Proof of Photomanipulation

DGM said:
Well, it would appear that way to someone that's not willing to do any analysis.


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


To me it just seems that you guys are making a bare assertion. You are just claiming that foreshortening can explain away an apparent illusion in your opinions without having to demonstrate this.
 
BCR said:
Mobertermy,

I think people have been very patient in explaining why "Photo #2 depicts columbia pike as running beneath rte 27 at angle much less than 90 degrees". First, I have been through the underpass and it is not aligned 90 degrees with Rte 27. It does angle to the south slightly. If you draw a line-of-sight on GE from the location the photograph was taken and the bridge is exactly where it should be.

I'll upload some video of the roadways I took a few years ago which should give you a better feel for the area.
Click to expand...

John,
I've been there. But upload the video anyways.

I have to agree with you that people have been patient and the tone is unusually civil in this thread. Unfortunately I don't think they have explained the apparent illusion. All I've really seen is bare assertions that foreshortening can explain this all.

Can someone produce for me a photograph made with a telephoto lens where a (near) 90 degree angle appears to be much less than that? Because I've been looking and can't find one.
 
Mobertermy said:
To me it just seems that you guys are making a bare assertion. You are just claiming that foreshortening can explain away an apparent illusion in your opinions without having to demonstrate this.
Click to expand...
We have been demonstrating this. That's what the sight lines show. We've even shown you images that this was used to create interesting (and fun) pictures. Short of going back there and having you look through the camera, that the best we can do.
 
Mobertermy said:
John,
I've been there. But upload the video anyways.

I have to agree with you that people have been patient and the tone is unusually civil in this thread. Unfortunately I don't think they have explained the apparent illusion. All I've really seen is bare assertions that foreshortening can explain this all.

Can someone produce for me a photograph made with a telephoto lens where a (near) 90 degree angle appears to be much less than that? Because I've been looking and can't find one.
Click to expand...

Well Mobertermy, then you have comprehension issues. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but folks have explained it quite comprehensively and graphically. Go back and re-read and re-examine the dozens of replies you have had on this. There is really nothing they can add to it. You'll just have to do the line-of-sights for yourself until you understand the phenomenon.

However, there is absolutely no evidence of manipulation in these photos. Everything checks out and is pretty much where it should be considering the vantage-point of the photographer.
 
DGM said:
We have been demonstrating this. That's what the sight lines show. We've even shown you images that this was used to create interesting (and fun) pictures. Short of going back there and having you look through the camera, that the best we can do.
Click to expand...

No, the sight lines show that you can shoot a picture such that pole B is between TA3 and the cab. It doesn't explain why the picture depicts columbia pike being at a wrong angle.

But I have a problem with the sight lines I've seen of photo #2 so far because in the photo pole B and C aren't lined up, but in the sight lines they are.
 
BCR said:
Well Mobertermy, then you have comprehension issues. I'm sorry if that sounds rude,
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't sound rude.

However, there is absolutely no evidence of manipulation in these photos. Everything checks out and is pretty much where it should be considering the vantage-point of the photographer.
Click to expand...

Just tell me this: in photo #2 it at least looks like the west side of the bridge is to the north of the cab, and the east side is to the south right?
 
Mobertermy said:
No, the sight lines show that you can shoot a picture such that pole B is between TA3 and the cab. It doesn't explain why the picture depicts columbia pike being at a wrong angle.
Click to expand...

Now you are starting to sound absurd. For the last time, Columbia Pike is NOT AT A WRONG ANGLE!
 
Mobertermy said:
No, the sight lines show that you can shoot a picture such that pole B is between TA3 and the cab. It doesn't explain why the picture depicts columbia pike being at a wrong angle.

But I have a problem with the sight lines I've seen of photo #2 so far because in the photo pole B and C aren't lined up, but in the sight lines they are.
Click to expand...
Do you know if that picture (#2) is an original or is it a crop? (I'm too lazy today to go back and look).
 
Mobertermy said:
Just tell me this: in photo #2 it at least looks like the west side of the bridge is to the north of the cab, and the east side is to the south right?
Click to expand...

The point you are missing Mobertermy, that is what proves the picture is not manipulated. From the position of the photographer, that is exactly how it should look ... now you are getting it.
 
DGM said:
Yes. Did those two planes look like they were going to hit each other? (remember the picture way back?)
Click to expand...


That has to do with foreshortening...not angles. I haven't seen anything in any of the photos you all have shown me which in any way correlates to the apparent angle distortion in photo #2.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Can someone produce for me a photograph made with a telephoto lens where a (near) 90 degree angle appears to be much less than that? Because I've been looking and can't find one.
Click to expand...

Yes you can, you have, and you've posted it here. Remember the coppage photo of the Pentagon, which you were convinced was at very close to 90 degrees to the line of sight?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_j1WCY4T_2...GXzFTiqGM6s/s1600-h/Coppage+Loyde+England.JPG

Remember the sunlit section of wall behind the overhead sign, which was shown from the overhead view to be at 90 degrees to the main wall of the Pentagon? Remember how that proved that, actually, the angle of the main wall to the line of sight was a long way off the 90 degrees you though it was, otherwise that section of wall would be end on so you couldn't see it?

The problem is not that we're not presenting examples. The problem is that your inability to comprehend the effects of foreshortening makes you equally unable to comprehend the examples of those effects that you're presented with. Or, indeed, the ones you find for yourself.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
That has to do with foreshortening...not angles. I haven't seen anything in any of the photos you all have shown me which in any way correlates to the apparent angle distortion in photo #2.
Click to expand...

Then Mobertermy, that is a comprehension issue with you. To take the leap to assert the photograph was 'manipulated' just because YOU can't understand the basic principle of line-of-sight and the transference of 3D objects onto a 2D medium is rather presumptuous.

Here is the video I referenced. At the very end of the video I drove through the overpass. As you can see, it is at an angle, not 90 degrees as you assert.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Photo #2 depicts columbia pike as running beneath rte 27 at angle much less than 90 degrees, such that the eastern portion of the bridge is to the south of the cab. Thats what the photo depicts. You claim this can be explained by foreshortening and parallax but haven not demonstrated this.
Click to expand...

You can't claim to "see" Columbia Pike in Photo #2, and much less can you claim to see any angle between C.P. and Rt 27 - your old nemesis "foreshortening" prevents you from doing that.

You can't really see in the photo where any part of the bridge is. Rt 27 - north and south ramp to the bridge and the bridge itself - is higher than both C.P. and the lawn to the left and right of C.P. Because of foreshortening you cannot tell how far behind the wall the things are that we see behind it. You are still absolutely clueless about perspective in telelens photography.
 
BCR said:
Then Mobertermy, that is a comprehension issue with you. To take the leap to assert the photograph was 'manipulated' just because YOU can't understand the basic principle of line-of-sight and the transference of 3D objects onto a 2D medium is rather presumptuous.

Here is the video I referenced. At the very end of the video I drove through the overpass. As you can see, it is at an angle, not 90 degrees as you assert.
Click to expand...


John, what happens to people that take photos there now? Fine? Rendition?

This is all very easily falsifiable.
 
Mobertermy said:
Photo #2 depicts columbia pike as running beneath rte 27 at angle much less than 90 degrees, such that the eastern portion of the bridge is to the south of the cab. Thats what the photo depicts. You claim this can be explained by foreshortening and parallax but haven not demonstrated this.
Click to expand...

The picture demonstartes this!. If you do a line of sight you will find everything where it should be thus the pictures is good evidence of the effects mentioned.

Its you that's making an assertion of foul play so its up to you to show that photo effects CANNOT account for the picture as we see it.

Do the work. Its not difficult and you might learn a valuable lesson that what you believe to be true is not always actually true. Use the scientific method. You have a theory, now test to see if it is true. Create lines of sight for all those pictures.
 
Mobertermy said:
Another problem with the line of sight you have done for photo #2 is that poles B and C would be nearly lined up in them.
Click to expand...

No.

Here is a crop from your slide 7. Will's tree is in it.



I drew the purple line from the south edge of the tree through pole B. The line ends about where the trunk of the cab is.
As expected, D is clearly to the left of that line (when looking from the camera position to the Pentagon).

Every pole is where we expect it, and again this line of sight proves that
a) the cab is slightly south of the bridge
b) you mislabeled the traffic arm; it's really TA3
 
Mobertermy said:
John, what happens to people that take photos there now? Fine? Rendition?

This is all very easily falsifiable.
Click to expand...

These are all public roads and there is a huge memorial right beside the route.
Its a free country and you are quite entitled to take pictures of the pentagon (I would however stay off the lawn :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom