Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,441 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 877,376
Pageviews Today: 1,153,364Threads Today: 258Posts Today: 4,648
09:46 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/08/2010 12:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So why is there ANY fake photo of a real person?


Astronut has more knowledge of photography than you could ever hope to have. You should attend his live streams and see what he can do. You might learn that you are like a snot nosed know it all kid that just annoys the shit out of the grownups.

And notice he can't argue the multiple fake photos. He simply suggests that the photo in the Newspaper of the Colaios wasn't faked; but that wasn't even my point at that juncture; I was talking of the photo IN the photo looking like frontal faces for the Colaio brothers.

:)

And no-one on their memorial from 2003-2009 (and ONE mention each, from the same "Desiree" friend, at that)?

Oh come on.

Now they have memorials back to 2001.

:)

You guys aren't real debunkers here, if you believe that.

Hey, if you believe that, I have a centred tower with one behind it, which as you move around them doesn't begin to be eclipsed by the front one ... as the bridge behind it moves around the towers ...

I could sell you that. Or the bridge. Which one would you like? :)
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Fucking idiot. Insensitive flip flopping bitch. You are even worse than Nancy Lieder in your arrogant delusions and attention seeking. Are you here to support or debunk Nancy and the Zetas, (see the thread title) or are you here to dishonour the dead, defame the families of the victims and bore us to tears with your ignorance and arrogance? You are one fucked up attention whore.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/08/2010 12:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
One wonders how long clunker has been puffing on a crackpipe.

You do not get as stupid as the clunker without some assistance.


You sure get a lot of mileage out of math -- you don't understand that though math can clarify some specific issues which might fool the senses, there are some basic principles which underly your math ...

The physics are physical, not written somewhere. You can see a proportion problem without figuring mathematically EXPRESSED physics first.

The physics are expressed in the images. Real buildings have proportions (math, if you will), and though you might be fooled in some circumstances -- say, by lens distortion -- lens distortion would bring OTHER clues into the image.

Thus, instead, this is a regular IMPOSSIBILITY of orientation, where you should see the farther tower moving behind the closer, as anything like the bridge behind (or something in front) begins to move a lot too.

You are proving yourself a follower of mere fallacy: "Method of Tenacity" in the face of absolute optical physical principles.

The math on this is mere scribbling description. We all can know this, without equation expression. What physic allows an object to stay in same proportion behind another, when you move around it so the background moves?

GOD viewpoint? Are you GOD? You really are a dunce.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



You can't do the math, much less understand it, clunker, because you are apparently a congenital moron or under the influence of some brain altering substance.

Have you been pathologically gullible your whole life, or is it related to your abuse problems?
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 434868
Netherlands
06/08/2010 12:57 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
God! What a fucking moron.
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 01:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You're the one that can't seem to look at a fucking stereo photo properly.
 Quoting: Astronut

LOLOL! This is OF one of the fakes!

Okay: fine. Let's handle this. Here's your link again. [link to i319.photobucket.com]

Supposedly, between the photo on the left and the one on the right, we are moving TO OUR LEFT. This puts the background on the left TO THE RIGHT IN OUR VIEW. (The bridge.) Fine? Okay, fine so far.

So if the bridge is moving off our view to our right, we are also slightly turning our camera to focus on the tower as we fly to the left. But it's not so close up that that matters much. Or say we're far away and moving roughly to the left, not so much a circle. Either way ...

No problem.

And we'll see more of the background tower (in this shot).

No problem.


Except ... whether you are going away in a straight line OR around in a circle to get the difference in parallax ...

the SIDES OF THE BUILDING WILL shift: and look at the right-hand proportion of the shadow side --- it's the SAME in both parallax situations.

THAT IS AN OPTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.


They just moved the bridge and the building in behind.

(The one I was talking of in Sept. Clues had the opposite problem: the tower in behind should have gotten less visible.)

LOL!
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 01:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So why is there ANY fake photo of a real person?


Astronut has more knowledge of photography than you could ever hope to have. You should attend his live streams and see what he can do. You might learn that you are like a snot nosed know it all kid that just annoys the shit out of the grownups.

And notice he can't argue the multiple fake photos. He simply suggests that the photo in the Newspaper of the Colaios wasn't faked; but that wasn't even my point at that juncture; I was talking of the photo IN the photo looking like frontal faces for the Colaio brothers.

:)

And no-one on their memorial from 2003-2009 (and ONE mention each, from the same "Desiree" friend, at that)?

Oh come on.

Now they have memorials back to 2001.

[...]
Fucking idiot. Insensitive flip flopping bitch. [...]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953

Flip-flopping? The fake heads are fake heads -- fake photos. Thus we are forced to test for real victims, not assuming these people are real -- any of them, prima facie.

Now -- if you understand this concept -- as a SUB-SET possibility from this hypothesis we have to test, we can ask: if ANY fake photos are of real people. And if so, then how did that come to be? That's a strange situation. But one may assume that most fakes are not. N'esc-ce pas?

:)
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/08/2010 01:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
That's your goal. I just pwned your shit though, emotional or not.

No you didn't.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

For the love of god, get yourself some red blue glasses if you can't view cross-eye images properly and then look again. You've been pwned, end of story.
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
Not circular logic: factual assessment of the photos. A "hard copy"? No. What we'd need was photos from other angles, really different angles.
 Quoting: clare

Oh, so if the family showed you how they had REAL PHOTOS of their son, the ones you claimed to be fake, you still wouldn't be convinced? This just shows how incredibly biased you are in favor of your foregone conclusion, and how unwilling you are to put it to the test. Why don't you face the family if you're so sure of yourself? They must be in on the hoax if they don't find either of the photos to be fake, so go, expose them to the world. I'm sure your fellow twoof nutters will love you for it. You're too much of a coward to actually do it though.
You CAN see the photos are duplicates, can you? You HAVE gotten that far, eh?
 Quoting: clare

No, they're not duplicates, they're two shots with two slightly different angles and head tilts, probably part of the same photo shoot but different pictures. There's no evidence of fakery whatsoever.
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 01:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You're the one that can't seem to look at a fucking stereo photo properly.

LOLOL! This is OF one of the fakes!

[...]

THAT IS AN OPTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

They just moved the bridge and the building in behind.

(The one I was talking of in Sept. Clues had the opposite problem: the tower in behind should have gotten less visible.)
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


When I said "the building in behind" I meant the building behind, not moving behind. In fact in this one, they moved the building behind more out front, to show as if it was more in our view as the bridge moves.

We have the opposite side of the front building showing the fakery here, though. It is the SAME.

............

The examples I started with do NOT have the requisite movement in the towers. But the fact that you needed to show where they did move SOMETHING in the towers (but not enough), shows that THE BUILDINGS SHOULD MOVE when the background does, as we go around them.

Your need for this example shows your instinct that my example WAS impossible optically; unfortunately for the 9/11 issue, this stereo has the same problem on the right side of the tower.
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/08/2010 01:14 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hey, if you believe that, I have a centred tower with one behind it, which as you move around them doesn't begin to be eclipsed by the front one ...
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Nor should it be, in fact it should do just the opposite since you're moving around it to the left and the tower was being eclipsed on its right side by the foreground tower. Indeed, it does just the opposite and when you look at in stereo, voila, 3d towers with the foreground one in the foreground, background one in the background, and background bridge way the hell in the background...
[link to i319.photobucket.com]

[link to i319.photobucket.com]
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 01:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, so if the family showed you how they had REAL PHOTOS of their son, the ones you claimed to be fake, you still wouldn't be convinced?
 Quoting: Astronut


I said they'd have to be DIFFERENT ANGLES of the people. Otherwise, they are copies. Geezuss. You are being thick.

You CAN see the photos are duplicates, can you? You HAVE gotten that far, eh?

No, they're not duplicates, they're two shots with two slightly different angles and head tilts, probably part of the same photo shoot but different pictures. There's no evidence of fakery whatsoever.
 Quoting: Astronut

Nonsense.

Look at the heads: perfect duplicates and moved around. Have you forgotten what faces change to for every shot?

You might be fooled by one, but all? Oh geez.

Look at Cintron. Or Wanio.
Astronut, LOOK carefully. Imagine the same features on each photo, again and again -- this is occurring exactly in so many.


Then move to the FDNY b/ws. Are there so many look-alikes (bad shots, too) in the FDNY? And are all these guys brothers with different names?


They just smudged and changed the colour balance and tilted the heads around.

In so many. :)
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 01:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hey, if you believe that, I have a centred tower with one behind it, which as you move around them doesn't begin to be eclipsed by the front one ...

Nor should it be, in fact it should do just the opposite since you're moving around it to the left and the tower was being eclipsed on its right side by the foreground tower. Indeed, it does just the opposite and when you look at in stereo, voila, 3d towers with the foreground one in the foreground, background one in the background, and background bridge way the hell in the background...
[link to i319.photobucket.com]

[link to i319.photobucket.com]
 Quoting: Astronut

In nature, dear, either you see more of the background tower and less of the visible opposite side of the front one, or you see less of the back tower and more of the front tower's opposite side.

In this photo, if we're moving to the left, we will see more of the tower behind (fine: we do) but we will ALSO SEE LESS of the opposite side of the front tower: the shadow side.

And by the way, there's NO change in the video I was pointing out originally. The bridge moves and -- though Commentator doesn't understand it, which at least you sort of get here -- the towers DO NOT move relative to each other at all in the other video.

Here they do, but one side is flubbed. :)
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 01:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
By the way, Astronut,

"same photo shoot"?

In many the backgrounds are different, the clothing different, in some the head tilt different, or whatever, and the faces are the SAME. Look at Nestor Cintron. Flip-face, different outfit, background removed. Belilovsky: they took out a bit of her chin shadows, changed the colour, and inserted the face behind the hand. No more. EXACTLY the same face.

:)

Wanio just has more than the rest.

Cintron has no glasses (wiped out) but same exact head and hair in the "close up" from what the background says is the same day. They just whitened out her shadows and did a grainy version so it has a different "feel".

Dear me.

Get it?

Some of them are a bit complicated: by smudging a nose shadow and pushing a touch of blackness on the face, plus tilting the head, the SAME features look a bit more "up-angled" for Ciccone. But the whole features are the same. EXACTLY. The nose shadow on the left and the tilt of the head and photo crop give the impression of a down angle on the left photo.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/08/2010 01:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare has no idea how hurtful her statements are. I would bet she never had to deal with the sudden death of a loved one. I hope when she does lose someone, she remembers her own insensitivity here. Attention whore.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 01:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Niederer and Brian Murphy are also the same. One whitewashed, flipped (teeth reversed even) and botched eye (B. Murphy) and Niederer: obvious cut-paste job, but different tilt angle on neck (slightly) and different hair paste-in. Features are exactly EXACTLY same angle and the only difference feel comes from hair and smudge out on all the expression lines (but look closesly they're there and you can spot the exactitude more easily).

There are different levels of faking and morphing in some ... and colour shifts, glasses effects, but almost all in the first section are definite fakes -- if you know what to look for. Some are more obvious than others.

Then move to the FDNY: explain THAT without morph/photo fakery!

:)

That's why the author said, "brothers/cousins" for all them! And in some you can see the ears are ridiculous and flipped to make 2 (Denis Michael Mulligan), etc.

Don't you think real people would have more good and DIFFERENT POSED photos up from their loved ones?

So much so, that Wanio was given 3 same-faced photos with different outfits. Lucky "her"!

LOL
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/08/2010 01:53 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, so if the family showed you how they had REAL PHOTOS of their son, the ones you claimed to be fake, you still wouldn't be convinced?

I said they'd have to be DIFFERENT ANGLES of the people. Otherwise, they are copies. Geezuss. You are being thick.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

They are different angles, moron.
Look at the heads: perfect duplicates and moved around.
 Quoting: clare

Bullshit, are you blind? They're not "perfect duplicates." Again, you can see that they're two different angles by putting them side by side in a cross-eye stereogram; it's not perfect because it's not a simple left-right motion, his head tilt changes as well, but the general effect is sufficient to see the 3d shape of his head.
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
Oh but I forgot, you're blind, just like you couldn't see how the parallax for the buildings WAS CORRECT. You still haven't admitted you were wrong on that.
You might be fooled by one, but all? Oh geez.

Look at Cintron. Or Wanio.
 Quoting: Clare

Fuck no, we're staying on this one until you admit you were wrong or you go to confront the family. Which is it going to be, clunk?
Then move to the FDNY b/ws. Are there so many look-alikes (bad shots, too) in the FDNY? And are all these guys brothers with different names?


They just smudged and changed the colour balance and tilted the heads around.

In so many. :)
 Quoting: clare

You sick bitch, guess that answers my earlier question; yes, you do think at least some of the firefighter deaths were fake. Well, I'm not going to be swayed from the subject at hand. You will either admit you were wrong about Terence or you will confront his parents about it. I will not allow you to shift subjects.
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 01:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare has no idea how hurtful her statements are. I would bet she never had to deal with the sudden death of a loved one. I hope when she does lose someone, she remembers her own insensitivity here. Attention whore.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953

Hurtful to whom? I say there are real victims. Stop crying over the lying ones.

Have you ever seen fact or fiction stories where the smuggler used a sob story? No-one would touch the poor "innocent." Well, that's what you have here.

For the real dead, we'd have to subpoena to find out. But it's enough to realize there can't be many and we've been lied to for most of them. That at least can clear our minds -- and free us from the lie. If some are real, fine. The ones here with duplicates/triplicates and so on, or one bad photo after all these years have to have no survivors to produce better photos, or they are fakes.

Most have to be the latter.

Think clearly, please. Fakery demands a different hypothesis: and this means giving up the general simulation you've fallen for. Only a few victims of all these can be real.

Why is it important? So we're not tempted to fall for other aspects of the sob story AT ANY POINT.

The only sobbing should be for the rescuers who are dying by (deliberate) ignoring of their health, by the officials who don't want witnesses. And for anyone actually killed in the process of pulling this off. NOT the sims in their hundreds.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/08/2010 01:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare has no idea how hurtful her statements are. I would bet she never had to deal with the sudden death of a loved one. I hope when she does lose someone, she remembers her own insensitivity here. Attention whore.

Hurtful to whom? I say there are real victims. Stop crying over the lying ones.

Have you ever seen fact or fiction stories where the smuggler used a sob story? No-one would touch the poor "innocent." Well, that's what you have here.

For the real dead, we'd have to subpoena to find out. But it's enough to realize there can't be many and we've been lied to for most of them. That at least can clear our minds -- and free us from the lie. If some are real, fine. The ones here with duplicates/triplicates and so on, or one bad photo after all these years have to have no survivors to produce better photos, or they are fakes.

Most have to be the latter.

Think clearly, please. Fakery demands a different hypothesis: and this means giving up the general simulation you've fallen for. Only a few victims of all these can be real.

Why is it important? So we're not tempted to fall for other aspects of the sob story AT ANY POINT.

The only sobbing should be for the rescuers who are dying by (deliberate) ignoring of their health, by the officials who don't want witnesses. And for anyone actually killed in the process of pulling this off. NOT the sims in their hundreds.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

stfu
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/08/2010 01:55 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
In nature, dear, either you see more of the background tower and less of the visible opposite side of the front one,
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Wrong, that statement is just plain bullshit. You will continue to see just as much of the front one, and indeed you do. The point is that looking at it as a stereo image reveals you to be full of shit, something you still will not admit because you're either blind or a fucking troll. There's nothing wrong with the parallax, admit it or expose yourself as a blind troll.
astrobanner2
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/08/2010 02:00 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
By the way, Astronut,

"same photo shoot"?

In many the backgrounds are different, the clothing different, in some the head tilt different, or whatever,
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

If the head tilt is different and turned different, and it is, then you're full of shit. The clothing and backgrounds of the two Terence pictures appear to be the same in the stereo photo I posted here, especially when you make the images both greyscale.
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
The only thing that might have changed is the lighting, but that's something the photographer could have changed during the course of the shoot. Hell, even the background can change as pictures I have from single photoshoots of myself could attest. The point though is that the image is not
"duplicated," it's two slightly different angles on the same head. You were full of shit, end of story.
astrobanner2
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/08/2010 02:04 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare has no idea how hurtful her statements are. I would bet she never had to deal with the sudden death of a loved one. I hope when she does lose someone, she remembers her own insensitivity here. Attention whore.

Hurtful to whom? I say there are real victims. Stop crying over the lying ones.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Hurtful to the ones you have accused of lying. No one is stupid enough to not understand that statement. You know damn well who it's hurtful to.
For the real dead, we'd have to subpoena to find out.
 Quoting: clare

Holy shit, you think subpoenaing victims' families to find out if they're "telling the truth or not" wouldn't be hurtful?! You insensitive bitch. That's some sick shit. You're out of your fucking mind, and living proof that twoofers are insulting to the dead of 9/11. Maybe being canadian allows you enough detachment to make insensitive statements like this, or maybe you just crave negative attention. Whatever the reason it pisses me off and makes me want to puke. If negative attention is what you wanted, congratulations, you got it.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 06/08/2010 02:13 AM
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 02:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, so if the family showed you how they had REAL PHOTOS of their son, the ones you claimed to be fake, you still wouldn't be convinced?

I said they'd have to be DIFFERENT ANGLES of the people. Otherwise, they are copies. Geezuss. You are being thick.

They are different angles, moron.
 Quoting: Astronut


No, they're not. See the heads? Same. Paste.

Look at the heads: perfect duplicates and moved around.

Bullshit, are you blind? They're not "perfect duplicates."
 Quoting: Astronut


Many are -- but pasted onto different head-tilts, silly.

Again, you can see that they're two different angles by putting them side by side in a cross-eye stereogram; it's not perfect because it's not a simple left-right motion, his head tilt changes as well, but the general effect is sufficient to see the 3d shape of his head.
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
 Quoting: Astronut

Same features, more of head showing on left. Tilt head to shoulders, darken jacket. Wipe features, move right, paste and smudge eyebrow on left (of model) so it's a wrong thickness and darker eyebrow, but same shape angle. Plus switch from colour to b/w to make it seem more "different" with the jacket darkness.

You sick bitch, guess that answers my earlier question; yes, you do think at least some of the firefighter deaths were fake. Well, I'm not going to be swayed from the subject at hand. You will either admit you were wrong about Terence or you will confront his parents about it. I will not allow you to shift subjects.
 Quoting: Astronut

And who are these brothers/cousins with bad faces nearly the same, if not that some IDs were fake?

And why should I go to fake families or potential real ones? That's a DA job. I am figuring it out -- someone SHOULD go to all these people. But they'd have to ask the right questions and have protection from the fakes AND the real ones as they made inquiries.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 02:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Re: parallax now:

Oh but I forgot, you're blind, just like you couldn't see how the parallax for the buildings WAS CORRECT. You still haven't admitted you were wrong on that.
 Quoting: Astronut


You didn't read, I see.

The parallax on the example you gave showed the movement of one tower out from behind the front one (as appropriate). That's gread. And in addition here the blunder is NO change in the shadow side on the right of the front tower, which should diminish accordingly. Who has eyes to see, here?

And the very fact -- I repeat -- that you had to pull out a building emerging from behind the other proves my point about the video: my original example SHOULD have movement of the tower behind, as the bridge moves 1:47-2:00 like your example in that respect -- and doesn't.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

If it weren't diabolical.

Spook champagne, anyone?

..................................

By the way, fyi, there is also the fact that from 1:24-1:45 the video questions another set of possible lens/focal length questions ... but BECAUSE ALL THE OTHER BUILDINGS ARE THE SAME, it cannot be.

So, champagne for us or for the spooks? You seem to want to send your heart and champagne to the liars.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 02:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Typo: Not "that's gread" but "that's great".

.............

You wanted acknowledgement -- I gave it right away.

YOUR EXAMPLE WAS FINE ON ONE SIDE (showed more of further building).

And wrong on the other side, the shadow side, to show less. That means right on one count and wrong on the other.

Meanwhile, the fact there needs to be a change in the far tower, which you have agreed to here, proves a) Commentator is wrong and I'm right (and you are) that the far tower must change), and b) the fact that the other video is WRONG too: its far tower has no change.

Plus there's the other problems in other shots.
You really must stop assuming.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/08/2010 02:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I vote troll. And I think I've seen this style before.
 Quoting: DrPostman

Yeah, I agree. Reminds me of another pathetic troll. I really try to ignore her. I would like to get back to the topic of the thread, but I think that's why she is here, to kill all on topic discussion. Shit, if she started her own thread she would find a whole bunch of no planes tards to impress with her ignorance and baffle with bullshit. The only reason I can see for her insisting on spewing her bullshit on this thread only makes it pretty obvious that she intends to disrupt and bait people. Gonna try to ignore her from now on.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 02:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hope Returner's better. That sucked for him. I am glad he didn't get caught in any blades or anything.

:(

And thanks Returner and Menow for the compliments.

:)
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/08/2010 02:26 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
The parallax on the example you gave showed the movement of one tower out from behind the front one (as appropriate). That's gread. And in addition here the blunder is NO change in the shadow side on the right of the front tower, which should diminish accordingly. Who has eyes to see, here?

 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Look you bitch, there's nothing wrong with the parallax in the image from the video, it's exactly as it should be!!!!
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
The "shadowed" side of the building does decrease in ratio compared to the rest of the building, but the building itself has nothing to be obscured by. It goes from a ratio of shadowed/lit side of 0.268 in the "right eye" image to a ratio of 0.254 in the "left eye" image I posted. You were dead fucking wrong, again.
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 02:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It's a bit odd that this is the ONLY thread she posts to on
GLP.
 Quoting: DrPostman

Well, I did post at one point to another, I think.

I just got drawn here through Menow and I having a disagreement after ZT, which is cleared up in his favour now, and then someone maligned what I know about so I made it plain there's a lot to know about it.

The stereo confirms the point about the video: that the video lacks the appropriate tower movement; and also the stereo still has no shift on the right, so it's still sloppy and impossible.

That sort of thing.

Facts.

Champagne? :)
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/08/2010 02:28 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Facts.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

You're devoid of facts. You were wrong, the stereo image clearly shows you to be wrong, you will never be right because you refuse to admit you were wrong.
astrobanner2
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/08/2010 02:31 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, so if the family showed you how they had REAL PHOTOS of their son, the ones you claimed to be fake, you still wouldn't be convinced?

I said they'd have to be DIFFERENT ANGLES of the people. Otherwise, they are copies. Geezuss. You are being thick.

They are different angles, moron.

No, they're not. See the heads? Same. Paste.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Yes they are. You're blind.
And why should I go to fake families or potential real ones?
 Quoting: clare

Because YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE ACCUSATION, THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. THE "DA" DOESN'T BUY YOUR SHIT, SO IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE IT OR YOU ARE GUILTY OF DEFAMATION. Are you going to send me a letter to pass along or are you going to be the cowardly troll we suspect you of being?

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 06/08/2010 02:31 AM
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 02:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
The parallax on the example you gave showed the movement of one tower out from behind the front one (as appropriate). That's gread. And in addition here the blunder is NO change in the shadow side on the right of the front tower, which should diminish accordingly. Who has eyes to see, here?


Look you bitch, there's nothing wrong with the parallax in the image from the video, it's exactly as it should be!!!!
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
The "shadowed" side of the building does decrease in ratio compared to the rest of the building, but the building itself has nothing to be obscured by. It goes from a ratio of shadowed/lit side of 0.268 in the "right eye" image to a ratio of 0.254 in the "left eye" image I posted. You were dead fucking wrong, again.
 Quoting: Astronut


DEAR Astronut, there is a smudgy left side and a bit on the right. Not enough. Honestly. Do you realize how much the bridge has moved? Not IN THE TOTAL FRAME but RELATIVE TO THE BUILDINGS?

This is the key. You could have the bridge move wildly out of frame, while centring on an object, but its PROPORTION will not change so much and so negligible a change be in the fore- or middle-ground objects.


I am hereby correcting my position: there is NOT a true change in the images: someone has slightly blurred the buildings in the left image (for a VERY slight and inadequate optical illusion). Notice they've even left the original ratios and clarity at the bottom;

I hereby say there is not ANYWHERE near enough natural difference between the two AND there was further smudging. I was fooled by the smudging.

Look.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/08/2010 02:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And why should I go to fake families or potential real ones?

Because YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE ACCUSATION, THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. THE "DA" DOESN'T BUY YOUR SHIT, SO IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE IT OR YOU ARE GUILTY OF DEFAMATION. Are you going to send me a letter to pass along or are you going to be the cowardly troll we suspect you of being?
 Quoting: Astronut

No, I am accusing the photos of fakery and hypothesizing that all families (that exist) should be questioned AND all commenters onto the memorial sites.

I am saying there is a burden of proof on THEM now to prove their reality, not to offend any real victims -- God no! -- but to join with real victims in common cause against whoever planted the duplicate ids.

Clare

News