Proof of Photomanipulation

[BCR]

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.

Now Mobertermy, I thought I was done with this thread, but I can't leave this one alone.

CIT interviewed all known the witnesses in the area...they didn't just pick and choose.

is about as laughable as anything you have asserted thus far.

They did not interview "all known", just the one's they found willing to talk to them. The one's who did not say what CIT wanted to hear were labeled 'government agents', 'mossad' or 'accomplices to murder'. They instead promoted the one's they 'liked', those that supported their NoC lunacy.

I introduced witnesses to illustrate the effect of only selecting witnesses on one side of the path. They skew the path towards their positioning. Sorry if your reading comprehension failed you.

I can see that you are not here to learn. Since you are not, I am done with you. Most of the eyewitnesses are located north of the path in the Citgo area, and the ones who are not (like the USA Today set and VDOT's mossad agent) have been hand-waved away by you and CIT. That is mostly a result of the topography. But the end result is that the 'observed' flight path is skewed to the north. That is normal given the population. I gave you another 'selected' population of eyewitnesses that exhibit the same phenomenon, but the significance seems to escape you.

In other words, you really don't care to understand, but just promoting some lame 'photo manipulation' that does not exist.

 

[Mobertermy]

In this video at 0:22 do you agree the camera man would have to be further up the road north to match the angle of the lightpoles in Photo#2?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXy9D3CprWU&feature=related

 

[Mobertermy]

I introduced witnesses to illustrate the effect of only selecting witnesses on one side of the path. They skew the path towards their positioning. Sorry if your reading comprehension failed you.

No John, you selected witnesses that were nowhere near the area near the citgo.

I can see that you are not here to learn. Since you are not, I am done with you. Most of the eyewitnesses are located north of the path in the Citgo area, and the ones who are not (like the USA Today set and VDOT's mossad agent) have been hand-waved away by you and CIT.

Um, I'm not aware of those witnesses denying the NoC flightpath. The only hand waving I've seen done in regards to those witnesses is CIT claiming they couldn't have seen the plane hit due to trees. Seeing as I think the plane hit that doesn't apply to me.

 

[A W Smith]

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.

Google street view from interstate 395 where the original video was taken. The pole in question can be seen in front of the Arlington Cemetery Maintenance garage, Its definitely on the ramp from 27 to Columbia pike.

 

[Mobertermy]

Google street view from interstate 395 where the original video was taken. The pole in question can be seen in front of the Arlington Cemetery Maintenance garage, Its definitely on the ramp from 27 to Columbia pike.

Yup...it's undeniable. Good work.

 

[Gamolon]

In this video at 0:22 do you agree the camera man would have to be further up the road north to match the angle of the lightpoles in Photo#2?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXy9D3CprWU&feature=related

Explain how this happened?

First screenshot of the video you posted is of the camera man on the northeast side of the bridge by pole "B".

The second is your photo #2 shot form southwest cloverleaf.

How can poles "C" and "D" be almost in the same position in both pictures, yet pole "B" is nowhere to be found in the first screenshot?

Please explain how pole "B" is missing in the first screenshot.

 

[Gamolon]

Google street view from interstate 395 where the original video was taken. The pole in question can be seen in front of the Arlington Cemetery Maintenance garage, Its definitely on the ramp from 27 to Columbia pike.

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/centerpole.jpg[/qimg]

Nice work.

 

[Mobertermy]

Please explain how pole "B" is missing in the first screenshot.

Because he's right next to it.

 

[Gamolon]

Because he's right next to it.

Now explain how the poles match in the two photos even though the camera man is on the northeast side of the bridge and the photo was taken on the southwest side of the bridge on the cloverleaf there.

 

[Mobertermy]

Now explain how the poles match in the two photos even though the camera man is on the northeast side of the bridge and the photo was taken on the southwest side of the bridge on the cloverleaf there.

It's because the line of sight is the same.

 

[drewid]

In this video at 0:22 do you agree the camera man would have to be further up the road north to match the angle of the lightpoles in Photo#2?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXy9D3CprWU&feature=related

That question doesn't really make sense. He's using a much wider angle lens so has a much wider field of view. The centre line of his camera is not at the same angle as photo2, (about + 20 degrees clockwise looking from above) probably 50 feet or so south of the photo2 centreline. Obviously he could move north and line up the same point in the centre so the centreline was the same, but the angles to all the poles would be different because of the much wider lens

 

[DGM]

That question doesn't really make sense. He's using a much wider angle lens so has a much wider field of view. The centre line of his camera is not at the same angle as photo2, (about + 20 degrees clockwise looking from above) probably 50 feet or so south of the photo2 centreline. Obviously he could move north and line up the same point in the centre so the centreline was the same, but the angles to all the poles would be different because of the much wider lens

I'm getting the feeling that "line of sight", "field of view", "parallax" and "foreshortening" are concepts that Mobertery doesn't entirely understand. In fact from his posts....I'm positive of this.

 

[A W Smith]

Explain how this happened?

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/cameralightpoles.png
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/cameralightpoles2.png

First screenshot of the video you posted is of the camera man on the northeast side of the bridge by pole "B".

The second is your photo #2 shot form southwest cloverleaf.

How can poles "C" and "D" be almost in the same position in both pictures, yet pole "B" is nowhere to be found in the first screenshot?

Please explain how pole "B" is missing in the first screenshot.

He is too close to pole B to see it in the video. It would be to his immediate left, If the cameraman spun around 180 degrees he would be facing the other cameraman directly, The video cameraman is just to the left of the "T" in "TA1"

 

[Gamolon]

He is too close to pole B to see it in the video. It would be to his immediate left, If the cameraman spun around 180 degrees he would be facing the other cameraman directly, The video cameraman is just to the left of the "T"

What I was going to suggest is that if the camera man slid left and kept going, how fast would pole "B" come into view and go out of view as he moved in comparison to things in the distance.

 

[Mobertermy]

I'm getting the feeling that "line of sight", "field of view", "parallax" and "foreshortening" are concepts that Mobertery doesn't entirely understand. In fact from his posts....I'm positive of this.

line of sight - direction camera is facing...an imaginary line shooting out from lens.
field of view - everything captured in the image, line of sight would be right in the middle.
parallax- apparent change of relative position depending on where observer is.
foreshortening - makes objects appear closer than they really are

 

[Mobertermy]

Gamolon, compare the bottom picture in post 1146 with photo #2.

See how in 1146 pole B is to the left of C and D, and in photo #2 pole B is to the right. There had to be a serious change in position for that to occur right? The line of sight would be completely different would it not? You must see how these photos are mutually contradictory.

 

[drewid]

It's all very well being able to trot out dictionary definitions, but you need to know how that relates to the plane of the photograph.

 

[DGM]

line of sight - direction camera is facing...an imaginary line shooting out from lens.
field of view - everything captured in the image, line of sight would be right in the middle.
parallax- apparent change of relative position depending on where observer is.
foreshortening - makes objects appear closer than they really are

Very good! Now how does it relate to the images that you are viewing? Don't forget to add in the fact that most are "cropped". Should you view the overhead "line of sight" first and then justify the image you are viewing to that?

 

[carlitos]

line of sight - direction camera is facing...an imaginary line shooting out from lens.
field of view - everything captured in the image, line of sight would be right in the middle.
parallax- apparent change of relative position depending on where observer is.
foreshortening - makes objects appear closer than they really are

Incredulity - The state or quality of being incredulous; disbelief.
Stubborn - Having or showing dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, esp. in spite of good arguments or reasons to do so.

 

[drewid]

Gamolon, compare the bottom picture in post 1146 with photo #2.

See how in 1146 pole B is to the left of C and D, and in photo #2 pole B is to the right. There had to be a serious change in position for that to occur right? The line of sight would be completely different would it not? You must see how these photos are mutually contradictory.

Photo 2 is taken from much further north that the shot in 1146