Proof of Photomanipulation

[JohnG]

The PBY became my favorite airplane after seeing that movie.

 

[Oystein]

I just noticed that the Ingersoll photos on the pentacon site are the originals, with EXIF data. The camera was a Nikon D1x (with APS-C frame size), and the lens seems to be an 80-200mm zoom (equivalent to 120-300mm in a 35mm camera).
...

The images on that site are 1024x667 pixels. The D1x has a 3008×1960 sensor, and the EXIF-data contains the values ExifImageWidth=3008 and ExifImageHeight=1960.
Apparently, the images are not original but resized, maybe to make them more internet-friendly. Many imaging programs, for example IrfanView, can safe pictures after manipulation with original EXIF data. We can't know therefore if, besides resizing, any manipulation has been done on them. (Technical note: The moment the camera saves a JPEG, the image is already manipulated. Only RAW data would give us what the camera actually recorded)

 

[Mobertermy]

I just noticed that the Ingersoll photos on the pentacon site are the originals, with EXIF data. The camera was a Nikon D1x (with APS-C frame size), and the lens seems to be an 80-200mm zoom (equivalent to 120-300mm in a 35mm camera).

What I Ratant's photos show is that relative angular size is not affected by focal length, since light always travels in straight lines. "Depth compression" is really just a perception effect. If you are 50 feet away from a 6-foot-tall man and there is another 6-foot-tall man 100 feet away, the farther man will have an angular image size about half that of the closer man. That's true for the human eye and for a camera with any focal length lens. Our vision systems are pretty good at detecting that relative difference and judging that the second man is twice as far away as the first. What's changed by a wide-angle vs. "normal" vs. telephoto lens is how far away we would judge the camera to be from the first man. With a telephoto lens, we might judge that the camera was only 10 feet from the first man (which is the purpose of a telephoto), so it appears the the second man is only 20 feet away. With a wide-angle lens, we might judge that the camera was 100 feet away from the first man so the second man was 200 feet away. That's all that "depth compression" and "depth expansion" mean: perceptions of relative distances are altered by different focal lengths.

Thanks Bill, your post is insightful and well written.

 

[Mobertermy]

The images on that site are 1024x667 pixels. The D1x has a 3008×1960 sensor, and the EXIF-data contains the values ExifImageWidth=3008 and ExifImageHeight=1960.
Apparently, the images are not original but resized, maybe to make them more internet-friendly. Many imaging programs, for example IrfanView, can safe pictures after manipulation with original EXIF data. We can't know therefore if, besides resizing, any manipulation has been done on them. (Technical note: The moment the camera saves a JPEG, the image is already manipulated. Only RAW data would give us what the camera actually recorded)

You know one thing I find interesting is that Craig claims to have gotten the photos from a VDOT employee who is no longer with us. It just seems weird that this VDOT person would've had the photos. Of course Craig could just be lying. http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

 

[carlitos]

You know one thing I find interesting is that Craig claims to have gotten the photos from a VDOT employee who is no longer with us. It just seems weird that this VDOT person would've had the photos. Of course Craig could just be lying. http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

I told you before. He got them from Lucy Ramirez at a livestock show.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The PBY became my favorite airplane after seeing that movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkE24axSBTI

that is cool.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You know one thing I find interesting is that Craig claims to have gotten the photos from a VDOT employee who is no longer with us. It just seems weird that this VDOT person would've had the photos. Of course Craig could just be lying. http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

You seem to be finally catching on to what CIT does........now extend that to the NoC witnesses.

like Morin for instance

 

[D'rok]

Mobertermy,

Can you give a summary of where you are at with your presentation up to this point? In other words, what, if anything, would you change in your powerpoint after having absorbed the critique here? Do you still stand by it in its original form?

 

[Oystein]

8 pages ago, I drew this sight line for image DSC_0412.

I placed the camera by looking at images taken a minute before and after (DSC_0409-0414) and figuring out, using GE pre-2001, that Ingersoll was walking over the parking lots across the street from (south of) the Navy Annex.

Looking at all images in http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm with an eye to the time stamps, we know the photrapher was walking away from the Navy Annex and uphill over the parking lots south of Columbia Pike.

These parking lots have black lampposts, with T-shaped tops, of which we see a number in DSC_0412.

My best quick estimate for the line of sight is this:



The black lines are roughly the edges of the photo
The red line goes throu the overhead sign support
The yellow star is the resulting location of the cab on the lane divider

You haven't really replied to this analysis.

1. Do you agree with the approximate camera position?
2. Do you agree that this line of sight is closer to parallel than to perpendicular to the highway that the the cab is on?
3. Do you agree that the camera sees the cab more to the left of the overhead sign support?
4. Do you agree that the cab sits on the divider between the two westernmost lanes?
5. Do you agree that the line of sight and the lane divider intersect approximately where I placed that yellow marker?

 

[I Ratant]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkE24axSBTI

that is cool.

.
LUV IT!
When the Super Scoopers are operating off the local lake, there's a lane they use, and there's seldom any fishermen there at that time of day.

 

[I Ratant]

Identify the major structures and points of interest. On the image.

 

[alienentity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkE24axSBTI

that is cool.

Because of the terrible accident involving that scuba diver who was sucked into the intake of one of these water-bombers (or was it a helicopter bucket?) a new sport called 'FireDiving' has emerged.

It is an NWO/Illuminati-sanctioned event, apparently also popular at Bilderberger meetings.

http://www.firediving.com/firewhat.html

 

[I Ratant]

Because of the terrible accident involving that scuba diver who was sucked into the intake of one of these water-bombers (or was it a helicopter bucket?) a new sport called 'FireDiving' has emerged.

It is an NWO/Illuminati-sanctioned event, apparently also popular at Bilderberger meetings.

http://www.firediving.com/firewhat.html

.
It would have to have been a Bambi bucket.
The scoops on the planes are about 8" square. Just a part of a scuba diver would be found in that tree.
And the diver would have had to crawl over the open top of the bucket to get in.
Those obscene dangling hoses from the Ericksons have screens that keep just about everything out.

 

[Arus808]

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.

there you go again. quote mine (he did not say that, and it was pointed to you OUT in another thread)

and you fail to talk to a professional PHOTOGRAPHER.

In fact, why dont you STOP posting in this thread, go down to your nearest college and see if there is a photography class there and talk with the professor.

This is BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY 101, something that PHOTOGRAPHY students are taught in lessons when taking photographs and can only see for themselves when THEY start taking pictures on their own.

find it on the net? you can barely understand what to LOOK for, and you want to find other examples of it?


I'm an amateur photographer, and I know about these issues, especially when using a telephoto lens.

 

[Mobertermy]

there you go again. quote mine (he did not say that, and it was pointed to you OUT in another thread)

He did say that. He said he thought the commission was set up to fail

I'm an amateur photographer, and I know about these issues, especially when using a telephoto lens.

Just explain to me why pole B is in the wrong place in Photo #2. It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems the photographer is shooting out over the car towards the impact area. The bridge and pole B should be to the left of the car in that photo. I just don't find foreshortening to be a credible explanation.

 

[twinstead]

Mobertermy you do realize that somebody can be set up to fail, and even think they are being set up to fail, and still NOT FAIL, right?

 

[DGM]

I just don't find foreshortening to be a credible explanation.

Why not? There's alot of times that photo just don't "look right".

The big question here is how does what you have read in this thread effect your presentation? Do you plan on re-evaluating and making any changes?

 

[Arus808]

He did say that. He said he thought the commission was set up to fail

You are misreading the quote again. Why is that truthers number one problem is reading comprehension?

Just explain to me why pole B is in the wrong place in Photo #2. It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems the photographer is shooting out over the car towards the impact area. The bridge and pole B should be to the left of the car in that photo. I just don't find foreshortening to be a credible explanation.

as has been told to you many time, you continue to mislabel your landmarks in all your photos.

As has been asked of you. DRAW YOUR LINE OF SIGHT!!!

 

[Mobertermy]

Why not? There's alot of times that photo just don't "look right".

The big question here is how does what you have read in this thread effect your presentation? Do you plan on re-evaluating and making any changes?

The thing is that nothing I said in my presentation had to do with parallax or foreshortening. I never said that the bridge must always appear on the left of the cab, or that pole B appears too close to the cab.

 

[Mobertermy]

You are misreading the quote again. Why is that truthers number one problem is reading comprehension?

Nope. Twinstead is right. You are wrong.

as has been told to you many time, you continue to mislabel your landmarks in all your photos.

As has been asked of you. DRAW YOUR LINE OF SIGHT!!!

It doesn't change my argument at all even if I have TA2 mislabeled as TA3.

Foreshortening doesn't change the location of the pole. It will just change how distance is perceived. Parallax won't change the bridges actual relation to the cab.