Proof of Photomanipulation

Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doesn't CIT preach that, or am I getting my different sects of the truther cult mixed up?
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

The problem is that the foreshortening explanation works very well when objects are receding into the distance. It doesn't work when the objects are all in the same plane. As you can see the rte 27 does recede into the distance, but we also have objects along the road by which we can judge where objects are in relation to each other.
 
Mobertermy said:
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.)
Click to expand...

No. Because there would be nothing to cover-up. The vast majority of evidence would point that way instead of south like it does.

Are you say they planted all the poles, radar data, physical damage, data recorders and so on to cover-up what? A different actual flight line. This makes sense to you?


:boggled:
 
DGM said:
No. Because there would be nothing to cover-up. The vast majority of evidence would point that way instead of south like it does.

Are you say they planted all the poles, radar data, physical damage, data recorders and so on to cover-up what? A different actual flight line. This makes sense to you?


:boggled:
Click to expand...

My hunch is: They planted evidence for SoC, but whoever flew the plane screwed up and flew NoC, so the evidence was planted in the wrong spot, and they had to cover that up.

But why plant any evidence in addition to the huge 767 that crashed into the Pentagon? Where they worried that bit might have gone unnoticed??? :confused:
 
Mobertermy said:
The problem is that the foreshortening explanation works very well when objects are receding into the distance. It doesn't work when the objects are all in the same plane. As you can see the rte 27 does recede into the distance, but we also have objects along the road by which we can judge where objects are in relation to each other.
Click to expand...

No!
You still don't get it! Darned! How can someone be so :rule10 ???
 
Oystein said:
My hunch is: They planted evidence for SoC, but whoever flew the plane screwed up and flew NoC, so the evidence was planted in the wrong spot, and they had to cover that up.

But why plant any evidence in addition to the huge 767 that crashed into the Pentagon? Where they worried that bit might have gone unnoticed??? :confused:
Click to expand...

I have to agree. The notion of somebody planting any fake evidence is idiotic.
 
Oystein said:
My hunch is: They planted evidence for SoC, but whoever flew the plane screwed up and flew NoC, so the evidence was planted in the wrong spot, and they had to cover that up.

But why plant any evidence in addition to the huge 767 that crashed into the Pentagon? Where they worried that bit might have gone unnoticed??? :confused:
Click to expand...
I've heard that explanation used before but, I have never been able to keep a straight face long enough to respond.


:rolleyes:
 
Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...


I offer my unreserved apologies for attributing that belief to you. It was a mistake on my part. I'd be interested to know, if you feel like setting it out in full, what you think was or wasn't flying where, and what hit what.

Mobertermy said:
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.)
Click to expand...

I can see no rational reason, if flight AA77 really flew north of the Citgo and the physical evidence was consistent with this, for anyone trying to give the impression that it flew south of the Citgo. If it flew north of the Citgo and the physical evidence showed it flying south of the Citgo, then a cover-up makes some sense, because the physical evidence would, of necessity, be faked.

Dave
 
DGM said:
No. Because there would be nothing to cover-up. The vast majority of evidence would point that way instead of south like it does.
Click to expand...

All the damage in the Pentagon looks like a South of Citgo flight path. So if the plane flew from any other flightpath there would be something to cover up.
 
Mobertermy said:
All the damage in the Pentagon looks like a South of Citgo flight path. So if the plane flew from any other flightpath there would be something to cover up.
Click to expand...

What do you think happened in fact?

  1. Was there a plane?
  2. Did it fly NoC, or SoC?
  3. Did it crash into the Pentagon?
  4. Did it cause the damage to the Pentagon?
 
Mobertermy said:
The problem is that the foreshortening explanation works very well when objects are receding into the distance. It doesn't work when the objects are all in the same plane. As you can see the rte 27 does recede into the distance, but we also have objects along the road by which we can judge where objects are in relation to each other.
Click to expand...

No, we don't. It isn't possible to determine the distance from the camera to a specific object in sufficient precision to determine which lane of the highway it's in, for example. So, when you say it doesn't work when objects are all in the same plane, you're assuming your conclusion; we can't tell whether objects are in the same plane.

The other point it might be worth making is that, even if the van were closer to the tree than we're all placing it, it still wouldn't invalidate the location of the cab. It's very obviously not in the same place as the cab, which is hidden behind the vertical supports of the overhead sign in this picture.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
[/B]

I offer my unreserved apologies for attributing that belief to you. It was a mistake on my part. I'd be interested to know, if you feel like setting it out in full, what you think was or wasn't flying where, and what hit what.
Click to expand...
Well, my personal opinion is that the operation at the Pentagon was the same as the operation at the WTC - planes would be used as the cover of explosives. Somewhere in West Virginia AA77 was switched out for the 757 that would hit the Pentagon. They had a preplanned flightpath that would - this it the official South of Citgo flightpath. There was some kind of f-up in the execution and the plane flew off course North of the Citgo. This caused a problem for them accounting for the south-oriented explosive damage. On the way in the plane hit lightpoles on the North path and one of these lightpoles hit a taxi cab. They had to make it seem that this event occured on the official South of Citgo path so they made it appear this occured SoC.

Also, I don't consider this strong evidence. Although it does also account for why they never released any video of the incident.
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, we don't. It isn't possible to determine the distance from the camera to a specific object in sufficient precision to determine which lane of the highway it's in, for example. So, when you say it doesn't work when objects are all in the same plane, you're assuming your conclusion; we can't tell whether objects are in the same plane.

The other point it might be worth making is that, even if the van were closer to the tree than we're all placing it, it still wouldn't invalidate the location of the cab. It's very obviously not in the same place as the cab, which is hidden behind the vertical supports of the overhead sign in this picture.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, let's say there was a one lane highway running perfectly parrallel to the camera...and we had objects we knew the distance of along that road...we'd be able to say with precision the location of cars right?
 
Oystein said:
What do you think happened in fact?

  1. Was there a plane?
  2. Did it fly NoC, or SoC?
  3. Did it crash into the Pentagon?
  4. Did it cause the damage to the Pentagon?
Click to expand...
Yes, NoC, almost definitely, yes (but so did explosives)

Just my opinion. There is not enough evidence to say with certainty what exactly happened.

There were also two planes, but that's another powerpoint.
 
Mobertermy said:
Yes, NoC, almost definitely, yes (but so did explosives)

Just my opinion. There is not enough evidence to say with certainty what exactly happened.

There were also two planes, but that's another powerpoint.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

I asked 4 numbered questions. You are so vague that I can't see which you answered and which you didn't answer.

So may I ask again:

  1. Was there a plane?
  2. Did it fly NoC, or SoC?
  3. Did it crash into the Pentagon?
  4. Did it cause the damage to the Pentagon?
Please let your answers be more specific to the questions. Thanks.
 
Mobertermy said:
Dave, let's say there was a one lane highway running perfectly parrallel to the camera...and we had objects we knew the distance of along that road...we'd be able to say with precision the location of cars right?
Click to expand...
This doesn't make much sense to me. The camera lens would be a point in space, not a line, correct? If true, how could it run parallel to anything? I don't get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom