Proof of Photomanipulation

WilliamSeger said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no way the angle you drew for the coppage photo matches the overhead. The official impact was at at 37 degree angle...thats not what the coppage photo depicts.

(I'm not a no-planer.)
 
Mobertermy said:
There is no way the angle you drew for the coppage photo matches the overhead. The official impact was at at 37 degree angle...thats not what the coppage photo depicts.

(I'm not a no-planer.)
Click to expand...

Do you do really badly at the spatial skills parts of IQ tests?
 
Mobertermy said:
There is no way the angle you drew for the coppage photo matches the overhead. The official impact was at at 37 degree angle...thats not what the coppage photo depicts.

(I'm not a no-planer.)
Click to expand...

Say huh? What was a 37 degree angle from what, and what does impact angle have to do with my diagram? It's showing lines of sight seen in the photos. Are you still unclear on what that means?

My lines were drawn on Google Earth by aligning the reference points I noted, using the ruler tool. I claim they are accurate enough to locate the cab within a few pixels, and more than accurate enough to demonstrate that your claims about "photo manipulation" are based on nothing but your own confusion about what you are seeing, an apparent lack of ordinary spatial visualization skills, and an ignorance of photography. I guess that's why I assumed you were a "no-planer": They try to prove bizarre theories by applying that same "skill set" to analyzing photos, and then expect people to be impressed with how successful they are at finding things they don't understand.
 
There's obviously some sort of non-euclidian world geometry thing going on. I suspect Cthulu, and that the Pentagon is actually R'lyeh. That explains everything.
 
Mobertermy said:
There is no way the angle you drew for the coppage photo matches the overhead. The official impact was at at 37 degree angle...thats not what the coppage photo depicts.
Click to expand...

The angle for the line from the coppage photo is about 30 degrees off the horizontal. The side of the Pentagon is about 10 degrees off the vertical. That gives an angle of impact of about 40 degrees off perpendicular to the Pentagon, with an error of a few degrees either way because the blue line on the photo isn't following the centreline of the approach path. That sounds pretty close to 37 degrees to me. Anyway, since the generally accepted flight path passes over England's cab and finishes at the impact site on the Pentagon, how could it not align more or less to the blue line? You're insisting on seeing anomalies where it's patently obvious there aren't any.

And, incidentally, as a general rule, when you're claiming that an angle doesn't have the right value, it's a good idea to measure it, and present your results. At the moment you're guessing, then saying that there's an anomaly because your guess doesn't match the official number. We've got a better theory: you're bad at guessing.

Dave
 
Oh MT, I've just noticed, in your overhead slide you've got lamp posts A,B,1 and 2 in the wrong places. You've got them tucked in tight to the bridge itself, where they are at the end of the curved wall sections.

Just thought you'd like to know
 
Where is the evidence of photo manipulation?

I haven't seen the OP actualy analyse the photographs yet.

What tools did you use?
Have you found any artifacts in the images?
Have you done anything to establish any chain of custody for the copies of the images you are using?
Have you tried to find out if there are any other copies of the images that are different from your copies?

What manipulation are you claiming?

This is worse than the Apollo Hoaxers attempts at analysis.
 
drewid said:
There's obviously some sort of non-euclidian world geometry thing going on. I suspect Cthulu, and that the Pentagon is actually R'lyeh. That explains everything.
Click to expand...

no, No, NO, NO!!

It was all about Mothra.

Not cthulu... He is responsible for the Tsunami of 2004.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I guess that's why I assumed you were a "no-planer": They try to prove bizarre theories by applying that same "skill set" to analyzing photos, and then expect people to be impressed with how successful they are at finding things they don't understand.
Click to expand...

That hurts man, it really does.
 
drewid said:
Oh MT, I've just noticed, in your overhead slide you've got lamp posts A,B,1 and 2 in the wrong places. You've got them tucked in tight to the bridge itself, where they are at the end of the curved wall sections.

Just thought you'd like to know
Click to expand...

No, I actually noticed that a while ago. Although for something like photo #2 that makes the placement of the bridge more clearly to the right of the cab because pole B is even futher than depicted.
 
Dave Rogers said:
The angle for the line from the coppage photo is about 30 degrees off the horizontal. The side of the Pentagon is about 10 degrees off the vertical. That gives an angle of impact of about 40 degrees off perpendicular to the Pentagon, with an error of a few degrees either way because the blue line on the photo isn't following the centreline of the approach path. That sounds pretty close to 37 degrees to me. Anyway, since the generally accepted flight path passes over England's cab and finishes at the impact site on the Pentagon, how could it not align more or less to the blue line? You're insisting on seeing anomalies where it's patently obvious there aren't any.

And, incidentally, as a general rule, when you're claiming that an angle doesn't have the right value, it's a good idea to measure it, and present your results. At the moment you're guessing, then saying that there's an anomaly because your guess doesn't match the official number. We've got a better theory: you're bad at guessing.

Dave
Click to expand...

Hold up, are you saying the angle in the coppage pic can be measured?
 
Mobertermy said:
Hold up, are you saying the angle in the coppage pic can be measured?
Click to expand...

After drawing a line of sight, yes. You can't measure in the photo itself, but when you align things in the photo with where they are in the real world, that enable you to figure out (with a bit of imprecision, of course) the position of the camera and the direction it's pointing. Draw that on a map. Apply geometry ruler.

Guess it's time you show us some own lines of sight, isn't it? Why have you not drawn a dozend lines of sight in the past 20 pages, and indeed in your own presentation? Unable to? Lacking skills? Not understand what we are talking about?
 
Mobertermy said:
I was counting right to left...
Click to expand...

Starting with what? Which guardrail pole would be the first in that count? The first that you see? What does it mean which ones the cab aligns with, if you don't place them absolutely on a map?

Mobertermy said:
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...

It becomes immediately obvious once you draw a line of sight.
Try drawing a line of sight one day! It's worth it!
 
Oystein said:
Guess it's time you show us some own lines of sight, isn't it? Why have you not drawn a dozend lines of sight in the past 20 pages, and indeed in your own presentation? Unable to? Lacking skills? Not understand what we are talking about?
Click to expand...
Shows his mistakes..................:rolleyes:
 
Oystein said:
After drawing a line of sight, yes. You can't measure in the photo itself, but when you align things in the photo with where they are in the real world, that enable you to figure out (with a bit of imprecision, of course) the position of the camera and the direction it's pointing. Draw that on a map. Apply geometry ruler.

Guess it's time you show us some own lines of sight, isn't it? Why have you not drawn a dozend lines of sight in the past 20 pages, and indeed in your own presentation? Unable to? Lacking skills? Not understand what we are talking about?
Click to expand...

So a 37 degree angle can appear to be a 90 degree angle in a photo made with a telephoto lens? Is that your claim?
 
Mobertermy said:
So a 37 degree angle can appear to be a 90 degree angle in a photo made with a telephoto lens? Is that your claim?
Click to expand...

No, that is not my claim. My claim is that you are utterly incompetent.

But yes, a 37 degree angle can appear to be a 90 degree angle in a photo. With any lens actually. Vice versa, too.

You still do not know how to construct a line of sight from a photo, do you?
 
Mobertermy said:
No, I actually noticed that a while ago. Although for something like photo #2 that makes the placement of the bridge more clearly to the right of the cab because pole B is even futher than depicted.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the bridge is clearly to the north (right) of the cab.
 
Right MT
I think you can't dodge this any longer. Lets colour code it to make it easier.

SO
TA1 is south of the overhead signs (green)
TA2 is nearly underneath the overhead signs (cyan)
TA3 is at the south end of the bridge span (red)
TA4 is at the north end of the bridge span (magenta)

tamislabellingoverhead.jpg



OK? Do you agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom