Proof of Photomanipulation

In order to not derail this thread, a thread should probably be started to let Mobertermy offer up his theory about what hit the Pentagon, where it came from, and how many of them there were.
 
Oystein said:
*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.
Click to expand...


I answered your questions - seperated by commas.
 
Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, did the plane actually hit the Pentagon? Just asking.

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...

As a hypothetical, that's about as realistic as the Eiffel Tower appearing in the background of a shot of the Pentagon. Yes, if that were the scenario, we'd be able to tell with reasonable precision the position of the cars. The differences between that scenario and the ones we're discussing here are: the highway has three lanes on the nearer whatever-it-is-that-Americans-call-a-carriageway, not one, meaning that there's considerable uncertainty - probably about eighteen feet, from hard against the nearside to hard against the far side - in where the car is laterally across the road; and the road is angled at about seventy degrees to transverse, meaning that the 18 foot uncertainty in lateral position gives us an (18 tan 70) uncertainty, about fifty feet.

And, even with that uncertainty, we can tell perfectly clearly that the van isn't in the same place as the cab, so I'm wondering what your point was about this photograph in the first place.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
In your opinion, did the plane actually hit the Pentagon? Just asking.
Click to expand...
Yes, a plane probably hit the Pentagon. But any more questions about this should have its own thread.


As a hypothetical, that's about as realistic as the Eiffel Tower appearing in the background of a shot of the Pentagon. Yes, if that were the scenario, we'd be able to tell with reasonable precision the position of the cars. The differences between that scenario and the ones we're discussing here are: the highway has three lanes on the nearer whatever-it-is-that-Americans-call-a-carriageway, not one, meaning that there's considerable uncertainty - probably about eighteen feet, from hard against the nearside to hard against the far side - in where the car is laterally across the road; and the road is angled at about seventy degrees to transverse, meaning that the 18 foot uncertainty in lateral position gives us an (18 tan 70) uncertainty, about fifty feet.
Click to expand...
So if I'm following you correctly you are saying there is 50 ft. uncertainty where the van would be? With one possibilty being the van is nearly in front of the tree and the other possibity being the van is 50 ft. to north of there.

And, even with that uncertainty, we can tell perfectly clearly that the van isn't in the same place as the cab, so I'm wondering what your point was about this photograph in the first place.
Click to expand...


My point is that I think the van is where you guys claim the cab is in your line of sight drawings.
 
Dumb All Over said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yeah, Iwasn't quite sure how to phrase what it. I meant if you are taking a picture of the road so it runs from left to right. The opposite would be standing on the road and taking picture straight down it.
 
Mobertermy said:
Yes. There were also two planes, but that's another powerpoint.
Click to expand...

Got a quick preview for us? What plane was that? Which route did it fly? Where did it go?

Mobertermy said:
, NoC,
Click to expand...

And your evidence for that is...?
Did you consider all the evidence for SoC, and why did you discard it?

Mobertermy said:
almost definitely,
Click to expand...

Almost definitely? Got any other idea why so many witnesses saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, why they found a plane in the Pentagon, and how they found the remains of passengers in the Pentagon who were known to have left Dulles on a plane not much earlier?

Mobertermy said:
yes (but so did explosives)
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for explosives?

Mobertermy said:
Just my opinion. There is not enough evidence to say with certainty what exactly happened.
Click to expand...

Hundreds of witnesses, radar, a plane, dead bodies, the FDR, two surveillance cams....
Can you name a single plane crash in the history of air travel for which we have more evidence - except maybe for UA175?
 
Oystein said:
Here is a crop of "Photo #1 (with labels)"

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/368864d2f17dc12fa0.jpg[/qimg]

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!
Click to expand...

Mobertermy, you never replied to this.
 
Oystein said:
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:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/368864d2f111495a5d.jpg[/qimg]

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
Click to expand...

Mobertermy, you never replied to this.

Do you agree that I got the camera position and line of sight for DSC_0412 about right?
 
Mobertermy said:
So if I'm following you correctly you are saying there is 50 ft. uncertainty where the van would be? With one possibilty being the van is nearly in front of the tree and the other possibity being the van is 50 ft. to north of there.
Click to expand...

No. There is about 50ft uncertainty with one extreme being that the back of the van is directly behind the tree and very close to it with the front half still showing, and the other extreme being that the back of the van is directly behind the tree and about 50 feet away from it along the line of sight with the front half still showing.

Here's a sketch.



The van could be at position A or position B or anywhere in between.

Mobertermy said:
My point is that I think the van is where you guys claim the cab is in your line of sight drawings.
Click to expand...

Well then, as I said a few posts ago, the cab is obscured by the uprights of the overhead sign, and therefore is well to the right of the van in the shot. Again, look back over some sight lines; I think Oystein's last one shows it clearly.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
So if I'm following you correctly you are saying there is 50 ft. uncertainty where the van would be? With one possibilty being the van is nearly in front of the tree and the other possibity being the van is 50 ft. to north of there.

My point is that I think the van is where you guys claim the cab is in your line of sight drawings.
Click to expand...

The Ambulance/van is north of the tree

Approximately here

approximateambulancelocation.jpg
 
Dave Rogers said:
No. There is about 50ft uncertainty with one extreme being that the back of the van is directly behind the tree and very close to it with the front half still showing, and the other extreme being that the back of the van is directly behind the tree and about 50 feet away from it along the line of sight with the front half still showing.
Click to expand...
Okay, so Drone Reactor said the white van could be right in front of TA4 which is 100 ft away...so is that incorrect.

Here's a sketch.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_147644d306b6ac4df5.jpg[/qimg]

The van could be at position A or position B or anywhere in between.
Click to expand...
Okay, I follow. What software did you use to make that sketch?


Well then, as I said a few posts ago, the cab is obscured by the uprights of the overhead sign, and therefore is well to the right of the van in the shot. Again, look back over some sight lines; I think Oystein's last one shows it clearly.

Dave
Click to expand...
Of course the cab is to the right of the van. That's my point. In Drewid's diagrams he had the cab where the van would be if it was nearest the tree. I see though that depending on l.o.s. the van could be further back.

If I could just throw something else out there...why can't we see Columbia pike at all? I know its lower but it runs perpendicular to rte 27...shouldn't we be able to see it?
 
A W Smith said:
The Ambulance/van is north of the tree

Approximately here

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/approximateambulancelocation.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Well, not if Dave's 50 ft. number is correct. I would also need an explanation why it isn't behind the green sign in the middle of the bridge?

I also don't buy the line of sight you have. The pole near the box would line up with the over head sign according to that l.o.s which isn't the case or?
 
Last edited:
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.


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...


Why would they? The damage matches that expected and would be similar whichever angle the plane came from. CIT require the flyover because if the plane had hit it would damage the building in a certain way. Since the only damage to the building matches exactly that expected form a SOC impact that leave them compelled to insist on a flyover.
If there was no flyover (and as you said there is ZERO evidence for one), the Plane absolutely must have flown SOC.
 
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...


It was a 757.......
 
Oh one other thing I just realized is that the green sign on the bridge is not in the middle of the bridge, its in the south lane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom