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...


Cit is full of post-digested buffet food.
 
Mobertermy said:
Do you have any witnesses to more than one plane?
Click to expand...

Numerous...another thread though.[/QUOTE]

There were two planes. A Military C130 was diverted minutes after the impact to see what they could see. This caused another panic on the ground but the plane was much higher (video exists of this).
 
Mobertermy said:
Okay, so Drone Reactor said the white van could be right in front of TA4 which is 100 ft away...so is that incorrect.
Click to expand...

No. My numbers were just rough estimates, that could be a fair bit out. I was just trying to illustrate to you the fact that the van could be anywhere within a large variation of positions.

Mobertermy said:
Okay, I follow. What software did you use to make that sketch?
Click to expand...

Again, just an illustrative example sketched up in PowerPoint. It's not intended to be a scaled drawing.

Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

The line of sight doesn't appear to be the same. In the white van shot I think it's at a finer angle to the road. That means that the angle between the cab and the tree is opened up, and we can see a clear gap between them through to the front of the van, but the angle between the cab and the overhead sign uprights is closed down, so that the uprights obscure the cab.

Mobertermy said:
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?
Click to expand...

The part of Columbia Pike on the near side of RTE27 is hidden by the trees on the left of DSC_0412; you can just make out something that appears to be the bridge wall between the trees. Now, remember the effect foreshortening has on angles; it distorts them towards the direction perpendicular to the line of sight. The part of Columbia Pike to the far side of RTE27 is mostly out of shot to the right, and the tiny bit that would be in shot is below the bridge and the embankment leading up to it. So, no, we wouldn't expect to see any of it.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
No, he drew the van right in front of it. It's on the preceding page.
Click to expand...
Very small changes make big differences when drawing these line (especially considering how far away the camera was). His drawing is "close enough". You do agree the van could not be blocking the view of TA3?
 
Mobertermy said:
Well, not if Dave's 50 ft. number is correct.
Click to expand...

It isn't, it's just a rough estimate.

Mobertermy said:
I would also need an explanation why it isn't behind the green sign in the middle of the bridge?
Click to expand...

Can you explain what this is? I can't see a green sign anywhere near the bridge in DSC_0412.

Mobertermy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Looks significantly to the right of the overhead sign to me.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Can you explain what this is? I can't see a green sign anywhere near the bridge in DSC_0412.
Click to expand...

I assume he means the sign on the bridge on the Columbia pike. They are seen clearly here.

ing3.jpg
 
DGM said:
I assume he means the sign on the bridge on the Columbia pike. They are seen clearly here.
Click to expand...

Ah, got you. Yes, I can see it through the gap in the trees.

Mobertermy, the reason the van isn't behind the green sign is exactly the same reason as ... well, absolutely everything else. We're looking at the bridge at an angle. If we were looking from a direction perpendicular to the bridge, then the van would be right behind the green sign. Because we're looking round at an acute angle to it, the van isn't behind the green sign. It's simple parallax.

Take a look at the sketch I showed in post #433, and imagine the green sign where the second from left guard rail post is. In the left hand sketch, the rectangle is right behind it (the rectangle's at the wrong angle, because it was drawn to represent the cab, not the van, but the principle is the same). Now look how far to the left of the rectangle it is in the right hand sketch. That's all there is to why the van doesn't line up with the sign.

Dave
 
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...

1. Yes there was no plane this does not mean a plane was not present.

2. Yes it flew noc and soc

3. Of course it clearly crashed. Are you blind?

4. What damage are we talking about here? Be logical and precise with cites.


:duck:
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

delete
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
Numerous...another thread though.
Click to expand...

There were two planes. A Military C130 was diverted minutes after the impact to see what they could see. This caused another panic on the ground but the plane was much higher (video exists of this).[/QUOTE]

Start another thread if you want to discuss it. I'll give you a hint though...there were actually three planes if you are including the C-130 that arrived several minutes later.
 
DGM said:
Very small changes make big differences when drawing these line (especially considering how far away the camera was). His drawing is "close enough". You do agree the van could not be blocking the view of TA3?
Click to expand...

No.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Ah, got you. Yes, I can see it through the gap in the trees.

Mobertermy, the reason the van isn't behind the green sign is exactly the same reason as ... well, absolutely everything else. We're looking at the bridge at an angle. If we were looking from a direction perpendicular to the bridge, then the van would be right behind the green sign. Because we're looking round at an acute angle to it, the van isn't behind the green sign. It's simple parallax.
Click to expand...
If we were looking straight down the road the van would be to the right of sign.
If we were looking and the road was perpendicular to us and the van was right in front of TA4 the van would be to left of sign.
We are dealing with a situation where the road is diagonal (as opposed to perpendicular or parallel) which is why I only buy your foreshortening explanations to a point.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
There were two planes. A Military C130 was diverted minutes after the impact to see what they could see. This caused another panic on the ground but the plane was much higher (video exists of this)

Start another thread if you want to discuss it. I'll give you a hint though...there were actually three planes if you are including the C-130 that arrived several minutes later.
Click to expand...

Well, just a quick comment, there was only ONE plane that matters: the plane that hit the Pentagon. That there would be one or more other planes in the vicinity after the strike would be perfectly understandable.
 
Mobertermy said:
If we were looking straight down the road the van would be to the right of sign.
Click to expand...

Yes, obv. The sign is on the left hand edge of the road.

Mobertermy said:
If we were looking and the road was perpendicular to us and the van was right in front of TA4 the van would be to left of sign.
Click to expand...

Yes, also obv. As we shift our viewpoint from along to across the road, parallax moves the van from the right to the left side of the sign.

Our viewpoint is a lot closer to looking straight down the road than looking perpendicular to the road. As a result, the van is to the right of the sign.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom