*AERIAL IMAGE OF GROUND ZERO PROVEN MANIPULATED
I have revisited for analysis the below, well-known aerial image allegedly depicting Ground Zero.
source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:US_N ... llapse.jpg
The image is credited to: "U.S. Navy Chief Photographer's Mate Eric J. Tilford."
I will set out to demonstrate how we can determine beyond reasonable doubt that this image, for all its apparent sharpness and quality, cannot represent an authentic/unaltered photograph of this Manhattan scenery. We will also see why the very nature of its manipulation is such that it cannot be ascribed to some 'innocent' cosmetic photo-enhancing embellishment.
I have applied a standard "brightness/contrast" filter to the entire image - with the result of darkening the shadowed areas of the cityscape. My yellow arrow gives a rough indication of the sunlight's source/angle. The first thing I noticed was the odd aspect of the smoke (or damp?). It is a transparent, see-through haze unlike anything I have observed in real life. It certainly LOOKS 'photoshopped'. However, we cannot - of course - draw any conclusions out of mere impressions - so let's get on.
To the left of the image we have two buildings ( A and B )
: their western façades are both in full shadow. My brightness/contrast filter toggling has made them turn pitch black - and no windows/or details of these two shadowed façades are visible whatsoever. Now, as we look at buildings C an D
, we can establish two incontestable facts:FACT1:
Façades C and D should be
in (pitch black) shade - in the same manner as façades A and B
. They are NOT: they inexplicably appear as if they were brightly lit by the smoke/or damp drifting in front of them. FACT2:
We know with absolute certainty that, in the real world, smoke (or damp) does NOT cause any shaded area behind it to become visually brighter/more defined. Smoke or damp are no light-generating sources - as far as I know.
We can therefore conclude, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the above image can NOT be a truthful representation of reality. The only possible/plausible explanations to what is observed, are:
*1: The image has been digitally edited ('photoshopped') to insert the smoke/damp into the scenery.
*2: The image has been entirely crafted within the digital domain - it is a complete fabrication.
The problem with option *1 is: why would the smoke/damp have been so clumsily inserted into the image?
The problem with option *2 is: it cannot be conclusively
proven that this image was entirely fabricated from scratch.
Either way, the question as to WHY this image purportedly depicting a momentous event of American history (and credited to a US NAVY photographer) has clearly been digitally altered/manipulated/fabricated - is momentous in itself. This should be of grave concern to anyone interested in the full truth of 9/11. I suggest efforts be made to contact US NAVY Chief Photographer's Mate Eric J. Tilford and ask this military man for an explanation.
Ironically, the above image is featured on the "TRUTH AND SHADOWS" 9/11 truther blog. I'd like to thank sporadic Truth and Shadows contributor 'onebornfree' for raising questions about that image's lighting. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/20 ... e-911-lie/