Proof of Photomanipulation

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...

I pick "None of the above" Alex.
Because they are all nonsense.

What do I win? Oh, an all-expenses paid trip to Fantasy Island?
How exciting!
 
Mobertermy:
You really need to justify your positioning of the "traffic arms". I believe your misidentification is causing most of your confusion.
 
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...

The highlighted part is required philosophy in trutherdom.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Remember there were no poles down where Lloyd mistakenly thinks he was therefore he wasn't there. Lloyd just makes a mistake, thats all. no mystery.
Click to expand...

This crap is giving me a brainache, it's so stupid. Reminds me of the Barry Jennings testimony only even less meaningful.

Mobertermy, please, I beg you, stop, before I start thinking you actually believe in this twaddle. Redeem yourself, show that you have a functioning brain.
 
Mobertermy said:
So as far as the white van goes...we can tell from the positioning of the front tires its relation to the tree. The far tire is visible and the near tire is hidden by the tree. If we moved furhter left we would be looking at the cab more head on, and if we moved futher right it would become more obscured by the tree. Right?
Click to expand...

No. You can't tell the location of the van from how much it's obscured by the tree.

whitevanlocation.jpg


As others have said it could be anywhere along that sightline, the only difference between locations would be scale and at that range the differences would be small. Most likely location is the most northerly position i.e the one furthest from the camera.

Moving the camera to the right would show more of the van as you'd be looking more along the line of the road and increasing the visual separation between the tree and the van.
 
Reactor drone said:
No. You can't tell the location of the van from how much it's obscured by the tree.

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/whitevanlocation.jpg[/qimg]

As others have said it could be anywhere along that sightline, the only difference between locations would be scale and at that range the differences would be small. Most likely location is the most northerly position i.e the one furthest from the camera.
Moving the camera to the right would show more of the van as you'd be looking more along the line of the road and increasing the visual separation between the tree and the van.
Click to expand...


And this is supported by, as was pointed out earlier, the brightness of the barrier near the van; the sun reflects off of the van, then off of the barrier. This effect also matches the effect that we see with the "second" white van, which is a bit easier to tell is in the furthest lane.
 
BTW, what reason again would this particular image be "photomanipulated"?
 
Mobertermy said:
Yes, but the problem is that the more north the van is moved from this line of sight the more of it that gets obscured by the tree right?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it doesn't need to be moved off the line of sight to move north. The line of sight is north-east, and the highway north-north-east. If you move the van along the line of sight, it moves further along the highway than it does across it. So, if it's in the eastern lane, it must be a long way north of the tree, which is off the highway to the west.

And, yet again, this is obvious from looking at the line of sight, which you seem to be obstinately refusing to do.

Dave
 
twinstead said:
BTW, what reason again would this particular image be "photomanipulated"?
Click to expand...

Yes, "Evilness" - and utter incompetency: because if it really was manipulated by anybody skilled in the art, we wouldn't be able to pick any apparent or real flaw from some crappy resolution shot posted on the web.

So, was this the 5 minute argument, or the full half-hour?
 
twinstead said:
BTW, what reason again would this particular image be "photomanipulated"?
Click to expand...

The argument all along has been that the real approach of AA77 was north of the Citgo and therefore crossed the highway north of the bridge, knocking down a different set of light poles before pulling up to overfly the Pentagon. Since all the photographs would show this very clearly, whereas in fact all photographs taken on that day show the light poles knocked down to have been on the southern approach that agrees entirely with the physical evidence from the crash site, Mobertermy is attempting to prove that all these photographs have been manipulated in order to move the stopped vehicles and associated debris to points very much further south than the locations they actually occupied. He originally felt that he had demonstrated that every picture showed anomalies in positions of various objects including light poles and traffic arms. Since every supposed anomaly has so far been explained, he is now attempting to find a single demonstrable anomaly in a single photograph in order to advance a falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus line of argument, although he has yet to acknowledge our identification of errors in his previous work.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
The argument all along has been that the real approach of AA77 was north of the Citgo and therefore crossed the highway north of the bridge, knocking down a different set of light poles before pulling up to overfly the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
Right except I never said the plane flew over the Pentagon. I don't believe flew over the Pentagon. There is no evidence the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Since all the photographs would show this very clearly, whereas in fact all photographs taken on that day show the light poles knocked down to have been on the southern approach that agrees entirely with the physical evidence from the crash site,
Click to expand...
Okay, just a logic question: If they flew the plane on the North of Citgo path would they have to cover that fact up?
(I'm not saying you have to agree this occured, just the logic that if it occured they would have to cover it up.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom