If One Photograph Is Faked From 9/11, Why Not All?

Originally posted by Weeeden
reply to post by ANOK

 

LOL I still think it looks like a boat, it even looks like there's someone on top of it ( like a tour boat or something ).. BUT ... heck, it might not be! I've been wrong once before!

Is it a plane, is it a trash can? No, it's a New York Water Taxi...



I guess we were right after all?

if you look at the black domed building, in both pictures the amount of recess exposed at the top left corner is exactly the same. if the photographer ran to the left to take the second picture, this would not be the case. also the white pillar in the recess at the top right hand side of the domed building is larger in the zoomed out second shot! explain why the man in the white shirt and shorts has a huge chunk missing from his head in the 1st picture and how his right hand can possibly contort into the impossible position seen, with the mutant thumb above the fingers. also explain why the same man in the second picture has his right hand going right through what i assume to be his head, but is more like a dark blob. only a very few second (1 or 2) can have passed between the taking of both shots, judging by the dispersal of the dust. to me, if anything, the photographer ran to the right, based on the perspectives of the buildings, but that would not make sense with respect to the foregrounds. the numerous pixilations are very suspicious and the two pictures do not make sense to me when viewed side by side, strongly indicating fakery.

p.s. it does seem to be a boat on the river and not a yellow trashcan as i mistakenly indicated.

Originally posted by pshea38
if you look at the black domed building, in both pictures the amount of recess exposed at the top left corner is exactly the same. if the photographer ran to the left to take the second picture, this would not be the case. also the white pillar in the recess at the top right hand side of the domed building is larger in the zoomed out second shot!

It does look odd but I still think it's just the foreshortening of the photograph, the building is further away than it looks and the amount of movement from one frame to the next is not enough for the building to change perspective.

explain why the man in the white shirt and shorts has a huge chunk missing from his head in the 1st picture and how his right hand can possibly contort into the impossible position seen, with the mutant thumb above the fingers.

That's just light, the same shine is on his shirt, his hand is in front of his head. Looks like he's holding his hand up to cover the glare from the sun in his eyes.

also explain why the same man in the second picture has his right hand going right through what i assume to be his head, but is more like a dark blob. only a very few second (1 or 2) can have passed between the taking of both shots, judging by the dispersal of the dust. to me, if anything, the photographer ran to the right, based on the perspectives of the buildings, but that would not make sense with respect to the foregrounds. the numerous pixilations are very suspicious and the two pictures do not make sense to me when viewed side by side, strongly indicating fakery.

Again it's just the lighting, and a low quality picture. Black blob is his head no doubt.

Both pics are over exposed in the foreground due to the early morning sun. The camera would have been set to capture the buildings where there is less light.

p.s. it does seem to be a boat on the river and not a yellow trashcan as i mistakenly indicated.

Yes mystery solved.

It looks to me that it was taken by the same photographer probably 30-40 seconds apart. The large photo was taken first and then he walked to his left a few yards to change his perspective and took another shot. The man in the foreground with his hand on his head is simply stunned and not moving much. The spire is collapsing naturally.

edit: He's walking to his left to get the emergency vehicle in the foreground.

Originally posted by goatfish
It looks to me that it was taken by the same photographer probably 30-40 seconds apart. The large photo was taken first and then he walked to his left a few yards to change his perspective and took another shot. The man in the foreground with his hand on his head is simply stunned and not moving much. The spire is collapsing naturally.

edit: He's walking to his left to get the emergency vehicle in the foreground.

edit on 15-2-2011 by goatfish because: (no reason given)

Seeing as how the WTC was in freefall at this point and would have totally collapsed in around 9 seconds , it would have been impossible for the two pictures to have been taken by the same photographer .

I see nothing fake in either picture .

Originally posted by gandalphthegrey
Seeing as how the WTC was in freefall at this point and would have totally collapsed in around 9 seconds , it would have been impossible for the two pictures to have been taken by the same photographer .

I see nothing fake in either picture .

I also don't see anything fake. You are probably correct that the timing was closer to 9 seconds. But I don't see why that would make it impossible for a single photographer to reposition themselves and take a second photo. It doesn't look like the distance between the two positions is that great.

Originally posted by goatfish

Originally posted by gandalphthegrey
Seeing as how the WTC was in freefall at this point and would have totally collapsed in around 9 seconds , it would have been impossible for the two pictures to have been taken by the same photographer .

I see nothing fake in either picture .

I also don't see anything fake. You are probably correct that the timing was closer to 9 seconds. But I don't see why that would make it impossible for a single photographer to reposition themselves and take a second photo. It doesn't look like the distance between the two positions is that great.

The pictures only look as though they were taken seconds apart . Look at the position of the mast of the falling building and remember , at this point the building is in freefall
You have to take into concideration that if it is the same photographer , he would have to reposition himself , meter the shot to set the correct exposure and fire off a few shots . All in a couple of seconds ?

Definately two photographers

here are the two, same size pictures, side by side. the clear portion of sky colours and the colours of the man with the white shirt and brown shorts are identical in both pictures, indicating that they were snapped from the same camera. the height that the spire has fallen, as well as the dust dispersal, indicate a very few seconds could only have passed between the two photos. it has yet to be explained why the man in the white shirt in the 1st photo has a big chunk of his head missing and the building behind can be seen filling the gap(you will need to zoom). also, as mentioned, his hand is in an impossible position behind his head with his thumb above his fingers(you will need to zoom). try it to see that it is impossible. if we assume the photographer ran to his left to get the second shot, why are the rubbish bins next to the pole near the man in the white shirt not visible in the first photograph. the tops of the two black bins should be visible above the car as they come up almost the top of the railing.

reply to post by pshea38


I've zoomed in using photoshop (vs 11.0.2), that is not his hand or thumb, it's light reflecting off his head, overexposure makes it look brighter. His hand is in front of his head where it can't be seen. Look at his shirt shoulder/sleeve and follow the shine up to the head, it's the same light source. You can't see the building through it.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pshea38

 

I've zoomed in using photoshop (vs 11.0.2), that is not his hand or thumb, it's light reflecting off his head, overexposure makes it look brighter. His hand is in front of his head where it can't be seen. Look at his shirt shoulder/sleeve and follow the shine up to the head, it's the same light source. You can't see the building through it.

edit on 2/15/2011 by ANOK because: typo

i am sorry anok but i am not seeing what you are seeing. i have it zoomed up to 750% and neither your explanation or my own interpretation of this man makes any sense to me. i still see some of the building through the gaping hole in the left side of his head and i see his hand in an impossible position. i could very well be wrong but these picture just makes no sense to me. i don't believe they were taken by different photographers and i dont believe the photographer had time between shots to adjust his position by 20-30 feet to account for the change in foreground perspective. it smacks of clear fakery to me.
cheers.

The only thing odd here, is your interpretation... It is all about perspective, something you apparently are not fully aware of.

What a silly "look at me" question - "If one photo is faked, why not all of them?"

"If one photograph is real, why not all of them?"

See how ridiculous this approach is? Of course you don't.. This is your delusion, we are simply reading through it.

People need to realize the following:

1) There are ZERO "life points" for finding a conspiracy in everything!
2) Sometimes a photograph is exactly that, just a photograph!
3) Critical thinking and questioning is good, as long as reality is still in arms reach.
3) Imagination is good.....imagination without an ounce of reality is a delusion.

It seems as though countless people have made 9/11 their "mission" or "purpose in life" ... No amount of evidence will ever fill this need for a conspiracy...

Imagine if all of a sudden, all of the evidence was released... Enough evidence to prove the OS was 100% correct.. Imagine the disappointment .. Truthers would be VERY VERY disappointed..

You can lie to yourself all you want... If the OS was proven to be correct without a shadow of a doubt, you would all be disappointed....

Remember this.... A true American would be relieved... A truther would loose purpose and be disappointed!

1) There are ZERO "life points" for finding a conspiracy in everything!
2) Sometimes a photograph is exactly that, just a photograph!
3) Critical thinking and questioning is good, as long as reality is still in arms reach.
3) Imagination is good.....imagination without an ounce of reality is a delusion.

If you learned how to count, maybe we'll take your powers of observation and your propaganda more seriously.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

1) There are ZERO "life points" for finding a conspiracy in everything!
2) Sometimes a photograph is exactly that, just a photograph!
3) Critical thinking and questioning is good, as long as reality is still in arms reach.
3) Imagination is good.....imagination without an ounce of reality is a delusion.

If you learned how to count, maybe we'll take your powers of observation and your propaganda more seriously.

If you're hung up over a typo, rather than the post itself, then we have larger problems here. Typos happen, ignorance can be avoided.

One of the two pictures is a negative print, It's obvious when you take your POV and flip it 180.

Originally posted by EDL2011
just noticed off topic that in the bigger blown-up version of the picture thers a dark disc shape in the top left hand corner at the top of the furthest building
anyone else see it ???

I see the dark object, not well enough to call it a disc though. Good eyes!

Originally posted by pshea38
i am sorry anok but i am not seeing what you are seeing. i have it zoomed up to 750% and neither your explanation or my own interpretation of this man makes any sense to me.

Hmmm OK here is what a 200% zoom looks like...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d12e5f95767c.jpg[/atsimg]

How can you see ANYTHING at 750% zoom it's too pixelated?

i still see some of the building through the gaping hole in the left side of his head

No you can't. It's not a hole it's reflecting light, same as on his shirt and other areas of the foreground. The pic is also a low quality copy of the original, which adds artifacts between large changes of light and shade. The pic is full of artifacts.

To do any real analysis you need the original RAW photo file.

Artifacts in digital images are unwelcome and unnatural elements or distortions. While they abound in reproductions of all kinds they often go unnoticed, perhaps because we are so used to them. Problems that we perceive in images are often the result of several causes combined, but let's try to look at some of the more prominent ones individually...

www.dpcorner.com...

and i see his hand in an impossible position.

How is that an impossible position? If you except his hand is in front of his head covering his eyes it makes perfect sense (like someone saluting).

If you're hung up over a typo, rather than the post itself, then we have larger problems here.

Spare me the melodramatic theatrics.

Typos happen, ignorance can be avoided.

Sounds like something you got from a bumper sticker. When you are promoting ignorance, it's a good idea not to draw attention to your limitations.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

If you're hung up over a typo, rather than the post itself, then we have larger problems here.

Spare me the melodramatic theatrics.

Typos happen, ignorance can be avoided.

Sounds like something you got from a bumper sticker. When you are promoting ignorance, it's a good idea not to draw attention to your limitations.

I can't in any way shape or form see how this is relevant to the thread.

reply to post by pshea38


Absolutely nothing wrong or fake with the images. If you don't understand how artifacts can produce those anomolies that you see, then you will be forever lost in a world of conspiracy.

TJ

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Ignorance can be fixed.... Stupid is forever! So I had a typo.. this says what?
Maybe we should focus on your comprehension? You claimed it was a counting error, when it was obviously a typing error. Is all of your logic flawed in such a way? Or did you just have a single lapse of comprehension?

I think your logic is always flawed by your arrogance, while stunted by your ignorance.