Proof of Photomanipulation

Reheat said:
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?
Click to expand...


Elsewhere and on his blog, Mobertermy calls himself "vert". His presentation is apparently the result of being told he is wrong - by truthers - for about half a year. On Dec 16th he started a thread with the same name as this one on the 911oz forum.

First reply:

KP said:
It is pretty clear that Vert is determined to embarrass himself - there can be no other reason for him to start a new thread on this topic after Mr Bo has already schooled him on another thread. Mr Bo made a big mistake though, he went into detail and we all know that once Vert sees detail, he covers his eyes. Bo's important point was that the relative positions of things on a photo are dependent on where the photo was taken from - he even provided a line of sight showing a likely spot for the photographer's location. [...]
Click to expand...


Now you have it from the debunker too, Mobertermy. You are wrong.
 
Mobertermy,
As was mentioned previously, you would be better served labeling the traffic arms with their real identifying numbers. Then you wouldn't be having silly semantic arguments, and you could get on with your sightline analysis. Congrats on wasting another day arguing instead of doing the analysis though!

:bs:
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Elsewhere and on his blog, Mobertermy calls himself "vert". His presentation is apparently the result of being told he is wrong - by truthers - for about half a year. On Dec 16th he started a thread with the same name as this one on the 911oz forum.

First reply:




Now you have it from the debunker too, Mobertermy. You are wrong.
Click to expand...
I believe I saw one of the Admins on PFT spot his errors right off too. Now, that's bad.



:o
 
Yes mobert, You can
Pentagon_Lamppost_L-1.jpg
 
Never thought I'd see that day when JREFers make an appeal to authority, using CIT as the authority.

I guess if CIT and their supporters think I'm wrong I must be.

CIT supporters can't agree with my conclusion because it would permanently damage their credibility.
 
drewid said:
So here's the scene, I've made gate 36 (TA3) and Pole B bright red, and made pole A yellow to make them easier to see. CIS it ain't :) but it'll do.


Photo 1
Gate36, behind the brown car and light pole, Pole B to the right of that.
Lens set to ~110mm

Photo 2
Gate 36 behind cab, I've got this as ~140mm lens,

Photo 3
Gate 36 behind the brown car. ~280mm lens, taken from nearly the same position as photo#1
Click to expand...

Could someone explain to me how this very excellent post did not end the thread? Welcome to the forums, drewid.
 
mobertermy said:
never thought i'd see that day when jrefers make an appeal to authority, using cit as the authority.

I guess if cit and their supporters think i'm wrong i must be.

Cit supporters can't agree with my conclusion because it would permanently damage their credibility.
Click to expand...
Everyone thinks your wrong.


CIT has no "credibility".
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Did I label that TAs correctly in Photo #3?
Click to expand...

I think you've labelled TA4 as TA3, because TA3 is hidden in this picture. Tell you what, if you draw what you think is the line of sight of the picture on the overhead shots, you can get an idea of what you ought to be able to see in the photograph and where it is. I'm not sure whether anyone's suggested this idea yet.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
Never thought I'd see that day when JREFers make an appeal to authority, using CIT as the authority.

I guess if CIT and their supporters think I'm wrong I must be.

CIT supporters can't agree with my conclusion because it would permanently damage their credibility.
Click to expand...

CE is a truther, sport. And a big CIT fan.

Man, you are really not good at this are you?
 
DGM said:
Everyone thinks your wrong.
Click to expand...

Debunkers and CITers are everyone?

If debunkers agree with me that will prove a cover-up.

If CITers agree with me that will prove they are wrong.

In other words two groups disagree with me that have a strong incentive to.
 
Mobertermy said:
Debunkers and CITers are everyone?

If debunkers agree with me that will prove a cover-up.

If CITers agree with me that will prove they are wrong.

In other words two groups disagree with me that have a strong incentive to.
Click to expand...

Or you know, you could just be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom