Proof of Photomanipulation

Mobertermy:

Does it ever concern you that no two CIT witnesses describe the same path (they're all slightly different and most are not in agreement)?
 
Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

[Deep breath. Calm. Think of kittens.]

This is exactly the same fallacy you have been committing over and over again in this thread. The angle of sight is much finer to the road than it appears, because of foreshortening. The white van may be as much as a whole carriageway's width across the road from the tree. Draw the line of sight, and you'll see that the van can be quite a long way north of the tree and still be obscured by it.

In fact, look at the incorrect line A W Smith drew in post 528, which goes from the point of view, through the edge of the tree by the bridge. If the white van is in the right hand lane - which it looks like it might be - it could be so far to the north that it's not even on the bridge yet!

Draw the line of sight, every time, and look at it carefully, before you reach a conclusion. Again, this one is just plain wrong.

Dave

ETA: Look just to the right of the van. That's your TA4!
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
We will get to the allegedly mislabeling after we deal with the white van. Reason being is I think the white van shows you guys are wrong.
Click to expand...



Yes, but you also thought the traffic arms proved them wrong, so what does that tell you?


Oh, and remember when I said you should ask yourself if you wanted to be that guy?


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.
Click to expand...


Take a wild guess who you remind us of. Please, don't be that guy.
 
Dave Rogers said:
OK, Horatius, what do you damned Yankees call it?

Dave


PS: Yes, I know you are. :p
Click to expand...



Well, see, that's the problem. I have no clue what a "carriageway" is. I suppose I'll just assume it's the guardrails so I can make fun of you for it.
 
Horatius said:
Well, see, that's the problem. I have no clue what a "carriageway" is. I suppose I'll just assume it's the guardrails so I can make fun of you for it.
Click to expand...

Well, then, if we're ever doing photo-interpretation of the Princess Diana conspiracy theory, I can dismiss everything you say because you don't even know what a carriageway is!

Dave

But trying to be a little more productive here: a carriageway is the way along which carriages run, i.e. the area of the road surface between longitudinal barriers. Most roads over here are single carriageway, i.e. traffic flows both ways on a single strip of road, or dual carriageways, two separate pieces of roadway separated by a central barrier. The highway past the Pentagon appears to have three carriageways, with three, two and three lanes respectively, unless there's a central barrier I'm not seeing. How does that work, exactly?
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
I'll suggest that he's confused enough as it is without you speaking British to him.


:confused:
Click to expand...

Dave Rogers said:
OK, Horatius, what do you damned Yankees call it?

Dave


PS: Yes, I know you are. :p
Click to expand...

See? That's the problem. You need to speak English. Instead of what they speak over in... uhh... er.... yeah... that country... :boxedin:

;):D:p
 
Looking at all images in http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm with an eye to the time stamps, we know the photrapher was walking away from the Navy Annex and uphill over the parking lots south of Columbia Pike.

These parking lots have black lampposts, with T-shaped tops, of which we see a number in DSC_0412.

My best quick estimate for the line of sight is this:



The black lines are roughly the edges of the photo
The red line goes throu the overhead sign support
The yellow star is the resulting location of the cab on the lane divider
 
Dave Rogers said:
But trying to be a little more productive here: a carriageway is the way along which carriages run, i.e. the area of the road surface between longitudinal barriers. Most roads over here are single carriageway, i.e. traffic flows both ways on a single strip of road, or dual carriageways, two separate pieces of roadway separated by a central barrier. The highway past the Pentagon appears to have three carriageways, with three, two and two lanes respectively, unless there's a central barrier I'm not seeing. How does that work, exactly?
Click to expand...



So it can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean! :mad:

I'm not sure how that center lane section works there, but it looks like something we have in a few places here, where the center lane changes its direction of traffic flow based on the time of day. I'm guessing the traffic arms limit the access from each side as appropriate. It's a cheap way of providing extra rush hour capacity on roads that only need it in one direction at a time. You save money at the cost of more confusion.
 
Horatius said:
So it can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean! :mad:
Click to expand...

If you can swerve from one side to the other without hitting anything stationary, it's a carriageway. A lane is a section of road wide enough for a single stream of traffic, marked off by lines on the road.

Two nations separated by a common language, indeed.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

we also need to note that CIT seriously distort the evidence much of the witnesses they acknowledge exist and simply deny the existence of MANY others or call them shills is they support a SOC flightpath.

CIT are right to say Mobertermy is wrong (as we have shown) but that does not make them right either!
 
Here is a crop of "Photo #1 (with labels)"



In the red circle, we see a shadow on the pavement.
I submit it is cast by the overhead sign.
The sun, shining from south-east on that morning, was close to being aligned with that sign, so we can expect the shadow to be pretty close to it on the ground.

And look what the shadow is next to? The traffic arm labelled "TA1" - but the arm next to the overhead is TA2!
So yet another indication that Mobertermy mislabelled the TAs!
 
Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

What white van? I see lots of white vans in the pics. Please detail exactly which picture you are referring to, which white van and what exactly you think is wrong about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom