Proof of Photomanipulation

[Mobertermy]

So it looks like you got TA3 completely wrong too, and now you want to gloss over that fact as if it doesn't matter.

I didn't get TA3 wrong at all...I said the arm was going down the wrong way. It's insignificant.

Here's the sight line again, with the two points marked in white.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22087[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_147644d27e8b91d392.jpg[/qimg]

As you can see, the point between 1 and 2 is to the left of the cab, and the point between A and B is to the right. It's simply because of the line of sight, again.

Dave

Good...now in the overhead map where you drew the two white marks...draw a line connecting them? See how that line will never cross the cab?

Now go connect where the two white dots would be in Photo #2...see how the line will cross the cab?

Perspective does not explain that away.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I didn't get TA3 wrong at all...I said the arm was going down the wrong way. It's insignificant.

You dismissed my identification of it on the basis that you thought the arm was going down the wrong way. And, so far, that's the only "error" you've found in anything I've posted. Turns out it was your error, not mine. And that's "insignificant"?

Good...now in the overhead map where you drew the two white marks...draw a line connecting them? See how that line will never cross the cab?

Correct.

Now go connect where the two white dots would be in Photo #2...see how the line will cross the cab?

Again, is this some kind of joke? There is nothing in photo #2 to indicate where 1, 2 or A are relative to the cab, so how can you draw a line between things you can't see? The line of sight is crossing the highway at an acute angle, and there's foreshortening so that B looks closer than you might expect, but 1, 2 and A aren't even in the picture. You have no way of telling, therefore, where the line should go; you're simply guessing.

Go back to the line of sight, and compare the positions of the light poles you can see in photo #2 with where they should be. They're all there.

Perspective does not explain that away.

There's nothing to explain away.

Dave

 

[NYCEMT86]

I didn't get TA3 wrong at all...I said the arm was going down the wrong way. It's insignificant.

<snip>

So going back to photo 1 and 2, are you willing to admit that you mislabeled the TAs, specifically photo 2 that shows the cab next to TA3 and not TA2?

 

[Mobertermy]

You dismissed my identification of it on the basis that you thought the arm was going down the wrong way. And, so far, that's the only "error" you've found in anything I've posted. Turns out it was your error, not mine. And that's "insignificant"?

No, Dave. Your error is that you mixed up TA2 and TA3 = significant. My error was that I was wrong about which way the are was down = insignificant.

Again, is this some kind of joke? There is nothing in photo #2 to indicate where 1, 2 or A are relative to the cab, so how can you draw a line between things you can't see?

Because we know where they are relative to the cab. We know the white dot for 1 and 2 would be out of frame to the left, and the white dot for A and B out of frame to the right. To connect the dots in the overhead map you never cross the cab, but in photo 2 you do.

Go back to the line of sight, and compare the positions of the light poles you can see in photo #2 with where they should be. They're all there.

That's not the issue. The issue is where the bridge is in relation to the cab. In the over head map it is completely to the left, but in photo number two the west side is to the left of the cab and the east side is to the right of the cab - that doesn't match reality Dave.

 

[Mobertermy]

So going back to photo 1 and 2, are you willing to admit that you mislabeled the TAs, specifically photo 2 that shows the cab next to TA3 and not TA2?

No, its you that are wrong. I've already explained this. The cab is between TA3 and TA2...that means the next one South is TA1. Look at the other photos if you don't believe me that that is the case.

 

[NYCEMT86]

No, its you that are wrong. I've already explained this. The cab is between TA3 and TA2...that means the next one South is TA1. Look at the other photos if you don't believe me that that is the case.

I have, and I have actually provided further photos to show that you are incorrect. If you would like to address this post.

 

[NYCEMT86]

If your overhead was correct, we would also see lightpost A in the photo, to the right of the cab, but it is not. In fact lightpost B is to the right of the cab.


ETA:

In fact, the first photo listed on post 118, the man all the way to the right on the other side of the barrier would be right next to TA2.

 

[Kid Eager]

What a bunch of double talk garbage. You say you'd be entering "from the front bumper and exiting the rear" - doesn't that contradict your earlier claim that the cab wasn't on the bridge?

No, you are having trouble reading. Go back, read, and *comprehend* my previous post in its entirety before you engage your typing finger.

Now back to the game at hand. As we have established at posting #123 in this thread that your claim in slide 17 is incorrect, are you going to adjust your presentation to remove that claim and its consequences?

Here is the entire content of that post again:

Okay, if you insist:

Commentary on slide 17 is unambiguously incorrect on you own evidence presented:

Slide 10 shows the line of view from the cab to the edge of the Pentagon. As a straight line it subtends an angle of around 60 degrees from the x-axis formed by the road going under the bridge.

So far so good?

Now look at slide 15. This is a tight telephoto shot taken some distance back from the cab, looking towards the burning Pentagon. You can tell this is the case because of the foreground-background compression (a characteristic of longer telephoto lenses, combined with both the foreground and background being in focus. Without knowing the actual camera used I can't be more specific, but you have a fairly narrow angle of view.

Furthermore, you can calculate roughly where the photographer was standing by doing a conical projection back from how much of the Pentagon face you can see to the 12 foot width of view at the cab, back to the photographer's feet. This places the photographer adjacent the point marked TA2, on the grass.

If pole A were in the shot it would have been a fake. You cannot take a telephoto shot as shown and have both the cab and the Pentagon in shot with the light poles shown, yet still include pole A - it's several degrees to the right of the field of view of the photo.​

 

[Childlike Empress]

There's nothing to explain away.

I'll break down the problem you aren't aware of.

CIT have all those witnesses reporting the plane approaching on the infamous "North of Citgo" path. The Ingersoll pictures (and whatever else, not part of the argument) contradict the path.

CIT interviewed Lloyde again in 2008. They show him the pictures of himself and his Cab hit by a lightpole on the official "South of Citgo" flightpath. He claims he wasn't there. Never seen the pictures. Doesn't say they are faked, but something ambigious about "illusions" and what not. 15 min argument occures. Craig tries over and over again to get him to admit that he was south of Columbia Pike. Lloyd says he wasn't there. Drives with the CIT guys to the Pentagon, shows where he was.

Watch it yourself, it's rather fascinating. I just rewatched it in full, but the important part where Craig tries to get him to agree that he was south of Columbia Pike, and the following road trip, start at 58 min in:



CIT concluded that Lloyd is "implicated" and for whatever reason lying about the location. Mobertermy says the pictures are manipulated and Lloyd is telling the truth about his location (and therefore corroborating the NoC witnesses).

I just visited the Pentagon again and took a second shot, this time from the place where Llloyd says he was. Here:

Ingersoll image of Lloyde, the Cab and the Pentagon

(1) View from south of the bridge Route 27 over Columbia Pike

(2) View from where Lloyde says he has been

Orientation

 

[Kid Eager]

If the cab was actually at location (2) that would require a completely spurious set of context photos to establish the cab to the south of the Columbia Pike and almost at the overhead roadsign gantry.

The close shot of the cab and 2 people with the Pentagon in the background burning then doesn't work, though, if it were taken at location 2.

This then raises a new problem that cannot be conclusively proven just by looking at the photos presented so far:
- for this theory of "false placement" of the cab to hold true and *not* accept the conclusion that the gentleman misremembers how far south along the road he was, the *original* negative (or raw file if it was digital) would need to be examined and the camera settings used recreated. This would then be compared to the *public* version of the image and any anomalies examined.

 

[Childlike Empress]

What's the chance that the Ingersoll picture was taken from location (1)?

 

[Kid Eager]

What's the chance that the Ingersoll picture was taken from location (1)?

Given that particular photo in isolation and told that the car was on the road passing the Pentagon heading south at the time, I would place the car anywhere from location (1) having just gone over the bridge, to a point on the road before the bridge approximately halfway between locations (1) and (2).

If you asked me to pick a single spot, I'd go for the northern approach to the bridge, roughly adjacent to the white vehicle heading south in the other lanes of your context aerial image. I base this on the slight incline in the photo that doesn't appear to be attributable to the camera being tilted (the vertical lines in the image are pretty much perpendicular), and that one light pole looks the same as the next, and there's a bunch of them to choose from along a freeway!

As stated in previous posts, without knowing more about the original image, the above is nothing more than educated guessing. The only difference is, I *know* I'm guessing....

 

[Chodorov]

Hey,
I just made a new powerpoint presentation which proves photo manipulation at the Pentagon. It specifically deals with the cab driver Lloyde England, the man CIT accused of being an accomplice. If you have the time you can view it at my blog http://slothrop-blogjammin.blogspot.com/ I'm interested in seeing what you hard core debunkers have to say about it.

Don't be gentle.

(Note: this isn't a plug for my "blog"...it's just that I can't post a powerpoint presentation here.)

The State manipulates photos relentlessly. For example NASA always puts Mars ground and low-orbit photos through a red-tinged lens and have been doing so for decades. This is how government behaves. They make mistakes and then reinforce those mistakes ruthlessly for decades to come. People naively assume that they do things in accordance with logic and normal human decency. This is more the exception then the rule.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, Dave. Your error is that you mixed up TA2 and TA3 = significant. My error was that I was wrong about which way the are was down = insignificant.

No, I didn't mix them up. From the photo in post #100, it's now clear that the object in your photo #2 is TA3, as I originally said, not TA2, as you mis-labelled it. The sight line agrees with this.

Because we know where they are relative to the cab. We know the white dot for 1 and 2 would be out of frame to the left, and the white dot for A and B out of frame to the right. To connect the dots in the overhead map you never cross the cab, but in photo 2 you do.

No, we don't know all of that. We don't know how far out of shot A is to the right, so we don't know whether the mid-point between A and B is in or out of shot. And if it's in shot (which, of course, we won't see because it's an imaginary point), then it's behind the cab, and the line from it to a point out of shot to the left sill stil pass behind the cab.

That's not the issue. The issue is where the bridge is in relation to the cab. In the over head map it is completely to the left, but in photo number two the west side is to the left of the cab and the east side is to the right of the cab - that doesn't match reality Dave.

I've explained this already. Left and right are defined according to the direction of the highway in the overhead, and according to the direction of view in the photo. They're different directions. In photo #2 you're looking at an angle across the highway, so part of the bridge is to the right of the line passing from the photographer through the cab.

Look again at the overhead line of sight. See how part of the bridge is to the left of it, and part to the right.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'll break down the problem you aren't aware of.

Thanks for that, but I'm aware of the discrepancy between where the photos show Lloyd England's cab and where, seven years later, he recollected it as having been. The simple explanation is that he was mistaken about where his cab was, that Lagasse and Brooks were mistaken about which side the plane passed (we already know from the Citgo video that they were mistaken about which side of the station their car was on), that the other witnesses interviewed years after the event were similarly mistaken or misled, and that flight 77 hit the Pentagon as every eyewitness agrees.

As far as Mobertermy's photographs are concerned, there are no inconsistencies.

Dave

 

[erwinl]

What's the chance that the Ingersoll picture was taken from location (1)?

Based on your photo's.

Looking at the way the windows in the pentagon are viewed in perspective, I'd say closer to location (1) then to location (2).
From (2) you can see the right side of the windows in the pentagon. At (1) it's more the left side of the windows that can be seen.
It is not totally clear, but in the first picture it looks like we can see the left side of the windows. So that would make it location (1).

 

[JohnG]

The State manipulates photos relentlessly. For example NASA always puts Mars ground and low-orbit photos through a red-tinged lens and have been doing so for decades. This is how government behaves. They make mistakes and then reinforce those mistakes ruthlessly for decades to come. People naively assume that they do things in accordance with logic and normal human decency. This is more the exception then the rule.

Sounds like the Conspiracy Theorists are projecting again.

 

[Oystein]

First:

This claim is absolutely preposterous...anyone can look at photo #3 and see that TA3 is unambiguously blocking the lane the cab is in.

Then:

Okay guys you guys might be right about which way the gate is down. Is the cab between TA3 and TA2 or TA4 and TA3?

That is a typical problem I have with many truthers:
They are so often so absolutely, totally, unambiguously, 100%, no mistake possible, beyond all doubt sure, certain and convinced that they are right.
When in fact they are wrong.
Even about simple things like "what do we see in this picture?"

This is in stark contrast to a skeptic.
A skeptic may very well be very convinced that he is right, but rarely so rock-solidly bullyish about his claims.


Mobertermy, if you want a peer review to check and improve your work, you should be open to the possibility that you could be wrong about any- and everything, and accept critism and refutation more humbly. If someone disagrees with what you want to have peer-reviewed, and you don't want to accept that criticism, you must first review your own position, try to understand why that criticism arose, and in turn refute it with stronger arguments.
Saying that you are obviously, absolurely right to start with is simply a sign of a wrong attitude.


ETA:

I didn't get TA3 wrong at all...I said the arm was going down the wrong way. It's insignificant.
...

No, it is VERY significant. Once you claim to be absolutely right, and we are preposterously wrong - once you use such strong words AND turn out to be flat wrong, we must view everything else you present as absolutely true with utmost skepticism. Because it shows you are not approaching the problem you want to solve with an open, skeptical mind, but instead with a very rigid and fixed predisposition.

 

[Mobertermy]

I have, and I have actually provided further photos to show that you are incorrect. If you would like to address this post.

There is nothing I disagree with in that post. The cab is to the north of the overhead sign and TA2. It is south of TA3. The cab is between TA2 and TA3, this is plain and simply a non-contriversial fact, and you will do nothing but embarass yourself if you continue to insist that the cab is between TA3 and TA4.

 

[DGM]

There is nothing I disagree with in that post. The cab is to the north of the overhead sign and TA2. It is south of TA3. The cab is between TA2 and TA3, this is plain and simply a non-contriversial fact, and you will do nothing but embarass yourself if you continue to insist that the cab is between TA3 and TA4.

Do you still maintain that the object in the close-up picture of the cab is TA2? If so what do you base that on?