Proof of Photomanipulation

DGM said:
Yes, it APPEARS that way. Is everything always as it APPEARS in pictures?
Click to expand...

You can go to google maps and count the numer of vertical guardrail segements there are between the overhead sign and pole number one. I come up with 8. You can tell in the picture in post 245 the cab is in front of segment 3 and 4 (counting left to right according to the google image).
 
Oystein said:
No. You again underestimate what tele-lenses do.
Construct a line of sight!
Click to expand...

Let's just say that I am hypothetically as dumb as you guys claim I am and can't competently do a line of sight as DGM suggests. On the other hand you guys claim that doing a line of sight will easily debunk me, and yet you guys adamantly refuse to do one - even though you claim it would prove me wrong. If you think doing a line of sight will prove me wrong...do one.
 
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...

How many different people in this thread have tried to explain to you that you are WRONG? 10? 15?

All these people have explained the mistakes you are making and you still refuse to understand. Do you think we are all sitting in a room discussing how we're going to continue to screw you and your claim? You've already admitted to making some mistakes in your analysis.
 
Mobertermy said:
You can go to google maps and count the numer of vertical guardrail segements there are between the overhead sign and pole number one. I come up with 8. You can tell in the picture in post 245 the cab is in front of segment 3 and 4 (counting left to right according to the google image).
Click to expand...
So your counting something in the foreground to determine the distance of something further back?





 
Mobertermy said:
Let's just say that I am hypothetically as dumb as you guys claim I am and can't competently do a line of sight as DGM suggests. On the other hand you guys claim that doing a line of sight will easily debunk me, and yet you guys adamantly refuse to do one - even though you claim it would prove me wrong. If you think doing a line of sight will prove me wrong...do one.
Click to expand...

You have already been proven *WRONG* (debunked) dozens of times in this thread. A line of sight diagram has already been done and you just continue to ignore it.

Everyone that has commented in this thread disagrees with you and I'd guess that everyone reading it is the same.

Now, why do you reckon *YOU* are the only one who believes you are right?
 
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...

Anyone can see from the photo in post 297 that the Eiffel Tower is in fact about 4 feet tall. Look at the girl's hand.

Are you completely unable to take the concept of perspective and apply it to your photos?
 
Count the lane Stripping. They are approx 10 feet in length spaced 30 feet apart. You can clearly see gate 36 in this photo.

 
Last edited:
Gamolon said:
How many different people in this thread have tried to explain to you that you are WRONG? 10? 15?

All these people have explained the mistakes you are making and you still refuse to understand. Do you think we are all sitting in a room discussing how we're going to continue to screw you and your claim? You've already admitted to making some mistakes in your analysis.
Click to expand...

Gamolon, what you don't understand is that you guys are making contradictory claims with each other. Some people suggest the pole is between TA2 and TA3, others TA3 and TA4. Drewid says there is an extra TA in the pictures that I didn't include, others of you said I was an idiot for suggesting this. One of you said the cab is parallel to the guard rail, others of you insist the cab is not parallel to the guard rail. You guys don't even agree with each other.
 
Mobertermy said:
Let's just say that I am hypothetically as dumb as you guys claim I am and can't competently do a line of sight as DGM suggests. On the other hand you guys claim that doing a line of sight will easily debunk me, and yet you guys adamantly refuse to do one - even though you claim it would prove me wrong. If you think doing a line of sight will prove me wrong...do one.
Click to expand...




drewid and Dave Rogers did. You just didn't like it. Stop lying and saying it hasn't been done.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Let's just say that I am hypothetically as dumb as you guys claim I am and can't competently do a line of sight as DGM suggests. On the other hand you guys claim that doing a line of sight will easily debunk me, and yet you guys adamantly refuse to do one - even though you claim it would prove me wrong. If you think doing a line of sight will prove me wrong...do one.
Click to expand...

I did one back on page 1. Did you miss it?

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
Let's just say that I am hypothetically as dumb as you guys claim I am and can't competently do a line of sight as DGM suggests.
Click to expand...

This hypothesis offers an obvious falsifiable prediction:
Prediction: Mobertermy can't and won't draw a line of sight
Please feel free to falsify the prediction :)

Mobertermy said:
On the other hand you guys claim that doing a line of sight will easily debunk me, and yet you guys adamantly refuse to do one - even though you claim it would prove me wrong. If you think doing a line of sight will prove me wrong...do one.
Click to expand...

Sorry pal - your thread, your presentation, your theory - you do the work.
 
Count the lane Stripping. They are approx 10 feet in length spaced 30 feet apart. You can clearly see gate 36 in this photo.
Pentagon_Lamppost_L-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
One of you said the cab is parallel to the guard rail, others of you insist the cab is not parallel to the guard rail.
Click to expand...

I thought you were the only one saying the cab was parallel to the guard rail. We're all pointing out that, due to foreshortening, it just appears from a distance to be...

...well, I think the word you were looking for was "perpendicular", not "parallel". But, of course, it isn't perpendicular either.

Dave
 
Oystein said:
This hypothesis offers an obvious falsifiable prediction:
Prediction: Mobertermy can't and won't draw a line of sight
Please feel free to falsify the prediction :)
Click to expand...
You claim that drawing a line of sight will falsify my theory, yet you refuse to demonstrate this. So it cuts both ways.

All I can say is that I've seen alot of talk from debunkers and pro-CITers that doing a line of sight will completely debunk me, and yet you all continue to not demonstrate this.
 
Mobertermy said:
You claim that drawing a line of sight will falsify my theory, yet you refuse to demonstrate this. So it cuts both ways.

All I can say is that I've seen alot of talk from debunkers and pro-CITers that doing a line of sight will completely debunk me, and yet you all continue to not demonstrate this.
Click to expand...
How many of us have to do it before you will look at it?
 
Mobertermy said:
Back on page one you didn't even know what a traffic arm was by your own admission.
Click to expand...

And yet I was able to point out that the object you'd labelled "TA2" was, in fact, TA3, and when we'd sorted out (a) what a traffic arm was and (b) that you were wrong about which way TA3 pointed, it turned out I was right. We may not have traffic arms where I come from, but we have the same laws of geometry. And the sight line makes it perfectly clear that the object you initially labelled TA3 was the same object that you then labelled TA2 in photograph #2.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
All I can say is that I've seen alot of talk from debunkers and pro-CITers that doing a line of sight will completely debunk me, and yet you all continue to not demonstrate this.
Click to expand...

Except post #15 from me and post #288 from drewid, which you seem to have forgotten about.

Dave
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom