Proof of Photomanipulation

[Mobertermy]

Ok, here is a clumsy attempt (I have no nifty software, I do this with Paint):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/368864d2b3d425e0e2.png[/qimg]

In the foreground there is a lamppost (unnumbered), and next to it a box that I think is some kind of transformed. The lamppost aligns with the base of the TA in the background, and the transformer aligns with the center portion of the red-white arm. The end of the arm is just outside the picture.
I drew a dark-red and a purple line through these two feautures, and assumed, as a first approximation, that the camera maybe on one ear of the clover leaf.
From there, I also drew a line through the near pole of the overhead construction, and another through the right hand edge of the bush (both orange).
The left margin is not easily determined, bur lamppost 2 is outside of it. The margins are represented by the black lines of sight.
Having these lines of sight, I drew in the cab in pink, such that it is just covered by the overhead post, well clear of the bush, and sitting across the devider between the left and center southbound lanes.

This gets me the cab nearly on the bridge, and confirms that it is TA3 that we see next to it.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/368864d2b3fbddcd18.jpg[/qimg]

First of all, thank you for putting some work into backing up your claim. I have to disagree with where you placed the cab though (the pink square). You can see that the cab is sitting on the road perpendicular to the guard rail. You can count the vertical posts on the gaurdrail (I come up with 7 in that picture). You can see the cab is in front of the 2nd and third guardrail post counting from the right. The headlights of the cab line up with the gaurdrail posts. The cab isn't where you placed it.

 

[Mobertermy]

Using the lane stripes to place Lloyd's cab, Evidence places it at the yellow location, Moberty wishes it to be the red location


[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/overheadlloydlocations.jpg[/qimg]

You can see where the cab is in post 245 by lining the headlights up with the vertical columns of the guardrail. The cab is not where you are trying to place it.

 

[drewid]

First of all, thank you for putting some work into backing up your claim. I have to disagree with where you placed the cab though (the pink square). You can see that the cab is sitting on the road perpendicular to the guard rail. You can count the vertical posts on the gaurdrail (I come up with 7 in that picture). You can see the cab is in front of the 2nd and third guardrail post counting from the right. The headlights of the cab line up with the gaurdrail posts. The cab isn't where you placed it.

You're really not good with angles and spatial awareness are you.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

First of all, thank you for putting some work into backing up your claim. I have to disagree with where you placed the cab though (the pink square). You can see that the cab is sitting on the road perpendicular to the guard rail. You can count the vertical posts on the gaurdrail (I come up with 7 in that picture). You can see the cab is in front of the 2nd and third guardrail post counting from the right. The headlights of the cab line up with the gaurdrail posts. The cab isn't where you placed it.

Are you Jammo????? You are displaying the same relentless stupidity and refusal to accept reality.

 

[Mobertermy]

You're really not good with angles and spatial awareness are you.

Alright Drew, do the line of sight (which is obvious) for photo #5 and tell me how the hell poles C, D, and E end up to the right of the cab in that photo.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Alright Drew, do the line of sight (which is obvious) for photo #5 and tell me how the hell poles C, D, and E end up to the right of the cab in that photo.

You didn't show anything wrong with the series of works s/he already did for you. From post #289:

 

[Mobertermy]

The green line is where lightpole 2 would be.
The yellow line is where lightpole B should be.
The blue line is the center of the bridge (equidistant between poles 1 and 2)
The red line is center of bridge on other side (equidistant between A and B)

So why can't we see pole B where it should be in photos 5-8?

And if you are tempted to say it is "just distortion" from a telephoto lens then why aren't the cars distorted?

 

[Mobertermy]

You didn't show anything wrong with the series of works s/he already did for you. From post #289:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20615&d=1294608272[/qimg]

Yes I did, she doesn't have the car in the right place. See post 245.

 

[TJM]

Dude.

Let. it. go.

 

[tsig]

Yes I did, she doesn't have the car in the right place. See post 245.

So the exact placement of the car is the key to the whole evil conspiracy?

 

[Kid Eager]

And if you are tempted to say it is "just distortion" from a telephoto lens then why aren't the cars distorted?

Stundie Nomination!

 

[Dave Rogers]

The green line is where lightpole 2 would be.
The yellow line is where lightpole B should be.

No, it isn't.

The blue line is the center of the bridge (equidistant between poles 1 and 2)
The red line is center of bridge on other side (equidistant between A and B)

No, it isn't.

So why can't we see pole B where it should be in photos 5-8?

Because foreshortening makes is impossible to determine the angles of objects crossing the field of view simply by eyeballing and estimating.

Foreshortening reduces the apparent separation between near and far objects, without altering the apparent separation between objects to the left and right of the field of view. This can distort the appearance of rectangular objects - for example, the highway bridge - so that they appear to be skewed parallelograms.

Here's a quick sketch to illustrate how it works. If you make your best guess on the way the bridge should look, without taking foreshortening into account, you'll place the back side of the bridge way too far to the left.



When you do account for foreshortening, it becomes clear that pole B is well to the right of where you're placing it, behind the trees. Again, the only way to do this correctly is to work out the point from which the photograph is taken and draw the sight lines.

And if you are tempted to say it is "just distortion" from a telephoto lens then why aren't the cars distorted?

They are. The foreshortening appears to rotate them from their real direction, but they still look like cars; it's just impossible to be certain what angle they're at. Which is why you think one photograph shows the cab perpendicular to the guard rail; foreshortening compresses differences in angles, as well as differences in depth.

I'll talk about the position against the guard rails from post #245 next.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

OK, let's draw a cab in front of seven guard rail posts, then look at it from two angles.



I haven't made any changes between the two sets of objects, except for rotating the group for the second set. Let's number the posts 1 to 7 from right to left; see how the cab is actually nearest to post 6, but when we look at it at a fine angle it looks like it's close to post 2? This is called parallax; objects at different distances shift sideways relative to each other when you change the direction of view. You can see this when you're driving on a highway, where the lamp posts move past very quickly but the scenery way off to the side appears to move more slowly.

Now, the angle I've shown may look too sharp to be the real angle of the photo in post 245; but, as we saw in the last post, foreshortening makes angles look smaller than they really are. Again, of you work it all out from the lines of sight, you can tell where things ought to appear. But, because of parallax, you can't simply say that the cab must be closest to the object it lines up with.

Dave

 

[PhantomWolf]

I know it's not showing angles, but I love this image and how it demonstrates forshortening in a very dramatic way...

 

[celestrin]

[qimg]http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5627/missingb.jpg[/qimg]

The green line is where lightpole 2 would be.
The yellow line is where lightpole B should be.
The blue line is the center of the bridge (equidistant between poles 1 and 2)
The red line is center of bridge on other side (equidistant between A and B)

So why can't we see pole B where it should be in photos 5-8?

And if you are tempted to say it is "just distortion" from a telephoto lens then why aren't the cars distorted?

Interesting. Could you also draw a line where you think the south western edge of the Pentagon might be? This looks like fun.

 

[Oystein]

First of all, thank you for putting some work into backing up your claim.

You're welcome

I have to disagree with where you placed the cab though (the pink square).

Well I said it was a clumsy and hasty effort, using only Paint.
And I agree that it is incorrectly placed, it should be one lane further to the left.
Also, I am sure the camera position is not yet right. Should be further south from the line of sight, and/or probably a bit closer.
I did this just to show you in principle how to go about this.
Ideally I would have expanded the aerial view such that I could include features of the Pentagon building to get a better estimate of the camera position.

You can see that the cab is sitting on the road perpendicular to the guard rail.

No, I cannot see that, due to such pesky things such as parallax and perspective.
However, the angle at which I placed my cab was determined by the limitation of my imaging software: I didn't figure out how to freely rotate a rectangle, so I just put in there parallel to the margins of the image.

You can count the vertical posts on the gaurdrail

No, I cannot, due to such pesky things such as parallax and perspective.

(I come up with 7 in that picture). You can see the cab is in front of the 2nd and third guardrail post counting from the right.

No. You disregard the fact that the cab is a good distance away from the guard rail, and that your line of sight is at a sharper angle to the rail and road than you think.

The headlights of the cab line up with the gaurdrail posts. The cab isn't where you placed it.

It isn't precisely where I put it, but it also isn't where you put it.

 

[Oystein]

You can see where the cab is in post 245 by lining the headlights up with the vertical columns of the guardrail.

Wrong. Without establishing a point of view and line of sight, any estimate of how many guardrails away from the catenary overhead signs the cab is, is pure guesswork.

The cab is not where you are trying to place t.

It is closer to where he is trying to place it than to where you are trying to place it.

 

[DGM]

I know it's not showing angles, but I love this image and how it demonstrates forshortening in a very dramatic way...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/155794d2c3929d81df.jpg[/qimg]

Great picture! Do you happen to know the actual distance between those two planes?

 

[Edx]

I know it's not showing angles, but I love this image and how it demonstrates forshortening in a very dramatic way...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/155794d2c3929d81df.jpg[/qimg]

Cool do you have a source on that at all?

 

[Mobertermy]

Traffic arm on the left is TA3, and on the right is TA2.
Man in white shirt is to right of TA3. Man in Blue shirt is to right of man in white shirt. Cab to right of man in blue shirt.

Pole and power box to right of overhead sign. Line of sight with pole and power box circled in green:


Does anyone disagree?