Have you read any of the responses here? Any of them?
Proof of Photomanipulation
- Thread starter Mobertermy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cit lloyde england pentagon
Have you read any of the responses here? Any of them?
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
See, that right there is your problem. If someone comes up with a legitimate criticism of your work, you shouldn't have to be forced to admit it, begrudgingly or not. If you seriously believe these photos have been manipulated, you should want your evidence to be as strong as possible - and eliminating those parts of your presentation which have been shown to be based on errors or misunderstandings can only strengthen your presentation. Anything that's left over after a rigorous examination of your presentation just might be actual evidence that the photos have been manipulated.
That's assuming, of course, there's anything left after all the errors have been fixed. That you have to be "forced" to "begrudgingly" admit any errors, no matter how trivial, suggests that, deep down inside, you know there won't be anything left, and so you refuse to recognize legitimate criticisms out of a desire to maintain your belief in the face of reality. If you were honestly interested in getting to the truth, you would act very differently.
Perhaps you should sit down and think about this for a bit, and decide if you really want to be that guy.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Why not get some proper training before embarking on an analysis for which you do not possess the skills?
It would either make your 9/11 arguments unassailable, or it would correct your mistakes.
I'm voting for the latter.
btw, I have no idea what you believe your proving anyway, because the photos don't invalidate the fact that Flt 77 hit the Pentagon in any way, shape or form. They are simply some background story, personal experiences and so forth.
The light pole which hit Lloyd's cab was still sheared off by the jet, wherever his cab happened to be at the time.
I shudder to think where the minds of truthers live.
Yes, and he also got it right in #518 so I'm sure, as you say it was clearly an honest mistake in the other post.
The camera is somewhere on that centre line, zoom level may vary distance.
Whit shirt guy is slightly north of that line somewhere between the crash barrier and the third lane of the freeway.
Now what about your mislabelled TAs?, I really think this is the key to where you are going wrong.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
There is no answer to that one.
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Tell us which bits of your presentation you still believe in, and we'll try to help you reconcile the elements you believe haven't yet been disproven.
After all, your claim to photo manipulation and your resulting presentation is the reason for this thread...
Regards,
KE
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
It seems to me, from the PowerPoint slides, that Mobertermy is starting from the base assumption that AA77 flew north of the Citgo, and cannot therefore have knocked down the light poles which are beneath the south of Citgo track. However, he's trying to reconcile Lloyd England's testimony with this by a different method to CIT.
CIT's hypothesis, as far as I can understand it, is that all the physical evidence of a southern approach is faked, including the light pole through Lloyd England's cab window. A necessary implication of this is that Lloyd England is lying about everything that happened, and is therefore a fully informed member of the conspiracy. Mobertermy's hypothesis is that Lloyd England's story is correct in every detail, including his claim that it happened north of the bridge, that in fact light poles were knocked down by a plane on the northern approach route, and that all the photographs taken of the debris have been falsified to show a southern approach route.
The weakness of Mobertermy's hypothesis is that it relies on rejecting all the photographic evidence, which is entirely consistent in showing England's cab south of the bridge and hence the physical evidence supporting a southern approach route, in favour of a single item in a witness recollection recorded years after the event. Therefore, in order to justify this rejection, he's looking for inconsistencies in the photographs, which he can then claim as proof of photomanipulation.
However, there is actually something useful to be gleaned from all this, if we simply look at it from a different direction - something we've been repeatedly suggesting, although in a more literal interpretation, as the resolution of Mobertermy's supposed anomalies. Let's suppose, since we can find no inconsistencies in them, or between them and other sources, that the photographs correctly record the scene outside the Pentagon on 9/11. We are then faced with the problem that England claims a position for his cab which supports the northern approach. How do we reconcile this claim with the physical evidence? There are three possibilities.
(1) Lloyd England is correct about the position of his cab.
We can reject this, as the photographic evidence shows it to be correct.
(2) Lloyd England is aware his cab was south of the bridge, but is lying as part of a cover-up.
We can also reject this, because the hypothetical cover-up is of the northern approach. If England is lying to conceal fabrication of evidence for a southern approach, it makes no sense for him then to imply a northern approach by falsifying the position of the cab.
(3) Lloyd England is mistaken as to the exact location of his cab.
This is now the only plausible alternative remaining. England remembered his cab, years afterwards, as being north of the bridge, so that the bridge was to his right. In fact, it was south of the bridge, so the bridge was to his left.
Now, let's just remember the central tenet of CIT's justification for the northern approach: that while people may forget minor details of events, the fundamental question of whether events took place to their left or to their right is never forgotten. Lloyd England's incorrect recollection, however, is a prima facie counter-example; the position of his cab relative to the bridge, in his recollection, is left-right inverted. So, which is more unlikely: that a massive conspiracy fabricated evidence of an airliner approach and impact in a way that escaped detection entirely, and an airliner overflew an exploding building while fooling over a hundred eyewitnesses that it crashed into the bottom of the building? Or that a small number of people confused left and right in a recollection recorded years after the event, for which we now have an existence theorem in the shape of Lloyd England?
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Looks fine to me.
Look, I pointed out back in post #18 that you'd mislabelled the TA numbers; it was so obviously the case, that I could tell you'd done it without even knowing what the TA's looked like. Everything that's transpired since then has confirmed that you've numbered TAs inconsistently. I know it's a bit ungracious of me to say this, but I've been right all along, and on the basis of a very simple sketch.
Now, you say you disagree with some replies. How about actually addressing the items you disagree with, rather than quietly ignoring them and moving on quickly to yet another photograph? When we've cleared up the supposed inconsistencies in the photographs you've already posted, then by all means move on to some more. At the moment, you seem to be preparing the ground for an argument from uncertainty, where you can claim that there were still some possible inconsistencies that we weren't able to resolve, so your hypothesis still has some residual merit. So far, I've yet to see a single specific anomaly that isn't trivially refuted simply by determining the correct line of sight.
Dave
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Retreats into corner.
See, Mobertermy, that's how it goes:
Post 509: D'rok errs
Posts 511 and 513: Two other members point out his error
Post 515: D'rok unconditionally accepts he was wrong, and does not try to salvage a wrong claim.
That's how open-minded and honest skeptics behave around here.
You, Mobertermy, on the other hand, have gone for days and hundreds of posts without such a gracious display of honesty. You have been wrong so many times, it is high time to pull back your initial wrong claim, and your presentation, and admit you were just plain wrong! It is what men of honour would do!
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Honest men are happy when others help them correct their errors, so they can become better and wiser men.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
High time, Mobertermy, to answer that one.
If you get the answer correct, most everything else will follow.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Just to make this easier, here is my list of replies to the inconsistencies claimed for each of the eight photos in the presentation.
Photo #1:
The cab is not between TA2 and TA3. The traffic arms labelled TA1, TA2 and TA3 correspond to the traffic arms labelled TA2, TA3 and TA4 on the overhead shot. The traffic arm labelled TA1 on the overhead shot is visible near the right hand edge of photo #1. The bridge is, in fact, almost entirely in shot, with a small part of it being out of shot to the left.
Photo #2:
The traffic arm just behind and to the right of the cab door is the traffic arm labelled TA3 on the overhead shot, not the one labelled TA2. We can see pole B, but the line of sight is at a fine angle to the direction of the road and we cannot be certain of the distance to pole B due to foreshortening. The sight line has been reconstructed, and the positions of B, C, D and TA3 are found to be consistent with the overhead shot.
Photo #3:
The traffic arms labelled TA2 and TA3 correspond to TA3 and TA4 on the overhead shot. As with photo #2, the bridge is seen obliquely in the background but the cab is clearly not on it. From the perceived direction of the road it appears that another road crossing it at right angles would lead into the crash area, but this is an artefact of foreshortening, which shifts apparent angles towards the perpendicular to the line of sight.
Streetview pictures:
The position of pole B and its identification as pole 112 is correct. It appears in all photos in the expected location once the correct line of sight has been identified.
Photo #4:
Pole B is in the expected position.
Photos #5 and #6:
Pole B is in the expected position. This is far to the right of the position that would be expected from what appears to be the perpendicular to the apparent angle of the road, but this is due to foreshortening shifting both apparent angles towards the perpendicular to the line of sight.
Photos #7 and #8:
For the same reason, pole B is out of shot to the right.
As far as I'm aware, this addresses every feature claimed as anomalous in the presentation. Anybody disagree with any of these?
Dave
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
Why begrudgingly? I think that if you can see there are some valid points made here, this should make you more willing to question the rest of this, yet you seem to have to cling to untenable positions like it is you they're attacking.
To do this "begrudgingly" is not the way of the skeptic.
I think you should realize that if part of your analysis is wrong, you need to look at the entirety with a new focus, and listen to what people here are telling you, instead of getting an attitude.
Mobertermy
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 548
Good Drew, I agree with the line of sight too in so far as it goes. The problem for you guys is DSC412 here:
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm
The white van shows you guys are wrong about where you all are trying to place the cab.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Please explain exactly what you mean here. Neither of the white vans appears to me to have any bearing on the position of the cab. And I'm sorry that this is starting to sound like a broken record, but have you constructed a line of sight for this picture?
Dave
Mobertermy
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 548
I agree with your logic (obviously we disagree on your conclusions though.)
You know what really pisses me off about CITers? They refuse to acknowledge Point #2. I have asked them repeatedly to address this logical inconsistency at the center of their claim that Lloyde is an agent. They refuse to address it.
One other thing that must be pointed out is that Lloyde's claim that he was on the Northern flightpath is also corroborated by witnesses. For instance Sgt. Lagasse said he saw the cab and the poles on the ground with his own two eyes North of Citgo (NoC). Many people claim he just deduced this based on where he thought the plane was...this is wrong he said he saw the poles on the ground when he got to the scene and that the scene was far north of the bridge. I'll get some links if people are interested.
One other thing. Lloyde didn't merely mistake which side of the bridge he was on(i.e. confuse left and right)...he said he was nowhere near the bridge. He made Ranke drive him down to the scene and he pointed to a location far north of the bridge near the turn off right by Arlington National.
Mobertermy
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 548
Dave, the line of sight is basically the same as other pictures we've done. Isn't it obvious what the line of sight is? (And its fine that you sound like a broken record, line of sight is important).
The tree is right by the south edge of the bridge. The van is partially concealed by the tree. For the van to be north of the tree the tree couldn't be partially concealing it like that from that angle.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
All that I would deduce from this is that witness recollections recorded years after the events are highly unreliable, which is hardly news. The only really rational way to address witness testimony is to look for corroboration, both between accounts and with physical evidence. If over a hundred witnesses agree that an event of a certain type took place, they're probably more or less right. If some of them disagree over the details, that doesn't invalidate the value of the parts they agree on. Which means, of course, that it will always be possible to cherry-pick bits of testimony that individually support any theory under the sun, and it takes careful critical appraisal of the whole to reach any reasonable conclusions.
Dave