Proof of Photomanipulation

[A W Smith]

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.

If you shot a bullet from the X in the exit sign, toward the space centered between the twin support columns of the overhead sign, I am fairly certain you would hit the camera in the lens.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6752855&postcount=448

To triangulate how far back. You would need to find another pair of reference points. Perhaps the shoebox sized box on top of the traffic arm cabinet and the guardrail support post in the foreground that is in line with it, The question is, Which guardrail support post is it?

 

[Horatius]

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!"

Yes, you're right, I made the rookie mistake of forgetting we're not dealing with normal people here.

 

[Mobertermy]

You guys are right about me having the sight line to far north. Putting the power box in the middle is an obvious mistake.

Can I get an opinion about where the man in the white shirt is in relation to the overhead sign?

If you look just to his left there is what look to be a sign pole with out a sign on top. If you look at post 245 you can see that sign pole too.

 

[A W Smith]

You guys are right about me having the sight line to far north. Putting the power box in the middle is an obvious mistake.

Can I get an opinion about where the man in the white shirt is in relation to the overhead sign?

If you look just to his left there is what look to be a sign pole with out a sign on top. If you look at post 245 you can see that sign pole too.

you cant use that milepost to locate the white shirt guy anymore than you can use the overhead sign post to locate him. The problem is the photo is two dimensional. You cannot discern depth with the lens used. For example, can you tell by using this photo alone how far back that exit sign is from the twin support posts?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Can I get an opinion about where the man in the white shirt is in relation to the overhead sign?

No, there isn't enough information even to tell whether or not he's on the bridge. It's a long way from the overhead sign to TA4, but it's foreshortened to look like they're very close.

Dave

 

[Mobertermy]

Why does the half sign post look exactly where I expect it to be when comparing the pictures?

 

[A W Smith]

Why does the half sign post look exactly where I expect it to be when comparing the pictures?

what are you aligning it with in the foreground or background for reference?

 

[Mobertermy]

you cant use that milepost to locate the white shirt guy anymore than you can use the overhead sign post to locate him. The problem is the photo is two dimensional. You cannot discern depth with the lens used. For example, can you tell by using this photo alone how far back that exit sign is from the twin support posts?

But you can still discern where objects are in relation to each other can you not?

 

[A W Smith]

But you can still discern where objects are in relation to each other can you not?

only by referencing using permanent objects in a historically accurate overhead shot. Or by two objects which align in the foreground and background. You can determine where these objects fall within a field of view, but you need other photos of the same event to triangulate. The man in the white shirt is not stationary. So that excludes other photos.

 

[tsig]

I'm just amazed he can navigate around his house to find the PC.

There's an app for that.

 

[JimBenArm]

Why does the half sign post look exactly where I expect it to be when comparing the pictures?

Because your expectations need a realignment.
I recommend NTB. They did a good job on my car.

 

[The Big Dog]

<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.

CE, I could NOT have written a more perfect response had I tried. Look at the truthers going after each other with hammers and tongs. Hilarious! And all over the second most incompetent theory in all of trutherdom: CIT's idiotic fly over theory.

Good for you!

For the newbies, CIT's raw, unedited video is here: nul set.

Doesn't bother CE though. Hey, CE, I see they shut down their forum, what is up with that? Aldo spill Chili Dogs on the servers again?

ps: don't forget Chandlers' take down too. Hey CE, CIT, disinfo or just a couple of dumbasses?

 

[Childlike Empress]

CE, I could NOT have written a more perfect response had I tried. Look at the truthers going after each other with hammers and tongs. Hilarious! And all over the second most incompetent theory in all of trutherdom: CIT's idiotic fly over theory.

Good for you!

For the newbies, CIT's raw, unedited video is here: nul set.

Doesn't bother CE though. Hey, CE, I see they shut down their forum, what is up with that? Aldo spill Chili Dogs on the servers again?

ps: don't forget Chandlers' take down too. Hey CE, CIT, disinfo or just a couple of dumbasses?

Stop barking at me (and derailing the thread). It has no effect.

 

[JimBenArm]

Woof!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You guys are right about me having the sight line to far north. Putting the power box in the middle is an obvious mistake.

Can I get an opinion about where the man in the white shirt is in relation to the overhead sign?

If you look just to his left there is what look to be a sign pole with out a sign on top. If you look at post 245 you can see that sign pole too.

Who cares? the man was not there when the plane flew over and is likely pretty mobile relative to the cab or the poles so his position in one photo is irrelevent to the discussion.
Its an almost certainty that he is not where you think he is given your track record

 

[The Big Dog]

Stop barking at me (and derailing the thread). It has no effect.

Meow.

Anyhoo, this thread is about how one truther is trying to show how another whole group of truthers (i.e. CIT) are lying thugs. It would appear, would it not, that other examples of truthers showing that CIT are wrong would also be on point.

Agreed?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

on the lies and Cherry picked[/I] eyewitness testimony CIT have obtainedfabricated is herehttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162245.

corrected that for you

 

[drewid]

Why does the half sign post look exactly where I expect it to be when comparing the pictures?

Which sign post?

 

[DGM]

Mobertermy:

This picture is a very good example of what perspective and parallax can do to alter the location and appearance of objects.

Look at the fire truck and the apparent size of the fire and such at the Pentagon. Look at the height of the "Jersey barriers" at the left and right side of the picture.

Objects should look smaller the further back they are, yet the opposite is true (seen).

 

[A W Smith]

Which sign post?

i think he means this one nested between the guard rail posts.