Proof of Photomanipulation

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

I'm saying that the line of sight in the coppage pic can be determined, and its angle to the wall of the Pentagon measured. But, in case you hadn't noticed, you were saying exactly the same thing. You may not realise you were saying it, but when you said:

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...

what you were implying is that the angle of the coppage picture can be measured, and when measured it yields an impact angle significantly different from 37 degrees. If you didn't think the angle could be measured, how did you think it could be known not to be 37 degrees?

Dave
 
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...

How many more times do you plan to repeat this mistake, which you've made over and over again, and we've pointed out to you over and over again? Yes, telephoto lenses make angles appear to be very different. If you just look at a picture and guess the angles from it, you're virtually certain to be wrong.

Anyway, I can prove, very trivially, that the coppage pic doesn't even appear to be at 90 degrees. Look to the right of the collapse zone, behind the light pole that's directly in front of the uprights of the overhead sign. See that bit of wall with the sunlight lighing it up? That's perpendicular to the front wall of the Pentagon, and you can see it very clearly. If you were looking at 90 degrees to the Pentagon, you wouldn't be able to see that section of wall, because it would be edge on to you.

I think I understand your objection a bit better now. We can't measure the angle of the Pentagon wall to the line of sight from the photo alone. We need to reconstruct the line of sight on the map, then read off the angle from the map. As it turns out, the angle is exactly what we'd expect.

Dave
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Have you done anything to establish any chain of custody for the copies of
Click to expand...

Well the chain of custody is interesting in itself. Ranke claims to have gotten the photos from a VDOT employee who for some reason receieved them from Jason Ingersoll somehow, and a couple weeks after Ranke got the photos said VDOT employee committed suicide.
 
Mobertermy said:
Well the chain of custody is interesting in itself. Ranke claims to have gotten the photos from a VDOT employee who for some reason receieved them from Jason Ingersoll somehow, and a couple weeks after Ranke got the photos said VDOT employee committed suicide.
Click to expand...

I heard that he got the photos from Lucy Ramirez at a livestock show in Texas.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'm saying that the line of sight in the coppage pic can be determined, and its angle to the wall of the Pentagon measured. But, in case you hadn't noticed, you were saying exactly the same thing. You may not realise you were saying it, but when you said:



what you were implying is that the angle of the coppage picture can be measured, and when measured it yields an impact angle significantly different from 37 degrees. If you didn't think the angle could be measured, how did you think it could be known not to be 37 degrees?

Dave
Click to expand...
Dave, you will at least admit that if you looked at the coppage photo, and the coppage photo was the only thing you could base your judgemnet on, and I asked you what angle of impact it is from poles 3 and 4, its not 37 degrees.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think I understand your objection a bit better now. We can't measure the angle of the Pentagon wall to the line of sight from the photo alone. We need to reconstruct the line of sight on the map, then read off the angle from the map. As it turns out, the angle is exactly what we'd expect.

Dave
Click to expand...
Then the answer is no, we can't measure the coppage image.
 
Mobertermy:

Do you plan on correcting any of the problems in your "presentation" or do you still consider it "proof of photo-manipulation"?
 
Mobertermy said:
No, not in the picture that isn't clear. The bridge appears to be going beneath the cab.
Click to expand...

Your record on photo interpretation isn't great though, here's an example of some of your previous work,

Mobertermy said:
[qimg]http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8695/lloydandcabcloseup2.jpg[/qimg]

Traffic arm on the left is TA3, and on the right is TA2.
Man in white shirt is to right of TA3. Man in Blue shirt is to right of man in white shirt. Cab to right of man in blue shirt.

Pole and power box to right of overhead sign. Line of sight with pole and power box circled in green:
[qimg]http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8568/trafficarmslos1.png[/qimg]

Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

mobsightline.jpg


As you can see, from your sightline not only do the government ninjas need to knock down and stand up different light poles in broad daylight, they also have to remove a clump of trees and set fire to the wrong side of the pentagon.

You have clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what you're doing when it comes to interpreting photographic evidence.
 
Last edited:
Well I had a quick look over the original slideshow analysis and frankly it's one of the worst photo-analysis jobs I've ever seen. Dave Rogers' assessment on the first pages is spot on - the person doing the analysis has been misorientated by forced perspective compression, and thinks the photo is looking in a direction it's clearly not looking.

I see no point in reading the entire thread, as it's clear from the first couple of pages that Mobertermy has no interest in actual discussion, and even if they did have any interest in such a discussion they simply lack the least grasp of the issue, thus don't even understand the criticisms being directed at them.

Reactor drone's post above is a perfect illustration.
 
did this thread really need 21 pages of repeated nonsense that was DEBUNKEd on page 1?

We are reivisting CIT claims that have been dealt with here. this moberty guy is not interested in hearing all the things he has wrong with his "analysis"

Troll is a troll and you've all been feeding him.
 
This:
Mobertermy said:
Dave, you will at least admit that if you looked at the coppage photo, and the coppage photo was the only thing you could base your judgemnet on, and I asked you what angle of impact it is from poles 3 and 4, its not 37 degrees.
Click to expand...

contradicts this:
Mobertermy said:
Then the answer is no, we can't measure the coppage image.
Click to expand...



And is of course misleading. We have more than the Coppage photo, we have actual maps of the area, unless you are suggesting that the maps are wrong? We only need the coppage photo and a map to reconstruct the angle.
 
Mobertermy said:
Dave, you will at least admit that if you looked at the coppage photo, and the coppage photo was the only thing you could base your judgemnet on, and I asked you what angle of impact it is from poles 3 and 4, its not 37 degrees.
Click to expand...

No, I will not admit any such thing, because I would be lying if I did. If the coppage photo were the only thing to go on, I could be certain that the angle of impact was more than zero degrees and less than 90 degrees, because the angle of the Pentagon wall is clearly somewhere between the two; I know this, as I said, from the fact that I can see the face of a wall at right angles to it. To determine any more than this, I would need physical information on the dimensions of the Pentagon, or locations of objects in the photograph. 37 degrees is comfortably within the range of possible angles, therefore I would have no evidence to refute a claim that the angle of impact was 37 degrees.

I would agree that, at a first glance, making no attempt to understand the distortions resulting from foreshortening by a telephoto lens, it doesn't particularly look like a 37 degree angle. However, as I've explained over and over again, I wouldn't expect it to look like a 37 degree angle; I'd expect it to be highly misleading, so I'd expect my first glance judgement to be wrong.

Mobertermy said:
Then the answer is no, we can't measure the coppage image.
Click to expand...

As drewid pointed out, and I think I said earlier, this flatly contradicts your previous point. If you can't measure an angle at all, you can't therefore state that this angle does not have a specific value.

You need to stop making wild guesses and then assuming that they're giving you reliable information. Every time you've done this so far, you've ended up being wrong. Until you actually adopt a sensible methodology you're going to keep on making the same mistake.

Dave
 
ARRRRRGH!

This is like being stuck in Groundhog Day. I come back to see what is happening and the answer is "nothing new". Multiple, detailed, logical, independent analyses all arrive at the same set of conclusions: that the OP is seriously wrong in his claim and that there is NO evidence of photo manipulation.

So, is the claim withdrawn? Is the presentation amended to remove the proven incorrect claims? Nooooooo..

How about an honest answer: are you, Mobertermy, going to remove or amend your presentation now that your central claims and evidence have been proven wrong?

SPECIFICALLY:
1. Do you admit that the item labelled TA2 in slide 16 ("Photo 2") is actually TA3?
2. Do you admit the claim at slide 17 is incorrect?

These are the lynchpins of your case. What say you?
 
Well if he does retract or amend his position I'll be less likely to view him as just another irrational ideologue (JAII)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom