Proof of Photomanipulation

[I Ratant]

I'd say, like C.E. in the other thread, "invincible ignorance".
Incapable of learning something different from the imprinted belief.

 

[A W Smith]

fire wuz here, cuz,,,, well,,, i sees its footprintz.

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

yeah, no sense dropping more combustibles onto a fire, WITHIN ITS OWN FOOTPRINT!!! i might add,

 

[drewid]

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.

No. it. wouldn't.
As I have previously demonstrated in a number of different ways.

 

[Mobertermy]

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?)

That line of sight can't be right because thats not where the bridge is in the photo.

 

[Oystein]

That line of sight can't be right because thats not where the bridge is in the photo.

Where else was Ingersoll when he took the photos (DSC_0412 and a few before and after)? Got any idea? Could you indicate that on a map?


(Also, the bridge is exactly there in the photo where it should be from the point of view I indicated ETA: close to the left margin of the photo).

(ETA: I asked 5 questions - you answered 1. Please revisit my older post and try to address all 5 questions. In addition, I asked why you ignored my post several times. Because of pride? I want a serious answer. I also want to know why you ignored 4 of 5 questions!)

 

[I Ratant]

Where else was Ingersoll when he took the photos (DSC_0412 and a few before and after)? Got any idea? Could you indicate that on a map?


(Also, the bridge is exactly there in the photo where it should be from the point of view I indicated ETA: close to the left margin of the photo).

(ETA: I asked 5 questions - you answered 1. Please revisit my older post and try to address all 5 questions. In addition, I asked why you ignored my post several times. Because of pride? I want a serious answer. I also want to know why you ignored 4 of 5 questions!)

.
Check the Rhino in the other thread.
It hasn't processed the answers yet.

 

[drewid]

Yeah, I agree Oystein, the bridge is where the line of sight places it

 

[Oystein]

...
(ETA: I asked 5 questions - you answered 1. Please revisit my older post and try to address all 5 questions. In addition, I asked why you ignored my post several times. Because of pride? I want a serious answer. I also want to know why you ignored 4 of 5 questions!)

In addition to these 6 unanswered questions I have a seventh, more fundamental:

Mobertermy, do you agree that re-construction of sight lines and viewpoints is a valid, useful and necessary method for the purpose of the kind of photo analysis we do in this thread?

 

[A W Smith]

Approaching 1000 posts in this thread and unless I missed it Mobertermy has yet to draw any lines of sight. Why is that mobertermy? Are you incapable?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Approaching 1000 posts in this thread and unless I missed it Mobertermy has yet to draw any lines of sight. Why is that mobertermy? Are you incapable?

He tried one. It was wrong.

 

[A W Smith]

He tried one. It was wrong.

oh yes now I remember, Near the beginning of the thread, The one i illustrated was incorrect by a factor of about seventy degrees, Ill get back to that later, I'm watching the truth movement (Gage, Griffin, Avery) get slam dunked on TV via Natgeotv.com at the moment, Is this a repeat?

 

[drewid]

He's got his fingers pretty damn tight in his ears from what I can see.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

He's got his fingers pretty damn tight in his ears from what I can see.

Which is clever when his head is simultaneously up his...........

 

[sheeplesnshills]

oh yes now I remember, Near the beginning of the thread, The one i illustrated was incorrect by a factor of about seventy degrees, Ill get back to that later, I'm watching the truth movement (Gage, Griffin, Avery) get slam dunked on TV via Natgeotv.com at the moment, Is this a repeat?

Is that the one where they soften the beam with jet fuel fire?

 

[A W Smith]

Is that the one where they soften the beam with jet fuel fire?

yes, apparently they're running a whole series of 911 specials leading up to "inside 911" tonight.

 

[gumboot]

God this thread is painful. I don't know how you people do it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just catching up.

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

Since you've been shown the original quote in which he said that other people thought the commission was set up to fail, the only way I can interpret this post is that you're deliberately lying.

The rest, I can deal with according to the agreed shorthand.

Just explain to me why pole B is in the wrong place in Photo #2.

Parallax.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Incredulity.

It seems the photographer is shooting out over the car towards the impact area.

Foreshortening.

The bridge and pole B should be to the left of the car in that photo.

Parallax.

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

Draw a line of sight.

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.

Parallax.

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

Line of sight.

Foreshortening doesn't change the location of the pole.

Parallax.

It will just change how distance is perceived. Parallax won't change the bridges actual relation to the cab.

Parallax will change the apparent relation of the bridge and the cab.

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

See above.

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

Then draw the sight line.

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.

Parallax.

That line of sight can't be right because thats not where the bridge is in the photo.

Parallax.

God this thread is painful. I don't know how you people do it.

Shorthand seems to help.

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

God this thread is painful. I don't know how you people do it.

We do need to have some way of having the moderators determine if a poster is refusing to answer a reasonable question or provide evidence, then warn them that if they fail to do so, they will be suspended.

Otherwise the Jammos, Mobertermys, Childlike Enmpress will just wear us down.
They are like zombies that even a head shot can't stop.

 

[Dave Rogers]

We do need to have some way of having the moderators determine if a poster is refusing to answer a reasonable question or provide evidence, then warn them that if they fail to do so, they will be suspended.

Otherwise the Jammos, Mobertermys, Childlike Enmpress will just wear us down.
They are like zombies that even a head shot can't stop.

Apart from the fact that this is a Forum Management issue, I don't think it's that much of a problem. If our aim is to counter bad information with good, then the very fact of a thread going on for [quick check] twenty-four pages (strewth, after the central argument was debunked on page 1!) means that most causal observers will simply tune out. If they try to follow the most recent posts, there are generally a fair few reminders that every point the OP made has been addressed. I'd be very worried if people could be suspended for not providing evidence, because it would be open to abuse; fortunately, I don't think there's much danger of the forum going that way.

Dave

 

[Mobertermy]

Apart from the fact that this is a Forum Management issue, I don't think it's that much of a problem. If our aim is to counter bad information with good, then the very fact of a thread going on for [quick check] twenty-four pages (strewth, after the central argument was debunked on page 1!)

No my central argument would be that the bridge is on the wrong side of the cab. This has nothing to do with parallax or foreshortening. I never said the bridge must always be on the left of the cab.