Proof of Photomanipulation

Cl1mh4224rd said:
Foreshortening has "weird" effects on photographs.
Click to expand...
I know. I've been trying to find other examples on the internet which could account for what I am seeing and have so far failed. But my research is probably like Hamilton's assessment of the 9/11 commission - set up to fail.

You've been repeatedly pointed down a path that would lead to understanding. Bizarrely, however, you've only ever taken a single step down that path and apparently recoiled in... I don't know what; fear?
Click to expand...
Pride.

The lengths to which you go to actively avoid taking that path is absolutely astounding. And quite sad.
Click to expand...

And all to defend the honor of an innocent man. That is sad.
 
DGM said:
Pride in what? You don't need to "defend his honor" no one thinks CIT is right.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that's a good way of looking at it. But I would still like people that think CIT is right to have another way of seeing why they could be wrong.
 
Mobertermy said:
Hmm, that's a good way of looking at it. But I would still like people that think CIT is right to have another way of seeing why they could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Could be wrong? Do you think you'll achieve this with obviously poor (hate to break this to you but......)photo analysis? I will have to say, If they're taken by CIT you might have a chance.

:rolleyes:
 
Mobertermy said:
Pride.
Click to expand...


Pride in what; your ignorance of the subject?

Mobertermy said:
But I would still like people that think CIT is right to have another way of seeing why they could be wrong.
Click to expand...


It's time for you to engage in a little introspection. The very reason many here have failed to get you to do lines-of-sight for the images you have difficulty understanding is exactly the same reason you'll fail to get those people to understand; they just don't want to.
 
Last edited:
Maybe this will help, it really is very simple, but perhaps needs another way of looking at it.



I'm moving the camera and ONLY the camera. It's a longish lens, so the parallax effect is exaggerated, as in the photos.

Watch what happens to pole B.
It's just the camera moving, nothing else.
 
Mobertermy said:
Hmm, that's a good way of looking at it. But I would still like people that think CIT is right to have another way of seeing why they could be wrong.
Click to expand...



And after all of that, I'll just quote myself.


Horatius said:
Mobertermy said:
I am begrudgingly forced to accept them
Click to expand...


be·grudge (b-grj)
tr.v. be·grudged, be·grudg·ing, be·grudg·es
1. To envy the possession or enjoyment of: She begrudged him his youth. See Synonyms at envy.
2. To give or expend with reluctance: begrudged every penny spent.
Click to expand...


forced (fôrst, frst)
adj.
1. Imposed by force; involuntary: was condemned to a life of forced labor; a plane that made a forced landing.
2. Produced under strain; not spontaneous: forced laughter.
Click to expand...


See, that right there is your problem. If someone comes up with a legitimate criticism of your work, you shouldn't have to be forced to admit it, begrudgingly or not. If you seriously believe these photos have been manipulated, you should want your evidence to be as strong as possible - and eliminating those parts of your presentation which have been shown to be based on errors or misunderstandings can only strengthen your presentation. Anything that's left over after a rigorous examination of your presentation just might be actual evidence that the photos have been manipulated.

That's assuming, of course, there's anything left after all the errors have been fixed. That you have to be "forced" to "begrudgingly" admit any errors, no matter how trivial, suggests that, deep down inside, you know there won't be anything left, and so you refuse to recognize legitimate criticisms out of a desire to maintain your belief in the face of reality. If you were honestly interested in getting to the truth, you would act very differently.

Perhaps you should sit down and think about this for a bit, and decide if you really want to be that guy.
Click to expand...



Mobertermy, I have to tell you, and I mean this in the nicest way possible: You're that guy.


To us, you seem no different from the CIT fools you are so desperate to convince others to ignore. You post ridiculous analyses of evidence, that you made despite having absolutely no skill or experience in making such analyses, and have ignored or actively rejected all of the reasonable corrections and suggestions made here by people who are much more competent and better educated than you are. You've done all of this in support of a predetermined conclusion that, for reasons of "pride", you've apparently decided to never re-evaluate.

And somehow, you seem to think that this sort of behaviour is supposed to somehow be of benefit to somebody who might be taken in by CIT's behaviour - which is exactly the same behaviour you've shown here.

You really need to take a step back and re-evaluate your entire position here.
 
BCR said:
no mobertermy there is not!
Click to expand...


Okay...I haven't seen anything in any other photos that demonstrates this bizarre funhouse effect that seems to move the location of things and turn 90 degree angle into 10 degree angles and 37 degree angles into 90 degree angles.
 
Mobertermy said:
I have. England must be lying. (joking)
Click to expand...

As an aside, why is it apparently OK for you to claim the physical evidence MUST have been planted even though you have no proof because the only eye witnesses accounts you'll accept are contrary, but it appears it's not OK for us to claim the witnesses you present MUST mistaken because every bit of the physical evidence is contrary?

What approach to you think a court of law would take on the subject?
 
twinstead said:
As an aside, why is it apparently OK for you to claim the physical evidence MUST have been planted even though you have no proof because the only eye witnesses accounts you'll accept are contrary, but it appears it's not OK for us to claim the witnesses you present MUST mistaken because every bit of the physical evidence is contrary?

What approach to you think a court of law would take on the subject?
Click to expand...


If this (Pentagon issue) went to court your side would obviously win.
 
So Farmer,

What would happen if I went to Joyce Street and tried to take some pictures?

Swarmed by Pentagon Police? I bet Lagasse would taze me if I tried that.
 
Mobertermy said:
So Farmer,

What would happen if I went to Joyce Street and tried to take some pictures?

Swarmed by Pentagon Police? I bet Lagasse would taze me if I tried that.
Click to expand...

Its a public street AFAIK so you can take all the pictures you like. In fact the Airforce memorial is a few yards from there and would give an even better view.
Look at google earth lots of people have taken pictures from there
 
There's not much point in trying to prove 'innocence' with incorrect data.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom