• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Proof of Photomanipulation

Mobertermy said:
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?


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?


I have no idea what you think this assupmtion was.


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.



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...


Riskus was too far north to see the Citgo, And in his own words never saw the poles hit which were 1800 feet south of him. He said he only saw them downed later, These trees block his view of both the Citgo and the navy annex. This view is even a bit south of where he drew his location when flight 77 flew into the Pentagon. So I'm being generous.

riskus.jpg
 
Mobertermy said:
Photo 2.
Click to expand...

Are you understanding parallax? If the camera man who took photo #2 took a 1' step to the right, how much would pole "B" move to the left in that photo compared to the movement of pole "C" and "D"?

The sight line isn't perfectly placed. Any small movement left or right with that camera and all objects change their relative positions to one another, the closest objects to the camera more drastic than the further objects.

The closer the object to the camera, the more that object appears to move in the view as the camera viewpoint moves.

Why don't you try an experiment. Find a grass field. Get three 3" diameter PVC pipes maybe at 3' in length. Put one in the ground 10' from your view point, one 20' away from the first , and the last one 150' away from the second.. Stagger them by 5' side to side with the furthest one in the middle of the two and the closest one on the right. Make your line of site straight down the middle at the furthest PVC pipe with a camera making sure you are about 10' from the first PVC pipe on the right (or that you can get all three into the picture).

Or just find your own light poles or objects laid out in the same way.

Take the picture. Now move 1' to the right and take another. Which PVC pipe (or objects you chose) moved the most compared to the other two?
 
Last edited:
From two and a half weeks ago--
Mobertermy said:
Carlito, did you not see my last post to you. I acknowledged that the abscence of sight lines is an issue for people (I personally do not think this necessarily matters, because obviously there is more way to prove a photo faked than just sight lines). That being said at some point I will do some work on the sight line issue - I've actually looked at some of the photos and I think the sight lines will help me. /snip
Click to expand...
How is that sight line analysis coming, Mobertermy?
 
Gamolon said:
Are you understanding parallax? If the camera man who took photo #2 took a 1' step to the right, how much would pole "B" move to the left in that photo compared to the movement of pole "C" and "D"?
Click to expand...

I understand. Why is it that if the cameraman were to move left the cab and pole B would line up putting the bridge to the south of the cab?
 
Oh, and this from the same day, too--
Mobertermy said:
I don't flat out refuse. I'm not going to have time to work on this til next week. I'd also like to point out that you guys claim that line of sight plots could debunk this whole thing very easily...why haven't any of you produced any yet then?

To be honest, I am looking forward to the line of sight thing because it is going to help me.
Click to expand...
 
A W Smith said:
Wrong, both poles are on the south (this) side of the overhead sign at the south end of the bridge, Camera is facing northwest

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/241helicopter.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Is it the middle pole you are referring to Mobertemy? If so, that's not pole 2. If it were, it would be higher up, closer to the height of the two poles in the foreground AW refers to. It barely passes the bottom of the over head sign poles.
 
Mobertermy said:
Dave, you do agree if the cameraman were to move left the cab and pole B would line up?
Click to expand...

"Line up" as in the angle of the cab would match a sight line drawn through and parallel with the long axis of the car, with said sight line connected to pole "b"?
 
Gamolon said:
"Line up" as in the angle of the cab would match a sight line drawn through and parallel with the long axis of the car, with said sight line connected to pole "b"?
Click to expand...


Line up as in the hole in the windshield would line up with Pole B.
 
Mobertermy,

If the cameraman were to slide left and line up the gate arm pivot point on the concrete median with the middle of the back window of the cab, where would that put the car then?

Use this as a reference.
cab2.jpg
 
Gamolon said:
Mobertermy,

If the cameraman were to slide left and line up the gate arm pivot point on the concrete median with the middle of the back window of the cab, where would that put the car then?

Use this as a reference.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/cab2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

According to that picture, where you have the car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom