Proof of Photomanipulation

[drewid]

But it does make a difference, because it means the camera is pointing in a different direction to include that TA

 

[DGM]

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.

And the "TA" labeling? Do you still claim you got those right?

And yes. "Parallax will change the apparent position of the bridge.

 

[Arus808]

Nope. Twinstead is right. You are wrong.

read the quote again. because we've already settled on this issue and being that you ignore everything past the first three words in a sentence, you would see that we all agree:

So what if they felt they were set up to fail. They succeeded in the end, because the were able to get the additional funding they needed to complete their investigation.

The issue was, they were UNDERFUNDED which is why they felt like "damn, how can we do anything without money?" - no money = couldn't set out to do what they were tasked to do.

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.

Actually, it can "change" the PERCEIVED location of an object over many images.

Again, DRAW YOUR LINE OF SIGHT!

 

[Reactor drone]

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.

You are the only person who thinks pole B is in the wrong place. You're asking us to explain your mistaken beliefs. Draw a sightline for the photo and if you're lucky someone might explain to you why it's wrong.

 

[drewid]

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



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.

look at the last video i posted!!!!!

 

[drewid]

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.

This one.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Pride.

there's your problem

I'm waiting for the fall (about when I expect Mobertemy to finally acknowledge that he might be completely wrong).

 

[fitzgibbon]

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

Then you really need to go see "Barney's Version"

 

[I Ratant]

Then you really need to go see "Barney's Version"

.
WTF!
.
Bust them dumb sumbitches with interference with fire apparatus and workers!
Stupid doesn't even come close to describing their idiocy.

 

[A W Smith]

.
WTF!
.
Bust them dumb sumbitches with interference with fire apparatus and workers!
Stupid doesn't even come close to describing their idiocy.

the fire diving site is utter bull shiate
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/scuba.asp

They cant get sucked in as the chutes are only about 10 or 12 inches square, and helis use a bucket that you would have to climb over the lip to get in. I just saw a debunk of this tale on one of the science channels.

oh and another thing, They have to have screens on them now to prevent debris and aquatic life from being ingested, probably due to tree hugger environmentalist protests,

 

[I Ratant]

The "Fire Diving" site reads like a vast spoof, really.
But there could be mouth-breathers (bad underwater, that) who might try it.
The image is too small to detect any obvious Photoshopping.
I got a lot of images of the local firechoppers using a small part of the California Aqueduct for working a brush fire nearby.
None of the suckers on the choppers could pick up anything larger than a minnow, with the screen on the inlet.
And the Erickson's have an observer who can see what's going on beneath the heli.

 

[Oystein]

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.

There's the problem with your presentation.
Your failure to consider parallax and foreshortening is the reason the entire presentation FAILED. You set it up to fail. It was set up to fail. And I certainly feel that it was set uü to fail.

 

[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?

Bumped for Mobertermy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

oh and another thing, They have to have screens on them now to prevent debris and aquatic life from being ingested, probably due to tree hugger environmentalist protests,

Ot to sensibly stop the inlet getting clogged with leaves, weeds, bits of stick etc.

 

[Mobertermy]

And yes. "Parallax will change the apparent position of the bridge.

Parallax will not change the actual relationship of the bridge to the cab though.

 

[Mobertermy]

You are the only person who thinks pole B is in the wrong place. You're asking us to explain your mistaken beliefs. Draw a sightline for the photo and if you're lucky someone might explain to you why it's wrong.

I never said it is not possilbe to draw a sight line such that pole B would appear between the TA and the cab.

 

[DGM]

Parallax will not change the actual relationship of the bridge to the cab though.

That's why the relationship is not changed in the pictures.

 

[Mobertermy]

That's why the relationship is not changed in the pictures.

Sure it is. In photo #2 the camera is shooting out across the car towards the impact area...that mean all the bridge should be behin the car in that direction, and yet where pole B is in that photo the bridge would be somewhere totally different.

 

[DGM]

Sure it is. In photo #2 the camera is shooting out across the car towards the impact area...that mean all the bridge should be behin the car in that direction, and yet where pole B is in that photo the bridge would be somewhere totally different.

Could you draw the line of sight for me so I can understand why you think this would be the case?

Really, this is getting old.

 

[Oystein]

I never said it is not possilbe to draw a sight line such that pole B would appear between the TA and the cab.

I bumped a post for you today. In it, I drew a line of sight for DSC_0412 of the the Ingersoll series.

Please check whether or not you agree with my placement of the camera, and the resulting line of sight!

(Why do you keep ignoring that post? Pride?)