Proof of Photomanipulation

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?
Click to expand...

My impression is that Lloyd was an confused old man, nothing more.b We know exactly where he was because he is in some of the pictures (oand at least one other witness saw him there as it happened (Penny Englas IIRC)
so there is no doubt where he was.




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

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074d27f07c52b01.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

which is exactly where CIT lie and tell him ALL the other witnesses say the plane crossed. Since he knew much better that he was right under the plane than where exactly he was on the road he simply says he was where he now thinks he must have been. He did not take the photos so has nothing invested in them so photos are "wrong"
Note we never do get to see the photos his friend took......I wonder why?

As I've said before.....a mean trick to play on an old man.
 
Mobertermy said:
CIT accused him of being an accomplice. That leaves three options.

1) He is an agent whose job it was to sell the official flightpath
2) He is a regular citizen cab driver and they paid him some to say he was on the bridge (to sell the official flightpath).
3) They coerced him. In other words told him that if he didn't say he was on the official flight path there would be negative repurcussions.

So which one do you choose Childish Empress?
Click to expand...

what about
4) they fooled him into thinking he must have been elsewhere
and
5) he simply doesn't remember clearly and says what he think they want him to say.
6) and for fun, thats not Lloyd at all
 
Mobertermy said:
Yes, I know what you guys think, and your opinion is completely logical (even though I disagree with it). It's the CITers that can't provide a logical explanation of their position.
Click to expand...


I am not sure you are really the right person to be challanging other peoples logic......

CIT are liars and cheats but them being wrong in NO WAY implies that you are right.
 
"Why do you keep forgetting the possibility he was mistaken? "

especially as we have shown Mobertermy to mistaken many times already and he's not even an old man trying to recall unimportant details of an event of seven years before.
 
Mobertermy said:
So which one do you choose Childish Empress?
Click to expand...
Mobertermy said:
I don't. I was asking a CITer to defend her position. Read the entire post for context.
Click to expand...


I'm not "a CITer". I'm as independent as possible. I approached this thread open-minded. Would have been an interesting explanation. Turned out you are completely wrong and deeply dishonest. Bye.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Note we never do get to see the photos his friend took......I wonder why?
Click to expand...


Because you didn't pay attention. The photo (one) he produced is in the video.

Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm


Childlike Empress said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
I'm not "a CITer". I'm as independent as possible. I approached this thread open-minded. Would have been an interesting explanation. Turned out you are completely wrong and deeply dishonest. Bye.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as you saying you won't even attempt to defend your indefensible position. At least my beliefs about Lloyde England are at a bare minimum logically consistent.
Bye.
 
Mobertermy said:
I'll take that as you saying you won't even attempt to defend your indefensible position. At least my beliefs about Lloyde England are at a bare minimum logically consistent.
Bye.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but they are not as you omit at least three other possibilities.
 
twinstead said:
wow
Click to expand...

serious.jpg
 
sheeplesnshills said:
where, I'm not wading again through 90 minutes of heavily edited CIT excreta to get to one picture.......
Click to expand...


Should be between them driving to see the cab and showing him the Ingersoll photos. Maybe half way in. It is consistent with the other photos. Shows the cab and the pole on the road south of the bridge.

edit: no, sorry, it's after they show him the photos at ~76 min.
 
Last edited:
True. From my post #169 - Lloyde says he was at location (2):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074d27f07c52b01.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

What about the other witnesses like Penny Elgas who have it flying just in front of her? She can't have been as far down the ramp as CIT want as she turned off on the now removed NE loop of the cloverleaf. And off course she watched it hit so the supposed overflight is impossible too.

Of course CIT didn't tell Lloyd about Penny, did they.........
 
The photos provided were from a cameraman that Lloyde said was "up on the bridge." Why was there a cameraman just hanging out at the bridge on 9/11? Let me get this straight - Lloyde is suspicious, but a cameraman just hanging out on the official flight path is not?
 
Mobertermy said:
You think my presentation is crap. Your position regarding Lloyde is logically inconsistent. If it were defensible you would have done so. There is nothing to talk about.
Click to expand...


What she "thinks" is irrelevant to the accuracy of your presentation. You are simply wrong both in your initial premise and in your analysis. Both errors have been repeatedly pointed out to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom