Proof of Photomanipulation

3DS Max

Pole A is in the scene. It's only just out of shot in photo5. It doesn't show up in many of the pictures. The poles were very easy to place since they cast a good shadow in the overhead photo.

I've no idea why you think it looks like 500ft. It looks like 150ish to me, even dead across the plane of the picture, (diagonally across the bridge) it only comes out as ~212
 
Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is that guardrail column count some absolute number, counted from, for example, the overhead sign? Then you make a mistake you have made many many many times before: You cannot know which columns these are, due to foreshortening of angles! You are almost certainly wrong about assigning them the numbering 2nd and 3rd. I'd guess they are more like the 7th and 8th!

Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has been painfully obvious throughout the length of this thread that you do not understand this.

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...

Yes, basically all lenses will show the same thing, as long as the camera position stays the same. Only thing is that the field of sight is narrower for the tele lens. Suppose you take a picture with a 100mm lens, and then another with a 200mm lens, from the same position. The image of the 200mm lens contains the same objects in the same relative position as the center 25% of the 100mm image (50% height, 50% width). The longer lens merely manages to project that crop onto the full chip, giving you a better pixel resolution than the wider lens.
 
Oystein said:
Is that guardrail column count some absolute number, counted from, for example, the overhead sign? Then you make a mistake you have made many many many times before: You cannot know which columns these are, due to foreshortening of angles! You are almost certainly wrong about assigning them the numbering 2nd and 3rd. I'd guess they are more like the 7th and 8th!
Click to expand...
I was counting right to left...


Yes, it has been painfully obvious throughout the length of this thread that you do not understand this.
Click to expand...
Okay, but that's not an explanation of why columbia pike is not visible at all. Its one thing if we see Columbia pike and it appears to be angle smaller than 90 degrees...its a whole other thing if we don't see the road at all and for the picture to work it would nearly have to be running parallel to rte 27.
 
Mobertermy said:
I was counting right to left...



Okay, but that's not an explanation of why columbia pike is not visible at all. Its one thing if we see Columbia pike and it appears to be angle smaller than 90 degrees...its a whole other thing if we don't see the road at all and for the picture to work it would nearly have to be running parallel to rte 27.
Click to expand...

In that shot Columbia Pike is obscured by trees on the left of frame and by the overpass itself to the right of frame.

Have you tried building a small physical model of the area? It may help you visualise the topography.
 
Reactor drone said:
Have you tried building a small physical model of the area? It may help you visualise the topography.
Click to expand...


Here's something better. Take a car ride. Video released 11/8/2007:

CIT brings you to all of the surrounding areas to show you what the topography is really like. The following series of location shots are an invaluable tool for people trying to get familiar with the area in order to understand how this deception was successfully executed in broad daylight.

This video is a supplement to the video National Security Alert. Please watch that video before watching this one.
Click to expand...


wosautos11.gif
CIT jettin' Crosstown
 
Mobertermy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Only the angles. Distances from the camera are almost impossible to know with certainty. Also, it's not the mathematics that's the big issue, because it's generally very simple trigonometry; it's understanding the specific characteristics of photographs.

Mobertermy said:
So things appear more perpendicular? Not, things appear more parallel?
Click to expand...

Perpendicular to the line of sight. That's the same as the direction you refer to as "parallel to the camera". It makes more sense to define angles relative to the line of sight because it's more clearly defined.

Dave
 
So I gotta ask you Mobertermy, I've seen you getting more and more confused trying to figure out what's going here. I don't want to say you''re wrong, but you clearly come across like you don't know what's happening or what you're talking about.

Do you still believe you know something about what happened at the Pentagon on 911 that you can't read about in the newspaper?
 
Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm late to the party, but why do you persist in trying to use such faulty methods of analysis, when it was demonstrated way back on page 1 what you should be doing?

That particular photo is one that Spooked911 (of "Flaming Bunny Cage Experiment" infamy) tried to use on the DU forum last summer as "proof" that the photos had been faked (edit: or the cab was moved), by claiming that this photo couldn't possibly match with the position show in DSC_0420:

dsc_0420r.jpg


But simply plotting lines-of-sight on an overhead view completely solves the "mystery." As others have pointed out, we can get a reasonably accurate line-of-sight by noting that the cab is just past a line from the center of the tree, passing the right edge of the hanging signs.

In the photo you're puzzling over, we can get an approximate line-of-sight by noting that a line from the crash site and passing halfway between the trees and the overhead sign structure just touches the right-front corner of the cab:

cab1.jpg


Just for fun, let's throw in another photo that's been discussed, DSC_0412, to see if the three can be reconciled. A very accurate line-of-sight can be drawn from one of the buildings in the distance in downtown Washington, which is the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. (This building has five distinctive wings, each with three tall windows.) A line from the eastern-most wing of the building and passing the left side of the overhead sign structure passes very close to the left-front corner of the cab:

dsc_0412r.jpg


So, putting all three of those lines on the satellite image, I get...

cab2.jpg


Huh! How about that: I get the same thing everyone else is getting, starting on page 1.

I've never figured out why "no-planers" think that things they don't understand is proof of anything other than the number of things they don't understand, but that's what we keep getting as "proof" over and over. It's way past time (about 20 pages past time) for you to admit your mistakes and take down your faulty analysis. BS never did anyone any good.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
No, funk, they didn't. It was you who got schooled on this topic a while back! Parroting again?
Click to expand...

LOL, but we know from that same thread that Paik was inside the building and couldn't possibly have seen the plane -- at all -- if it was where he drew the line. And watching the video, even in its edited form, it's clear that Ranke keeps leading Paik into placing the plane farther and farther north before giving him the map to draw a line. But that doesn't really matter: Paik couldn't possibly have seen the plane out the window unless it was somewhere close to the "official" path, which trumps Paik's perception of where it was.

(Edit: Here's the geometric proof: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5638700&postcount=820 )
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom