View Full Version: Pentagon Photo Studies

Loose Change Forum > The Pentagon > Pentagon Photo Studies


Title: Pentagon Photo Studies


Sekhmet - November 9, 2007 02:21 AM (GMT)
Check this out...

9/11 Photo Studies


buddy - November 9, 2007 04:53 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Sekhmet @ Nov 8 2007, 10:21 PM)
Check this out...

9/11 Photo Studies

I saw this like two years ago. It's pretty good. Although I am hesitant to look at small anomalies with photos. Sometimes it's just a distraction. But this guy has some convincing stuff.

fretwire - November 9, 2007 05:27 AM (GMT)
Perspective, depth of field, and all kinds of photography variables sometimes can make pictures look different than what we see in real life. I'm not saying that's what is happening here, but a couple photos seem that way.

Sekhmet - November 9, 2007 10:43 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (fretwire @ Nov 9 2007, 12:27 AM)
Perspective, depth of field, and all kinds of photography variables sometimes can make pictures look different than what we see in real life.  I'm not saying that's what is happening here, but a couple photos seem that way.


QUOTE (buddy)
I saw this like two years ago. It's pretty good. Although I am hesitant to look at small anomalies with photos. Sometimes it's just a distraction. But this guy has some convincing stuff.



Good points.

Powerhouse - November 9, 2007 04:23 PM (GMT)
Jack White is an idiot who's been doing a hack job on trying to analyze photos for decades. He even got a shot to testify to the House Select Committee on Assassinations about the back yard photos of Lee Oswald, which he claimed were faked:

--------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed it by Oswald's body and also by his rifle; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photographed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against the image in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?

Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?

Mr. WHITE. No.

[...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, you have made reference to several points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald's head is disproportionately----

I withdraw the question.

That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photographs in light of the head size; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.

[...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.

Mr. WHITE. All right.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pentagon reality check - November 9, 2007 08:23 PM (GMT)
I'm with powerhouse totally here. I looked at White's Pentagon case in particular once, not even looking again I recall he had all kinds of silly observations - 'bagman,' 'whatsit,' an extra firetruck edited in for no reason, a guardrail edited out for no reason - actually that one I'll need to look at again for anther reason - I forget what he decided it all meant, if anything. He's also 'debunked' the moon landing with photo analysis. Concentration camp photos next?

Sekhmet - November 10, 2007 05:16 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Pentagon reality check @ Nov 9 2007, 03:23 PM)
I'm with powerhouse totally here. I looked at White's Pentagon case in particular once, not even looking again I recall he had all kinds of silly observations - 'bagman,' 'whatsit,' an extra firetruck edited in for no reason, a guardrail edited out for no reason - actually that one I'll need to look at again for anther reason - I forget what he decided it all meant, if anything. He's also 'debunked' the moon landing with photo analysis. Concentration camp photos next?


After looking into it further.. yeah i think in with you guys on it.. At first glance I really thought he was on to something.. but now in not to sure. I believe that there is something really going on the 9/11.. without doubt. But this guy does kinda have a issue with to many things which makes me think he is a bit over the edge..




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree