Proof of Photomanipulation

Dave Rogers said:
[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!
Click to expand...

That's just preposterous. We can see the front of the van, and the back part of the van is obscured by the trees.

Draw the line of sight, every time, and look at it carefully, before you reach a conclusion. Again, this one is just plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
(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.
Click to expand...

Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...


What about
(2) Lloyde England is aware his cab was south of the bridge, but is lying to expose his part of a cover-up.

The whole 90min film about "Lloyde and his cab" would not have been made if Lloyde hadn't

  • Invited CIT into his home contrary to his wife's wishes - aware of the witnesses claims who contradict his own
  • Invited them to join him on a ride to see his Cab
  • Produced further photo evidence from his friend showing him south of the bridge
  • Joined them at Craig's friend house for a photo viewing session
  • Changed what he said earlier and claimed to not have been where the photos show him
  • Invited them to drive to the Pentagon and show them the exact location where he alleges to have been
My impression (also from Hill's call) is that Lloyde has great sympathy for what CIT is doing. Maybe he tries to be helpful by acting bizarre and drawing attention to the issue? Going as far as he can without admitting anything?


Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...


True. From my post #169 - Lloyde says he was at location (2):

99074d27f07c52b01.jpg
 
Mobertermy said:
That's just preposterous. We can see the front of the van, and the back part of the van is obscured by the trees.

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

Very clever.

Look at post 528. See the yellow lines. See how the upper yellow line passes from the point of view, through the edge of the tree that's obscuring part of the van. See how, if the van lies across this line, the front will be visible, and the back will be obscured by the trees. See how the yellow line goes right across the bridge before it reaches the barrier. See how, if the white van is in the right hand one of the three lanes, it must actually be north of the bridge.

I've already told you where to find the sight line. Are you too lazy to even look? I'd draw it myself, but I need to delete some images; but it's already in the thread, and it clearly shows that you're wrong.

Dave



ETA: Done some housekeeping. The red blob is the northern limit of where the white van could be, based on the sight line in yellow. Mobertermy, as you see, you're the one who's wrong, yet again.
 
Last edited:
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...
the van is moving, check out the series of photos and you will see traffic had not been blocked off yet in the southbound carriagewayof this triple carriageway.

thought id throw some British colloquialisms in there.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
What about
(2) Lloyde England is aware his cab was south of the bridge, but is lying to expose his part of a cover-up.
Click to expand...
Wait, do you mean Lloyde is trying to expose a cover-up?
Or do you mean conceal his part?

The whole 90min film about "Lloyde and his cab" would not have been made if Lloyde hadn't

  • Invited CIT into his home contrary to his wife's wishes - aware of the witnesses claims who contradict his own
Click to expand...

  • This is false. Lloyde has always insisted he wasn't at the bridge. Why would an agent whose job it is to sell the official flightpath contradict the official flight path. It makes no sense. None.
    [*]Invited them to join him on a ride to see his Cab
    Click to expand...
    Which most CITers use as evidence that the incident didn't occur (this argument takes the form of some variation of claiming its physcially impossible for pole to dameage cab without scratching hood. If this were truly so obviously physically impossible why not just destroy the cab?) Once again, you claim that the agent is sabotaging his own role as agent. It makes no sense.
    [*]Produced further photo evidence from his friend showing him south of the bridge[*]Joined them at Craig's friend house for a photo viewing session[*]
    Click to expand...
    This was the camera man at the bridge. Lloyde has a weird habit of referring to acquaintance as "friends."
    Changed what he said earlier and claimed to not have been where the photos show him[*]Invited them to drive to the Pentagon and show them the exact location where he alleges to have been
    Click to expand...
He never changed what he said. He said, and I quote, "he was up on the bridge." This implies that the cameraman and he were at different locations - it means the opposite of you claiming he was at the bridge. It implies he was not at the bridge. Lloyde's story was consistent. Not at bridge.

My impression (also from Hill's call) is that Lloyde has great sympathy for what CIT is doing.
Click to expand...
An agent with great sympathy for conspiracy theorists with a camera?

Maybe he tries to be helpful by acting bizarre and drawing attention to the issue? Going as far as he can without admitting anything?
Click to expand...
He's not acting bizarre at all. What does he have to admit?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Very clever.

Look at post 528. See the yellow lines. See how the upper yellow line passes from the point of view, through the edge of the tree that's obscuring part of the van. See how, if the van lies across this line, the front will be visible, and the back will be obscured by the trees. See how the yellow line goes right across the bridge before it reaches the barrier. See how, if the white van is in the right hand one of the three lanes, it must actually be north of the bridge.

I've already told you where to find the sight line. Are you too lazy to even look? I'd draw it myself, but I need to delete some images; but it's already in the thread, and it clearly shows that you're wrong.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_147644d2f228ab62ec.jpg[/qimg]

ETA: Done some housekeeping. The red blob is the northern limit of where the white van could be, based on the sight line in yellow. Mobertermy, as you see, you're the one who's wrong, yet again.
Click to expand...

That's just absolutely absurd. The van is at the southern edge of the bridge. TA3 is right behind it. For the van to be any further north than that it the front part of the van would be concealed and the back part would line up with the green sign in the center of the bridge.
 
Ah, so Llyode is a whistle blower. I guess the reason he's still alive is that he's doing such a horrible job, huh?
 
Or, just a wild guess here:
Didn't have any contact other than to take his witness statement?
 
A tale of two different overhead signs.

Childlike Empress said:
What about
(2) Lloyde England is aware his cab was south of the bridge, but is lying to expose his part of a cover-up.

The whole 90min film about "Lloyde and his cab" would not have been made if Lloyde hadn't

  • Invited CIT into his home contrary to his wife's wishes - aware of the witnesses claims who contradict his own
  • Invited them to join him on a ride to see his Cab
  • Produced further photo evidence from his friend showing him south of the bridge
  • Joined them at Craig's friend house for a photo viewing session
  • Changed what he said earlier and claimed to not have been where the photos show him
  • Invited them to drive to the Pentagon and show them the exact location where he alleges to have been
My impression (also from Hill's call) is that Lloyde has great sympathy for what CIT is doing. Maybe he tries to be helpful by acting bizarre and drawing attention to the issue? Going as far as he can without admitting anything?





True. From my post #169 - Lloyde says he was at location (2):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074d27f07c52b01.jpg
Click to expand...

I think LLoyde just got turned around in his head. The two overhead signs confused him. He thought he had passed the north overhead sign but instead he hadn't even reached the south overhead sign yet. The bridge between them only added to the confusion. This is the same confusion that threw off Laggase when he swore the plane heading toward the red do not enter overhead sign while clipping the light poles. he was simply disoriented, (And no disorientated is not a word) [/pet peeve]
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
So is he a goverment agent, did they pay him to sell the official flight path, or did they threaten him?
Click to expand...


You are the only one saying he is an agent. Neighter CIT nor I do.

I delivered you a logical explanation. If you want to discuss this further, you'll have to first regain credibility by retracting your now excessively overdebunked presentation.
 
Mobertermy said:
That's just absolutely absurd. The van is at the southern edge of the bridge. TA3 is right behind it.
Click to expand...

No. As usual, you've got the wrong traffic arm. That's TA4.

Mobertermy said:
For the van to be any further north than that it the front part of the van would be concealed and the back part would line up with the green sign in the center of the bridge.
Click to expand...

Your grasp of geometry is nonexistent. Look at the sight line I posted. If the van were at the southern edge of the bridge, it would be in line with the base of the overhead sign. It's nowhere near that.

And, yes, just remember how absolutely certain you've been about everything you've been proven to be wrong about so far, including the direction of the traffic arm.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom