Seeing as it seems to be a source of some ongoing confusion it's best to stick to the official designation. Gate 35 is just south of the overhead sign, Gate 36 is about 100 feet north, and coloured red in my shots. It's really not difficult.
Click to expand...
The TAs didn't have those designations on 9/11 so I think it best to stick wiht TA1,2,3,4. I am asking you a simple question. Is the cab between TA2 and TA3?


It's not at all clear that it's "parallel to the guard rail" from that shot and from that distance. Neither does it look "close to the base" of the sign, that's the foreshortening effect of a long camera lens.
Click to expand...
You can tell how far from the cab is from overhead sign by looking at the guardrail. You have it behind the trees to the left, when you can tell by looking at the guardrail that the cab is closer to the overhead sign than the trees.
 
Oystein said:
I did, and looked at your slide "Everything together", and it is pretty clear that TA2 is well outside to the right of the photo in 245, and that the TA we see there must be TA3. I did this by holding a ruler at the screen in your slide, and constructing a line of sight. Everything fits, with the notable exception of the position (X) of the cab - you should move it further north, so that it is almost on the bridge, as defined by your outlines in that slide.
Click to expand...

Anyone can see from the photo in post 245 that the cab is closer to the overhead sign than the trees to the left. Look at the guardrail.
 
Mobertermy said:
Anyone can see from the photo in post 245 that the cab is closer to the overhead sign than the trees to the left. Look at the guardrail.
Click to expand...

You're good at pointing out what "anyone can see".

Mobertermy said:
Of course it is. Anyone can see that the arms of TA2 and TA3 go down in different directions.
Click to expand...

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...

Mobertermy said:
Look at photo #3...TA3 is blocking the lane the cab is in...this has nothing to do with perspective...its just an obvious undeniable fact.
Click to expand...

Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you may be mistaken.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
Anyone can see from the photo in post 245 that the cab is closer to the overhead sign than the trees to the left. Look at the guardrail.
Click to expand...

No. You again underestimate what tele-lenses do.
Construct a line of sight!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom