Proof of Photomanipulation

"1000 post root canal" the new album from Contraband, storming the charts even as I type.
 
I Ratant said:
C'mon.
Splain to me what any of this garf about light poles and traffic arm contributes to or demonstrates a conspiracy to hide something at all?
Click to expand...

It's tricky, because you have to start from the assumption that flight 77 hit the Pentagon on a more northerly track than it really hit the Pentagon on because some of the witnesses were talked into thinking they saw it do that by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. Once you've accepted that falsehood as fact, you then need to consider the discrepancy between where the photos show Lloyde England's cab, after having been hit by one of the light poles knocked down by AA77, and where Ranke and Marquis talked him into thinking it had been on 9/11. Ranke and Marquis say that England's cab was actually where the photos show it to be, all the debris was faked, and therefore England is a part of the conspiracy and is lying about his cab being hit by the light pole. Mobertermy is trying to prove that the photographs were faked, so that he can ignore all of them, claim England's cab was where Ranke and Marquis wanted England to think it was, and therefore rehabilitate England as an honest witness to the conspiracy rather than a party to it.

This has the interesting connotation that, in the bizarrely inverted world of the Citizens' Investigation Team, it looks as if we're the ones defending an insane conspiracy theory, and that Mobertermy is the one trying to prove an innocent man's... well, innocence. That's only the case if you buy into the whole North of Citgo lunacy, but those who do buy into it seem unable to consider the possibility that it might be anything short of incontravertible. Still, nothing new there.

Alternatively, you could just accept the photographs as genuine, accept that the recollections of an old man many years after the event may easily be deliberately confused and manipulated by a dishonest pair of interviewers, and conclude that flight 77 hit the Pentagon exactly the way everybody rational knows it did. But where's the fun in that?

Dave
 
What CIT and their cult completely ignore is that the Citgo security video strongly indicates the shadow of the plane passed to the south of the station. So if the shadow is on the south, how did the plane end up on the north?

Never mind that based on the fdr data the shadow is pretty much exactly where one would expect it to be. But then again, the video could be faked and the fdr faked. If so, then I must say they did a pretty good job of aligning all of this data to match the 'official path'. No one has yet to explain to me why such a clever NWO operation would suddenly decide to have the plane do a virtually impossible maneuver NoC and yet still 'impact' the Pentagon at the same location.

Maybe I'm just not smart enough to figure out the significance of this NoC stuff. Maybe my acceptance of statistical bias in their eyewitness sampling is just too simple and all my meager mind can absorb.

So how about it Mobertermy, how is it that the shadow of the plane is on the south of the Citgo (along a path that would take the plane right through those poles in the photos) and yet the plane is on the north? I would love to be as smart as you guys.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's tricky, because you have to start from the assumption that flight 77 hit the Pentagon on a more northerly track than it really hit the Pentagon on because some of the witnesses were talked into thinking they saw it do that by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis.
Click to expand...
Evidence that they talked them into this? By the way, at least one person C&A didn't talk to also puts the plane NoC (Steve Riskus), who also saw a pole on the ground NoC.

Once you've accepted that falsehood as fact, you then need to consider the discrepancy between where the photos show Lloyde England's cab, after having been hit by one of the light poles knocked down by AA77, and where Ranke and Marquis talked him into thinking it had been on 9/11.
Click to expand...
Actually, the exact opposite is true. C/A ask Lloyde leading questions trying to get him to say he was on the bridge and he always denies it (see the end of First Known Accomplice for example of leading questions trying to get Lloyde to say he was on the bridge.)

Ranke and Marquis say that England's cab was actually where the photos show it to be, all the debris was faked, and therefore England is a part of the conspiracy and is lying about his cab being hit by the light pole. Mobertermy is trying to prove that the photographs were faked, so that he can ignore all of them, claim England's cab was where Ranke and Marquis wanted England to think it was, and therefore rehabilitate England as an honest witness to the conspiracy rather than a party to it.
Click to expand...
Your whole flawed analysis is based on the idea that C/A try to get Lloyde to say he wasn't on the bridge, when the exact opposite is true. C/A are trying to get Lloyde to say he was on the bridge and he consistently denies it.

Alternatively, you could just accept the photographs as genuine, accept that the recollections of an old man many years after the event may easily be deliberately confused and manipulated by a dishonest pair of interviewers, and conclude that flight 77 hit the Pentagon exactly the way everybody rational knows it did. But where's the fun in that?
Click to expand...

Dave, if you actually watched the CIT material you would see that the exact opposite of what you are saying is true. CIT is trying to get Lloyde t osay he was on the bridge. He insists otherwise, even after they show him pictures.

What is even more bizarre about this whole scenario is that your faulty interpretation actually makes more sense on one level: it would make more sense for the Stasi Duo to try and get one more northside witness by making him say he was northside...instead the exact opposite occurs - here they have this guy insisting he was northside and they are going out of their way to accuse him.
 
BCR said:
So how about it Mobertermy, how is it that the shadow of the plane is on the south of the Citgo (along a path that would take the plane right through those poles in the photos) and yet the plane is on the north? I would love to be as smart as you guys.
Click to expand...

John, I'm as anti-CIT as you are.

As to the citgo video there are three possibilities I can think of.

1) Video is faked (CIT's claim)
2) Video is correct (CIT is wrong)
3) Shadow is actually from the C-130 that was following the 757.
 
Mobertermy said:
Evidence that they talked them into this?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't really care. The whole thing is so trivially explained, it's absurd. An old man, years after the event, was mistaken in some details of his recollections of a traumatic event. This is not just plausible, it's more or less inevitable. The whole disagreement between you and CIT is based on the false dilemma that England is either entirely correct in his recollections, or deliberately lying. If you accept the possibility that witness accounts can be mistaken in some details and correct in others, and that carefully phrased questioning can make a witness quite certain of a misconception, then all the supposed evidence for deception at the Pentagon vanishes.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
John, I'm as anti-CIT as you are.

As to the citgo video there are three possibilities I can think of.

1) Video is faked (CIT's claim)
2) Video is correct (CIT is wrong)
3) Shadow is actually from the C-130 that was following the 757.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming now that the C-130 was following on the same track?

We add another layer.


:rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
Are you claiming now that the C-130 was following on the same track?

We add another layer.


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He's already suggested that the FDR came from that C-130, so I think he alluded to it before. I think that one earned him a stundie.
 
DGM said:
Are you claiming now that the C-130 was following on the same track?

We add another layer.


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, there was a C-130 following right behind the 757. "There was two planes...that's for sure" Roosevelt Roberts...or do you think, as CIT claims, he saw the 757 flying away?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, and the way to figure out whether it's a little to the left or a lot to the left is to draw the line of sight and figure it out from that.

Christ, this is like talking to a two-year-old.

Dave
Click to expand...

Exaclty Dave,
Which is why I was asking Gamolon why poles B, C, D should nearly overlap according to his line of sight drawing, but don't in the photo.

Grow up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom