Proof of Photomanipulation

sheeplesnshills 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).
Click to expand...

There was a third plane which showed up later, and I think it's the one that caused the panic on the ground that you refer to. It was one of those electronic command center planes that was circling the DC area way up high.

The C130 flew by immediately after AA77 crashed, so wouldn't have been the one to cause any bystander reaction (the bystanders hadn't arrived yet).
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, obv. The sign is on the left hand edge of the road.



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
Click to expand...

When looking at the guardrail I don't get the impression that our viewpoint is alot closer to looking straightdown.
 
Mobertermy said:
When looking at the guardrail I don't get the impression that our viewpoint is alot closer to looking straightdown.
Click to expand...

Can you hear my head thudding on the table from where you are?

I've been trying to explain that all along. Foreshortening shifts apparent angles towards the perpendicular. Post #432 explains it. When looking at the guardrail, you're being misled by foreshortening that the viewpoint is about 20 degrees of perpendicular, when it's actually closer to 70 degrees. As I've said several times - I've lost count - you can't tell what angle the road is at by simply eyeballing it and taking the angle it looks like. The foreshortening changes the appearance so that the angles look wrong.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Can you hear my head thudding on the table from where you are?

I've been trying to explain that all along. Foreshortening shifts apparent angles towards the perpendicular. Post #432 explains it. When looking at the guardrail, you're being misled by foreshortening that the viewpoint is about 20 degrees of perpendicular, when it's actually closer to 70 degrees. As I've said several times - I've lost count - you can't tell what angle the road is at by simply eyeballing it and taking the angle it looks like. The foreshortening changes the appearance so that the angles look wrong.

Dave
Click to expand...


I wasn't using angles...I was using space between guardrail columns...if we were looking dead on there'd be no spaces right?
 
Mobertermy said:
Let me put it this way...I think you guys have demonstrated how the van could be up to 50ft. back from the trees. What I am having a hard time doing is reconciling DSC 412 and DSC 420 http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm
Click to expand...
Try to draw the line of sight for both pictures (obviously it's not the same). If you get stuck, ask for help. You'll learn a lot if you do.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
What I am having a hard time doing is reconciling DSC 412 and DSC 420 http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm
Click to expand...

Hey, I've got this really novel idea: Why not try constructing a line of sight for DSC420, and remembering that (a) the road isn't necessarily at the angle it appears, and (b) the image is foreshortened?

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
I wasn't using angles...I was using space between guardrail columns...if we were looking dead on there'd be no spaces right?
Click to expand...

I said the angle was closer to dead on than to along the road. If you're using the spacings to determine the angle, that's viable; you need to determine the real spacings and do some trigonometry, though, so it's not trivial. Would I be correct in guessing that you haven't done either of those things, just looked at the column spacing and thought "They're a fair distance apart, so it looks like the road's fairly close to perpendicular"?

Handy hint: Don't use the other photographs in the series, if you do try to calculate an angle from the column spacing. They're all at similar angles.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I said the angle was closer to dead on than to along the road. If you're using the spacings to determine the angle, that's viable; you need to determine the real spacings and do some trigonometry, though, so it's not trivial. Would I be correct in guessing that you haven't done either of those things, just looked at the column spacing and thought "They're a fair distance apart, so it looks like the road's fairly close to perpendicular"?

Handy hint: Don't use the other photographs in the series, if you do try to calculate an angle from the column spacing. They're all at similar angles.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes Dave, you are correct. I wasn't trying to say though that the road is perpendicular. It sounds like a competent mathematician could thoroughly analyze these photos and take all the guesswork out and say whether or not they are right with absolute certainty. Is that correct?
 
Mobertermy said:
Let me put it this way...I think you guys have demonstrated how the van could be up to 50ft. back from the trees. What I am having a hard time doing is reconciling DSC 412 and DSC 420 http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm
Click to expand...


why? There's the green sign the back of which is seen in photo DSC 420
greensignambulance.jpg
 
Mobertermy said:
Let me put it this way...I think you guys have demonstrated how the van could be up to 50ft. back from the trees. What I am having a hard time doing is reconciling DSC 412 and DSC 420 http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm
Click to expand...

Since you aren't very good at this, here's the sightline for DSC_420,

dsc420sightline.jpg


The trees are on the opposite side of the bridge, the front of the cab lines up with the RHS of the signs and the middle of the cab lines up with the pole.
 
Last edited:
Just realised I aligned the RHS sightline with a downed pole. That should be the next pole back. Revised image here

Doesn't change the camera position too much, slightly closer and further left.
 
Reactor drone said:
Since you aren't very good at this, here's the sightline for DSC_420,

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/dsc420sightline.jpg[/qimg]

The trees are on the opposite side of the bridge, the front of the cab lines up with the RHS of the signs and the middle of the cab lines up with the pole.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. White van put in as well.

addedwhitevan.jpg
 
Good job with the line of sight. I still don't get how in this photo:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_j1WCY4T_2...GXzFTiqGM6s/s1600-h/Coppage+Loyde+England.JPG

We can see the passenger side front tire just pass the third guardrail column and the back of the cab obscured by the bush, the headlights lined up with the second and third guardrail column, and the cab be where you are placing it behind the trees just north of the bridge. I don't understand why rte 27 and Columbia pike are perpendicular to each other but the photo makes it look the columbia pike runs at about a 20 degree angle to rte 27, and why Columbia pike apparently runs directly into the Pentagon impact zone instead of where it goes into the parking lot 700 ft. to the south.

A telephoto lens will still capture everything in the frame it will just foresehorten things. So correct me if I'm wrong...if you take a picture with a regular lens and a telephoto lens they will show the exact same thing provided that the what is in frame is the same...the only difference is that it the distances will appear different.
 
drewid said:
I'd agree with that. White van put in as well.

[qimg]http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/2263/addedwhitevan.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Drew, what software are you using?

Also, why is it that if you added pole A to your picture it would make it seem like the bridge is 500 ft wide?
 
Mobertermy said:
A telephoto lens will still capture everything in the frame it will just foresehorten things. So correct me if I'm wrong...if you take a picture with a regular lens and a telephoto lens they will show the exact same thing provided that the what is in frame is the same...the only difference is that it the distances will appear different.
Click to expand...

And the apparent angle. "Parallax" is another phenomenon you need to get your head around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom