Proof of Photomanipulation

[Mobertermy]

i have to ask a fairly obvious question. in photos 5 and 6, there are multiple black poles with lights on them. in photo 7, they are gone. whats up with that.

Damn, I never even noticed that. The guy who was taking a picture was walking down a hill so it is possible he was just in a new location...so I'm not sure their abscence means anything, but if you figure anything out about them let me know.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, you clearly don't understand the picture because this is the second time you've got left and right wrong. TA3 would be out of frame to the left.

No. Plot it on the overhead shot; TA3 is just to the right of the cab on this line of sight, and TA2 is well out of shot to the left.

Your explanation doesn't work because the cab is between TA2 and TA3. The cab can't be on the wrong side of TA2 or TA3...which your explanation would neccesitate.

I can see what your problem is, I think. You're talking as if left and right were absolutes, rather than defined relative to a specified direction. TA3 is to the left of the car relative to a direction at right angles to the road. However, since the photo is clearly taken at an oblique angle to the road, parallax has shifted the apparent position of TA3 relative to the cab so that it now appears on its right.

Here's a quick sketch to explain.



Viewed along the direction of the red arrow, TA3 is to the left of the cab. Viewed along the direction of the green arrow, TA3 is to the right of the cab.

All your observations are just variations on this.

Dave

 

[Fourbrick]

Photos 5 and 6 appear to have been taken from further to the right than photo seven. The bush on the right of photo 7 is to the left in photos 5 and 6.

 

[Mobertermy]

Dave your explanation about TA2 and TA3 doesn't work for the simple explanation that the traffic arms are down (the red and white arms). We know that what you are taking to be TA3 can't be TA3 because the traffic arm is down the wrong way.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just a couple more observations. Photo #3 is taken at an even more oblique angle, and the object labelled as TA2 is, again, actually TA3. Photo #4 looks to be taken at about the same angle as #3. #7 and #8 are taken from somewhere to the left of where #5 and #6 are taken from, from the relationship between the overhead gantry and the buildings in the background.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave your explanation about TA2 and TA3 doesn't work for the simple explanation that the traffic arms are down (the red and white arms). We know that what you are taking to be TA3 can't be TA3 because the traffic arm is down the wrong way.

As I said, I don't know exactly what "traffic arms" are, so I don't really know what you're talking about here. What are they?

Dave

 

[Mobertermy]

Just a couple more observations. Photo #3 is taken at an even more oblique angle, and the object labelled as TA2 is, again, actually TA3. Photo #4 looks to be taken at about the same angle as #3. #7 and #8 are taken from somewhere to the left of where #5 and #6 are taken from, from the relationship between the overhead gantry and the buildings in the background.

Dave

Dave, your analysis of TA2 and 3 is just plain and simply wrong because the traffic arms are down. TA3's arm is down to the left (if you are facing north) and TA2's is down in the other direction.

 

[Senenmut]

Photos 5 and 6 appear to have been taken from further to the right than photo seven. The bush on the right of photo 7 is to the left in photos 5 and 6.

true, look at that tree on the far left in photo 6. its the same tree in photo 7. we just have a better view of the tree in photo 7. the black pole should be seen in photo 7 because of its position in photo 6 being in front of the tree.

where did ya get the pics?

 

[Mobertermy]

As I said, I don't know exactly what "traffic arms" are, so I don't really know what you're talking about here. What are they?

Dave

Traffic arms are things that block road and move up and down. Have you ever driven on a toll road? The traffic arm will be down blocking you...pay the toll and the traffic arm comes up.

The traffic arms in the pictures look like tan metal machinery and the arms themselves are essentially boards painted red and white.

 

[Mobertermy]

true, look at that tree on the far left in photo 6. its the same tree in photo 7. we just have a better view of the tree in photo 7. the black pole should be seen in photo 7 because of its position in photo 6 being in front of the tree.

where did ya get the pics?

Wait, so are you saying the black light poles are evidence of manipulation too?

Let me see if I can find my link for the pics, but if you want you can try search terms like "Jason ingersoll photos, pentagon" or "Lloyde England photos, Jason Ingersoll" etc. He took over 200 pics. Let me see if I can dig up a good link.

Here is a link but not very user friendly....also if you scroll down there is a movie CIT made which just shows the pics in chronological order. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread300597/pg1

I'll try and find the page I first got them from.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, your analysis of TA2 and 3 is just plain and simply wrong because the traffic arms are down. TA3's arm is down to the left (if you are facing north) and TA2's is down in the other direction.

If you mean the red-and-white striped barrier arms, then there isn't one visible in photo #2. The object by the cab door may be some other object that you've mistaken for TA2, possibly part of the fire truck visible in photo #3 in roughly the right location.

In any case, your comments on the positions of the light poles are very obviously completely wrong. I think you need to start all over again. This time, draw in where you think the sight lines are for each photo, and work out what is actually visible and how it appears. There are so many things wrong with your analysis that it's pretty much worthless at this point.

Dave

 

[Mobertermy]

Here is where I got the photos for the ppt. Very clear and with the times taken. I suggest downloading them to an external drive.

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

 

[Mobertermy]

If you mean the red-and-white striped barrier arms, then there isn't one visible in photo #2. The object by the cab door may be some other object that you've mistaken for TA2, possibly part of the fire truck visible in photo #3 in roughly the right location.

No Dave. It's TA2. You can't see the red and white part because it is down facing away from the cab. Take a close look at the photos and you will see it is in fact a traffic arm...and we know it is TA2 because the direction the arm is down.

In any case, your comments on the positions of the light poles are very obviously completely wrong.

Says someone who has mixed up left and right twice and has gotten the traffic arm locations wrong, which is to be expected since you didn't even tak the time to figure out what the traffic arms are, but instead chose to comment on the traffic arms as if you had. You literally do not know what you are talking about.

I think you need to start all over again.

I think you need to figure out what TA2 and TA3 is referring to before you tell me I'm wrong about it.

This time, draw in where you think the sight lines are for each photo, and work out what is actually visible and how it appears.

No, I've made my presentation. If you want to "debunk" it feel free going about that however you wish. But you might want to start by knowing what the notations refer to...I suggest you start with TA2 and TA3.

There are so many things wrong with your analysis that it's pretty much worthless at this point.

Says someone that said I was wrong about the traffic arms but then admitted you didn't even know what they are. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your "debunking" very seriously so far.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No Dave. It's TA2. You can't see the red and white part because it is down facing away from the cab. Take a close look at the photos and you will see it is in fact a traffic arm...and we know it is TA2 because the direction the arm is down.

I've taken a close look, and it's not clear that it's definitely TA2. Apart from that, there are no inconsistencies.

Says someone that said I was wrong about the traffic arms but then admitted you didn't even know what they are. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your "debunking" very seriously so far.

Look, you can either assess it on its merits - which you've made no attempt to do - or admit that you never had any intention of serious debate here. Apart from the possibly misidentified TA2, there is nothing about your presentation that contains any anomalies, and I've demonstrated with a picture that this is true of the first of your photographs. You've made no attempt to discuss the light pole positions, despite the fact that they're the main body of your argument.

If you're so completely convinced you're right, why did you post your presentation for discussion?

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, but all the photos are evidence.

Good grief, man, he's not saying exclude the photos. He's saying there's evidence beyond them. And that when you take photos plus all that other evidence - such as the Pentagon Building Performance Report, etc. - you get a clear picture of what happened.

He's doing the opposite of what you're doing: He's referring to being inclusive and analytic about evidence. Not isolating one class of evidence, drawing overarching conclusions from just that, and ignoring what the rest of the evidence tells you.

 

[Mobertermy]

I've taken a close look, and it's not clear that it's definitely TA2. Apart from that, there are no inconsistencies.

Of course it is. Anyone can see that the arms of TA2 and TA3 go down in different directions.

Look, you can either assess it on its merits - which you've made no attempt to do - or admit that you never had any intention of serious debate here.

Of course I did. It's just that I don't consider someone that doesn't even know what a traffic arm is telling me I'm wrong about the traffic arms serious debate.

Apart from the possibly misidentified TA2, there is nothing about your presentation that contains any anomalies,

Bare assertion.
Secondly, you got TA2 and TA3 wrong. One of the reasons I labeled all the objects was so that the people could talk about the pictures very precisely. You got TA2 and TA3 completely wrong and then you want to just try and gloss over that fact as if it doesn't matter. Sorry buddy, that's not how "serious debate" works.

and I've demonstrated with a picture that this is true of the first of your photographs. You've made no attempt to discuss the light pole positions, despite the fact that they're the main body of your argument.

Here is a picture of what Photo#1 depicts - the blue line would be where the bridge has to be. We know this because of Pole A and B.

If you're so completely convinced you're right, why did you post your presentation for discussion?

As a form of peer-review, and to show people the proof of what I consider something that has important implications.

 

[Mobertermy]

Good grief, man, he's not saying exclude the photos. He's saying there's evidence beyond them. And that when you take photos plus all that other evidence - such as the Pentagon Building Performance Report, etc. - you get a clear picture of what happened.

He's doing the opposite of what you're doing: He's referring to being inclusive and analytic about evidence. Not isolating one class of evidence, drawing overarching conclusions from just that, and ignoring what the rest of the evidence tells you.

If you are not going to discuss the presentation I suggest starting another thread.

 

[DGM]

Here is a picture of what Photo#1 depicts - the blue line would be where the bridge has to be. We know this because of Pole A and B.
.

Could you draw the line of sight on that picture?

 

[I Ratant]

I trust Jack White's photo and video interpretation abilities without question. Hell, didn't he blow the lid of that whole moon landing hoax thing?

The man's a genius!

.
Jack is one of my dearest friends! Whenever there's a discussion of blatant silliness and inability to comprehend reality, I mention Jack as the poster child for such.
He has no peers!
As to this thread, it appears to be about as silly as anything Jack would be in favor of.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Of course it is. Anyone can see that the arms of TA2 and TA3 go down in different directions.

Based on your explanation of what a traffic arm is, I agree now that it's not TA3. However, that doesn't rule out the possibility of it being something else; it's not clear to me that it's the base of a traffic arm at all. I notice that there's a fire truck in roughly the right position for some part of it to be visible there. There may be other possibilities. Have you ruled out every other possible identification of this object?

Of course I did. It's just that I don't consider someone that doesn't even know what a traffic arm is telling me I'm wrong about the traffic arms serious debate.

Then you have to re-assess your definitions. I'm not claiming to have been right at every point; I tried to give you a timely reply, and made a couple of mistakes. But now, you're avoiding debate of the light pole positions by focusing on those mistakes and ignoring the remainder of what I've posted. That suggests that you're not all that interested in serious debate.

Bare assertion.

No, as you can see I've dealt with all your other claimed anomalies.

Secondly, you got TA2 and TA3 wrong. One of the reasons I labeled all the objects was so that the people could talk about the pictures very precisely. You got TA2 and TA3 completely wrong and then you want to just try and gloss over that fact as if it doesn't matter. Sorry buddy, that's not how "serious debate" works.

Again, you're avoiding the issue of the light poles.

For some reason, this is typical of people who claim photo fakery. They come here all friendly, asking for feedback, then when it's offered they dismiss it angrily. The normal pattern is that they start ranting about government shiolls by about page 3 of the thread, and never actually address substantive criticisms. Your entire analysis is based on a very comprehensive misunderstanding of parralax, as is virtually every other argument of this sort that I've seen, and until you realise that you'll never have a clue what your pictures actually mean.

But there's very little point saying any more. You'll probably look for a spelling mistake so you can ignore it. Well, I've left you two to work with.

Dave