Proof of Photomanipulation

Mobertermy said:
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?
Click to expand...
So your adding more faked evidence. (Radar on the C-130 and the Citgo video). Was anything real that day?


:confused:
 
Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I drew that line of sight on page 1. It was perfectly clear that the three poles would be close together, in the order from left to right as seen on the photograph. The reason that they don't overlap is that they're not very wide. This is a common property of poles.

Mobertermy said:
Grow up.
Click to expand...

We're on page 28, and you haven't even taken in the information that was presented to you on page 1. I'm not the one with the problem here.

Dave
 
I guess I'll never get the logic of declaring any evidence that is contrary to ones opinion fake with no further comment. I mean, sure, it guarantees never loosing an argument--at least in ones mind--but it really is a cheap way to debate.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I drew that line of sight on page 1. It was perfectly clear that the three poles would be close together, in the order from left to right as seen on the photograph. The reason that they don't overlap is that they're not very wide. This is a common property of poles.
Click to expand...
Dave, I have absolutely no idea what kind of strawman garbage you are spewing now, and frankly I'm not interested. I was asking Gamolon because he gives clear answers and backs up his claims (unlike you.)
 
Mobertermy said:
Dave, I have absolutely no idea what kind of strawman garbage you are spewing now, and frankly I'm not interested. I was asking Gamolon because he gives clear answers and backs up his claims (unlike you.)
Click to expand...

Look at post #15, in which I posted a line of sight for photo #2. The line of sight that passes through pole D has pole C on its left and pole B on its right, exactly as in photo #2. The reason that the poles don't overlap in photo #2 is that they are very narrow; to overlap, they would need to be as wide as the large blue spots you put on the overhead photo to represent their positions, but a very quick glance shows that they are in fact much narrower than these spots. From the same line of sight you should be able to figure out whether pole 4 is in or out of shot, although since pole 4 was one of the ones knocked down it wouldn't be visible anyway.

So, I've backed up my claim with a line of sight (incidentally, nearly three weeks ago), and I've explained it all very clearly, as I've done all along. It's not a strawman, as it specifically addresses the point you've been raising with Gamolon. The only reason you're not following it is that you refuse to comprehend.

Dave
 
DGM said:
Mobertermy:

How do you know CIT's evidence is not fake? Could be "dis-info".
Click to expand...

All of the witnesses they interviewed were also interviewed by the military and Library of Congress...all interviewees essentially said same thing to CIT and mainstream gov't sources. So that would mean all these witnesses would have to be lying to put the plane somewhere other than the Official flightpath...what would the purpose of such a disinfo operation be?
 
Mobertermy said:
All of the witnesses they interviewed were also interviewed by the military and Library of Congress...all interviewees essentially said same thing to CIT and mainstream gov't sources. So that would mean all these witnesses would have to be lying to put the plane somewhere other than the Official flightpath...what would the purpose of such a disinfo operation be?
Click to expand...
To "cast doubt" and cause a major up-rising in America and (dare I say it........) the WORLD!.


Bet you didn't think of that. Got to explore out of your box.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Really Dave? In that line of sight poles B and D would be right on top of each other.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The line goes through the centre of D, and misses both B and C. And if you think it's off by a fraction, just rotate it a tiny bit clockwise; you can see it's easy to draw a line of sight that reproduces the light pole positions exactly.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Wrong. The line goes through the centre of D, and misses both B and C. And if you think it's off by a fraction, just rotate it a tiny bit clockwise; you can see it's easy to draw a line of sight that reproduces the light pole positions exactly.

Dave
Click to expand...

Wrong. You just got done saying that you can determine distances from the line of sight yet in your very own line of sight poles b and d nearly over lap. Fruthermore, pole c is further from pole d in your line of sight that pole d and b, yet in the photot the exact opposite is true....pole c is closer to d than d is to b.

Mobertermy
 
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...

That is funny Mobertermy. You obviously have not read the video analysis I posted long ago for your edification. You may not be a CIT fan, but you are asserting that the plane flew NoC and that the photographs are faked. The C-130 was nowhere near the area when the 'shadow' appears and corresponds to the reactions of people located on that side of the station, followed by a significant light event in the direction of the Pentagon which corresponds EXACTLY with impact resulting from a plane described by the fdr along the SoC path.

No, the plane from ALL available objective evidence has only one path. The NoC eyewitness accounts path reflect a statistical sampling error (sampling on one side of the mean only) which for some reason people can't seem to grasp. Taken collectively, the eyewitness accounts agree completely with the official path and light pole damage.

This being the case, why on earth would the 'government' waste time 'manipulating' the photos as you suggest? There is absolutely no reason to. I've provided you with video taken moments after impact by people on the scene that validate the location of the majority of the downed poles. As I've said before and you just dismissed with a hand-wave, there are dozens of videos along with photographs by two photographers (Riskus and Ingersoll) taken within minutes of the event. Riskus took his photographs in the very area some are claiming the downed poles and cab actually were.

Please pick up a book and read up on basic statistics. A little knowledge of the Gaussian distribution will go a long way helping you understand the NoC eyewitness accounts. If you sample just a portion of the eyewitnesses, you will get a skewed path, and it will be towards the location of the eyewitness locations.

For example, I spoke to eyewitnesses at South Glebe Rd and Columbia Pike (2 miles west of the Pentagon). Bob Howison told me that he watched the plane as it flew "directly over Columbia Pike" towards the Pentagon. Just a few blocks down the road, two ACPD officers describe it as traveling "straight down" Columbia Pike. The actual flight path was about a 1/4 of a mile south of Bob and the officers. If I only based my reconstruction on their accounts, dismissing eyewitnesses located south of the path, then I would draw an erroneous conclusion (skewed) about the path and draw it a 1/4 mile north of its actual location.

This is exactly what CIT has done in the Citgo area to develop this NoC hypothesis which you seem to have bought hook-line-and-sinker. This is most likely my last response to this thread, so I wanted to leave you with why your first assumption is wrong. That led you to making the erroneous claim that the photos were manipulated. Hopefully you have learned something about photography along the way, but now it is time for you to move on and understand your first error in reasoning that brought you here. Perceptional error and statistical sampling. Two subjects well worth your future attention.
 
BCR said:
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.
Click to expand...


all faked of course!:D
 
BCR said:
(Riskus and Ingersoll) taken within minutes of the event. Riskus took his photographs in the very area some are claiming the downed poles and cab actually were.
Click to expand...
Yes, but interestingly Riskus is also a NoC witness and witness to a pole on the ground NoC. Are you saying he made this up? And that his claim also happens to corroborate Brooks, Lagasse, Mcgraw, and England himself that the poles were hit NoC?

For example, I spoke to eyewitnesses at South Glebe Rd and Columbia Pike (2 miles west of the Pentagon). Bob Howison told me that he watched the plane as it flew "directly over Columbia Pike" towards the Pentagon. Just a few blocks down the road,
Click to expand...
Come on now, you know damn well someone in this locatin couldn't say whether the plane was North or South of the Citgo...this is the best SoC witness you have?

This is exactly what CIT has done in the Citgo area to develop this NoC hypothesis which you seem to have bought hook-line-and-sinker. This is most likely my last response to this thread, so I wanted to leave you with why your first assumption is wrong.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you think this assupmtion was.

That led you to making the erroneous claim that the photos were manipulated.
Click to expand...
No, I realized the cab driver thought they were manipulated. From there I did some research and realized that Lloyde's story is corroborated by a number of witnesses.

Perceptional error and statistical sampling. Two subjects well worth your future attention.
Click to expand...

CIT interviewed all known the witnesses in the area...they didn't just pick and choose. You are trying to bring in witnesses that were pretty far from the Citgo...why stop there? Maybe you can find some West Virginian SoC witnesses too.
 
Mobertermy said:
CIT interviewed all known the witnesses in the area...they didn't just pick and choose. You are trying to bring in witnesses that were pretty far from the Citgo...why stop there? Maybe you can find some West Virginian SoC witnesses too.
Click to expand...

Then why did the settle on just the ones they did? You are aware there was many more witnesses then they feature.
 
Mobertermy said:
CIT interviewed all known the witnesses in the area...they didn't just pick and choose. You are trying to bring in witnesses that were pretty far from the Citgo...why stop there? Maybe you can find some West Virginian SoC witnesses too.
Click to expand...

Yes, they could have interviewed all the known witnesses, but do they include ALL the known witnesses in their list? Do you have a list of everybody they interviewed and the raw video or text from those interviews? Or do you claim that the list of NoC witnesses are the ONLY people that day who saw the plane?
 
Last edited:
=Mobertermy;6809024]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.
Click to expand...


CIT are on their own video, lying in saying ALL witnesses say NoC!!!!

Still waiting for proof that McGraw said poles were NoC and you can now add Steve Riskus......where is your evidence that they saw poles NoC????

Stop dodging, either provide it or retract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom