Proof of Photomanipulation

Mobertermy said:
No my central argument would be that the bridge is on the wrong side of the cab. This has nothing to do with parallax or foreshortening. I never said the bridge must always be on the left of the cab.
Click to expand...

You have not yet successfully demonstrated that.
 
Mobertermy said:
No my central argument would be that the bridge is on the wrong side of the cab. This has nothing to do with parallax or foreshortening. I never said the bridge must always be on the left of the cab.
Click to expand...
You will need to draw accurate lines of sight to support that argument. What is preventing you from doing that?
 
A W Smith said:
You will need to draw accurate lines of sight to support that argument. What is preventing you from doing that?
Click to expand...
.
24 pages, and there's yet a reason to even be interested in the alleged mispositioning of anything in the photographs.
What would purpose would that serve?
 
A W Smith said:
You will need to draw accurate lines of sight to support that argument. What is preventing you from doing that?
Click to expand...

Line of sight has nothing to do with it. Where in the slide show did I ever say that pole B can't be between the cab and the TA? Nowhere. My argument was always about where the bridge would have to be in relation to the cab.
 
Last edited:
I Ratant said:
.
24 pages, and there's yet a reason to even be interested in the alleged mispositioning of anything in the photographs.
What would purpose would that serve?
Click to expand...


The powerpoint presentation is about the position of the bridge (and Columbia Pike).
 
Mobertermy said:
Line of sight has nothing to do with it. Where in the slide show did I ever thatpole B can't be between the cab and the TA? Nowhere. My argument was always about where the bridge would have to be in relation to the cab.
Click to expand...
Line of sight has everything to do with it, And it's why you are avoiding it. You know if you attempted a line of sight illustration it would falsify your argument.
 
Mobertermy said:
The powerpoint presentation is about the position of the bridge (and Columbia Pike).
Click to expand...
.
BFD.
What is the motive, sinister or otherwise, if any, for the alleged altering of any of those photographs?
And where are -your- lines of sight for any of it?
And what do you expect to conclude with this line of............. (words fail).
 
Mobertermy said:
Line of sight has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Mobertermy, some people have been extremely patient with you and are genuinely try to help your brain. I've read the entire thread as it developed and now I'm begging you, for everybody's sake (yours included), will you please, pretty please (I'm on my knees) draw the line of sight.
 
A W Smith said:
Line of sight has everything to do with it, And it's why you are avoiding it. You know if you attempted a line of sight illustration it would falsify your argument.
Click to expand...


Now AW, it doesn't falsify my argumentation. Everything still has to be in its proper relation to each other. I dont dispute the line of sight that Drewid (for one) came up with. What that does not explain is how the east part of the bridge is on the wrong side of the cab (and this has nothing to do with parallax).
 
deeper said:
Mobertermy, some people have been extremely patient with you and are genuinely try to help your brain. I've read the entire thread as it developed and now I'm begging you, for everybody's sake (yours included), will you please, pretty please (I'm on my knees) draw the line of sight.
Click to expand...

Deeper, I do not dispute drewid's line of sight. That doesn't change that the bridge and Columbia pike end up on the wrong side of the cab.
 
I Ratant said:
.
BFD.
What is the motive, sinister or otherwise, if any, for the alleged altering of any of those photographs?
Click to expand...
Well first of all, do you agree with my contention that the cab driver himself thinks the photos are manipulated?

And where are -your- lines of sight for any of it?
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with anyones lines of sight (in so far as "correct" lines of sight can be done for manipulated photos. I don't see how it changes my claim that the bridge and columbia pike are self-evidently on the wrong side of the cab.)

And what do you expect to conclude with this line of............. (words fail).
Click to expand...

That CIT accused an innocent man of being an accomplice.
 
Mobertermy said:
I don't disagree with anyones lines of sight (in so far as "correct" lines of sight can be done for manipulated photos. I don't see how it changes my claim that the bridge and columbia pike are self-evidently on the wrong side of the cab.)
Click to expand...


Do you agree that the cab is in the same place in all of the photos and that the sightlines prove this?
 
Mobertermy said:
Deeper, I do not dispute drewid's line of sight. That doesn't change that the bridge and Columbia pike end up on the wrong side of the cab.
Click to expand...

what on earth do you mean the wrong side? They are on the north side of the cab, consistently, in all the lines of site and all the photos.

The photos are all consistent with each other, everything is in the correct place in each.

Your original "analysis'" is flawed.
 
Mobertermy said:
Well first of all, do you agree with my contention that the cab driver himself thinks the photos are manipulated?


I don't disagree with anyones lines of sight (in so far as "correct" lines of sight can be done for manipulated photos. I don't see how it changes my claim that the bridge and columbia pike are self-evidently on the wrong side of the cab.)



That CIT accused an innocent man of being an accomplice.
Click to expand...
.
Irrelevant crap struck out.
No sane person cares what CIT says or does.
After all, some seriously involved people can say "There was no plane, and the witnesses place it north of the CitGo".
Insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom