Proof of Photomanipulation

Mobertermy said:
Hey,
I just made a new powerpoint presentation which proves photo manipulation at the Pentagon. It specifically deals with the cab driver Lloyde England, the man CIT accused of being an accomplice. If you have the time you can view it at my blog http://slothrop-blogjammin.blogspot.com/ I'm interested in seeing what you hard core debunkers have to say about it.

Don't be gentle.

(Note: this isn't a plug for my "blog"...it's just that I can't post a powerpoint presentation here.)
Click to expand...


And as an example of how interested he is in the "Truth" he deleted my comment linking his blog to this thread and removed the ability to leave comments...........:rolleyes:
 
Hey Mobertermy, why don't you talk with us about the videos of the event? I see you are annoying the guys over at 911oz with the video i found (no need to thank me, you're welcome)

Interesting video:

I sure don't see the cab there at the bridge here. Watch at around the 1:20 - 1:25 mark - see how there is someone riding in a vehicle in the lane Lloyde's cab should be in? Sure doesn't look like the cab is there does it? If anyone sees anything definite one way or the other let me know. Also, I don't see any downed lightpoles there do you? And is it just me or does the camera seem to be curiously avoiding anything that would tell us something video about the cab or light poles.
Click to expand...


No word about the frames Smith located. That's not nice. But no surprise to me, yours is just the latest in a long line of attempts at muddying the waters. At least more interesting than that broken sticks farce.

Bolding Mobertermy (uuu-huuu), coloring of contradiction mine:

October 2010 said:
Also, take note of the fact that CIT demands that you agree with everything they say. Its like a cult. If you disagree with anything they say they attack you, and accuse you of not being honest. Just like a cult. Also like a cult the initial claims seem more reasonable than the insanity you will be exposed to later. The initial claim of NoC is very reasonable, but once they get you on board with that they expect you to accept the insanity they spew in regards to Lloyde England. They even encourage people to take actions against Lloyde England. Its just like a cult. Members are expected to prove their loyalty with irrational beliefs and actions and when they don't they get attacked. STAY AWAY FROM CIT. THEY ARE DANGEROUS.

WTC7 is the smoking gun of 9/11. Any information CIT has uncovered is useless.
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Hey Mobertermy, why don't you talk with us about the videos of the event? I see you are annoying the guys over at 911oz with the video i found (no need to thank me, you're welcome)




No word about the frames Smith located. That's not nice. But no surprise to me, yours is just the latest in a long line of attempts at muddying the waters. At least more interesting than that broken sticks farce.

Bolding Mobertermy (uuu-huuu), coloring of contradiction mine:




:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
and he was logged in here sometime around 1:00 pm a full hour after I posted. Yet his last comment in this thread was 10:30 (all times approximate as I have my dinner plate on my lap) Nothing to say Moberermy? Are you done here?
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Hey Mobertermy, why don't you talk with us about the videos of the event? I see you are annoying the guys over at 911oz with the video i found (no need to thank me, you're welcome)


No word about the frames Smith located. That's not nice. But no surprise to me, yours is just the latest in a long line of attempts at muddying the waters. At least more interesting than that broken sticks farce.

Bolding Mobertermy (uuu-huuu), coloring of contradiction mine:

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"Any information CIT has uncovered is useless."


Well, at least he nailed that one, huh, CE?

No comments about the fact that your fellow truthers threw Shaky and the Buffet Slayer under the bus in Jones' journal?

rollseyes
 
<comment>Ah, the famous J.O.N.E.S., your favorite rag. Did you help in the peer-review process, 16.5? How many revisions will it take this time? But thanks for correcting me - it wasn't the latest attempt.</comment>

For the newbies - the thread on the eyewitness testimony CIT have obtained is here.
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
yes i disagree, align the exit sign with the overhead sign support post, this is what you get, all your traffic gates are off by one. your camera location is WAY off. I don't know if you are doing this deliberately to save your project from the dust bin or what. You really should know better.

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/exitsigntosignpole-1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I think the cab is actually a few feet further north than where you have it here. In a pic upthread you can see that the cab is just where the guardrail goes from stone to metal. So it would be sitting just about on the yellow line, instead of a few feet south.

[/nitpick]
 
jhunter1163 said:
I think the cab is actually a few feet further north than where you have it here. In a pic upthread you can see that the cab is just where the guardrail goes from stone to metal. So it would be sitting just about on the yellow line, instead of a few feet south.

[/nitpick]
Click to expand...

I lined it up with where it appears on the traffic striping. I did have it a bit north earlier in this thread. As you can see in my earlier photos. But after crossing sight lines I concluded that it is not alongside of gate 36 but about 15 or 20 feet south of it.
 
Okay, unless I'm completely misunderstanding what his red lines in the second photo show, isn't there one really glaring error here? The red lines are intended to show the line of sight encompassed by the edges of the photos, right? Am I right about that? Because if I am, he has the "power box" (circled in green) practically on the edge of the photo (where it would have almost lined up with "TA2"), but in the actual photo, the power box is almost in the center of the photo.

I'm torn between either thinking I've completely misunderstood the point of these images, or being gob-smacked that you guys missed this really obvious flaw in his analysis.


So,which is it?


Mobertermy said:
[qimg]http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8695/lloydandcabcloseup2.jpg[/qimg]

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:
[qimg]http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8568/trafficarmslos1.png[/qimg]

Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...
 
Horatius said:
Okay, unless I'm completely misunderstanding what his red lines in the second photo show, isn't there one really glaring error here? The red lines are intended to show the line of sight encompassed by the edges of the photos, right? Am I right about that? Because if I am, he has the "power box" (circled in green) practically on the edge of the photo (where it would have almost lined up with "TA2"), but in the actual photo, the power box is almost in the center of the photo.

I'm torn between either thinking I've completely misunderstood the point of these images, or being gob-smacked that you guys missed this really obvious flaw in his analysis.


So,which is it?
Click to expand...
That's the reason (one of them) everyone is saying his camera point is too far north.
 
Horatius said:
I'm torn between either thinking I've completely misunderstood the point of these images, or being gob-smacked that you guys missed this really obvious flaw in his analysis.


So,which is it?
Click to expand...

False dilemma :p. We all got that; it's the main reason why the viewpoint has to be a lot further south, at a finer angle to the road. Parallax them moves the power box closer to the centre of the picture, where it should be.

I suspect that he's eyeballing the photos, guesstimating the angle at which the highway is crossing the field of view, then using that as a starting point for his viewing angle. As I pointed out earlier, foreshortening changes the apparent angle of objects crossing the field of view enough to make that approach horribly misleading. This photo is a classic example. From a quick look, the highway appears to be about 20 degrees off perpendicular to the line of sight, but if you take a line of sight that gets the positions of the fixed objects right it's more like 70 degrees off. Foreshortening can mislead the eye by that much.

Dave
 
Okay, so you saw it, you just didn't explicitly mention it. It seems to me you're pointing out more subtle aspects of the different alignments, and ignoring the one that's right there in the middle of the photo!



ETA: that is, you're discussing how "close" it is to the various posts, but not mentioning that it's in the middle of the photo, and not the edge.
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
Okay, unless I'm completely misunderstanding what his red lines in the second photo show, isn't there one really glaring error here? The red lines are intended to show the line of sight encompassed by the edges of the photos, right? Am I right about that? Because if I am, he has the "power box" (circled in green) practically on the edge of the photo (where it would have almost lined up with "TA2"), but in the actual photo, the power box is almost in the center of the photo.

I'm torn between either thinking I've completely misunderstood the point of these images, or being gob-smacked that you guys missed this really obvious flaw in his analysis.


So,which is it?
Click to expand...


Its a force fit, Hes using the wrong traffic arms in the photo for reference points to draw his red field of view lines in his overhead. The just visible gate post at the far right of the photo is NOT for gate 35 (TA-2)but is for gate 36 (TA-3), That's why its all wrong.
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
Its a force fit, Hes using the wrong traffic arms in the photo for reference points to draw his red field of view lines in his overhead. The just visible gate post at the far right of the photo is NOT for gate 35 but is for gate 36, That's why its all wrong.
Click to expand...



That's why it's all wrong, but what is the easiest way to show it's wrong? I'd say it's the big grey box in the middle of the photo, where it has no business being, if those lines of sight are to be believed. Foreshortening, "traffic arms", parallax, all that is confusing to people who don't know much about photography, but "It's in the middle, not at the edge" is pretty straightforward.
 
Horatius said:
Okay, so you saw it, you just didn't explicitly mention it.
Click to expand...

Dave Rogers said:
The angle between the right hand edge of the light pole and the right hand edge of the power box should be about the same as the angle between the light pole and the left hand support of the overhead sign. From your sight line, the latter angle is too big.
Click to expand...

:p:p

Horatius said:
It seems to me you're pointing out more subtle aspects of the different alignments, and ignoring the one that's right there in the middle of the photo!



ETA: that is, you're discussing how "close" it is to the various posts, but not mentioning that it's in the middle of the photo, and not the edge.
Click to expand...

Well, true, but the edges of the photo are determined by where the camera is pointing and what lens is being used, which is rather less fundamental than the viewing point. If you took Mobertermy's lines for the extremes of the photos and rotated the right hand one a little to the south, you'd move the power box towards the centre of the photo very easily, but the relative angles would still all be wrong because it's viewed from the wrong direction.

Dave
 
Horatius said:
That's why it's all wrong, but what is the easiest way to show it's wrong? I'd say it's the big grey box in the middle of the photo, where it has no business being, if those lines of sight are to be believed. Foreshortening, "traffic arms", parallax, all that is confusing to people who don't know much about photography, but "It's in the middle, not at the edge" is pretty straightforward.
Click to expand...

Remember, we're talking about someone who's perfectly happy to make the claim, "It's in the middle when my sight lines show it should be at the edge, therefore the photo has been faked!" It's more important, in that context, to construct a correct line of sight, that accounts for the positions of all the objects visible and the absence of all other nearby objects, than it is to explain what's wrong with the incorrect one.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom