THE "CHATBOX"

[Evil Edna]

Quoted, simply to preserve this statement for later reference:

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2259/nyeg.jpg
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8094/6ath.jpg

and

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/8726/9h13.jpg
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/1482/o078.jpg

How did I accomplish this? With photo fakery? With Photoshop? Did I go to the street and remove one of the cans? No. I simply took one photo and then moved one step to the left to take the other. That's all. One frigging step.

(my emphases).



But let's get back to business, dear lux. The missing tower AND those vanishing traffic lights!

[Evil Edna]

please explain where Tower 'B' has actually gone in the image pair below?!



And please help us understand the foreground anomalies, too! Most all of the traffic lights are missing in the inset image. How so? We are viewing the two images from (almost?) the same angle. The grey street light column, for example, is in EXACTLY the same position, in relation to the door canopy! So WHERE are all the traffic lights?!

Furthermore, in that inset image, please note the (red) pedestrian crossing light. The red light is apparently shown as being behind the steel barrier. Yet that crossing light seems MISSING ALTOGETHER in the larger image. How is that explained? Yet again the wonders of "perspective" ?

And what of the trees to the right of the steel flue in that same inset image? Why do they not reconcile with the trees in the larger image?

It's easy.. for objects to "move around" in a scene by simply moving the camera from side to side....See how objects hide behind other objects and emerge into view with changes of camera position.

So, dear Lux, in this quite magical world of yours, WHERE are all the traffic lights "hiding" in the inset image?! And the tower??! In your sincere belief, WHICH "other objects" do they "hide behind"?!

I'm sorry, but I don't yet share your quite fantastic beliefs about these images, Lux. I shall need some persuading!

[lux]

^ Asked and answered. I've also told you how you can demonstrate it for yourself.

[hoi.polloi]

WTF is this — 2008 on Killtown's 911movement forum? Where people cannot tell the difference between vast discrepancies and images depicting two different viewing angles?

Evil Edna, you have no understanding of parallax motion and your insulting way of dealing with lux is noted. You are banned, as you have no ability to see real image contradictions. No offense, just study harder. If these pictures are fake, they are simulated better than the 9/11 imagery and it needs shrewder eyes than yours. Sorry, but that is a fact. Bye.

Here is a very simple explanation of the viewing angle differences, regardless of any other points that could be made as evidence to their fakery. I agree with lux, Evil Edna posts things easily questionable and debunkable to see what can 'slip by' our radar. But this is no challenge. The points Evil Edna made were just wrong.

clutha_view.JPG

Observe the shapes of the tarp, outside door edge and "cluster" of lights (only one visible on inset). Building "B" in the distance is simply moved out of view — be it reality or a simulation, it follows some basic 3D logic that Evil Edna was apparently not capable of.

It should be noted that this does nothing to reduce the argument about the problems with the 9/11 and other "terrorist" imagery. Indeed, it only strengthens our argument that there are some major, serious problems with the "terrorism" and "War on Terror" imagery, since they are so grossly unrealistic. It might be a good time for new readers to go back and review those threads to catch up on just exactly what's wrong with them, and why "perspective" is not the issue, as Evil Edna tried to make it out to be.

[lux]

Thank you, hoi.

[anonjedi2]

Thank you, hoi. That was starting to become incredibly annoying. Now, onto something worthwhile for a change.

Enjoy this artist's reconstruction of a Morgan Freeman photo using nothing but an iPad. The implications are staggering, to say the least.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEdRLlqdgA4

[lux]

^ Maybe I'm wrong but I think the artist (Kyle Lambert) is pulling our leg.

Here's the photo by Scott Gries that Kyle supposedly painted using only one finger:
http://www.scottgries.com/#/client/temp ... olio/32169

Isn't Kyle's rendition identical to the photo? A little too identical if you ask me.

Here's Kyle's web site:
http://www.kylelambert.co.uk/

Notice that none of his other art is anywhere near as photo-realistic as this one. Far from it.

I think what Kyle did was he painted over the photo and then removed the paint bit by bit to reveal ... the photo taken by Gries.

Or, he started with the photo, progressively turned it into a more and more primitive painting and then played the process in reverse for the video.

[anonjedi2]

Interesting observation, lux. You might be right, and if you are ... what does that say about this liar Kyle who claims to have spent 200 hours on this photo? Will it go unnoticed? Or will someone call him out on it in which case he'll just say "it was a hoax" to cover his ass?

Or is there any chance at all that it is what he portrays it to be? I see a few very minor differences but they are so minor that they could be explained away by resolution or something similar. Thanks for pointing out the possibility.

[bostonterrierowner]

@Hoi

Wasn't the ban on Evil Edna to harsh a punishment ? He was arrogant in his incompetence and went way too far when arguing with Lux but IMHO the guy is legit . You were showing much more patience and leniency to significantly worse characters ( Teriyaki for example ) than EE.

I am not pushing You in this matter , let's be clear on this . If, in your opinion , there had been some hidden agenda behind EE and his flawed image expertise I am completely fine with it.

I am sure Lux isn't mortally offended either

Just my 2 cents.

[simonshack]

*

CLUTHA CLUES


Ok, so this is a Google Maps image dated "October 2012":
(Hmmm ...those twin towers behind the Mosque Dome look familiar!)
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=g1+4sp&l ... ,7.24&z=21



And this is an image extracted from the below-linked BBC video - purportedly showing the Clutha disaster scene :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-25165057


I don't know about you, but something isn't quite right here, folks... Do we have any Cluesforum member / photographer in Glasgow who could try and reproduce the above BBC image - massive MOSQUE DOME and all? Evil Edna, perhaps? Btw, has the street crossing in front of the Clutha Pub been completely revamped since October 2012?


Also, I'm rather baffled by this road sign which we see here - right next to the Clutha Pub :


To be sure, that particular roadsign is nowhere to be seen on Google Maps, anywhere near the Clutha Pub...


...But hey, look where I found it! ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BRIDGE!


In any event, there certainly are numerous issues & oddities with this Clutha imagery:



I think I will reinstate Evil Edna for the time being - and put him back to work... Of course, Lux and Hoi did well to question EE and his shaky imagery analyses - it would appear that he couldn't (intentionally or not) see the forest for the trees. However, I will give EE credit for pointing out the 'subliminal' relevance of that distant mosque dome, an unlikely 'coincidence' indeed. And I guess it's just another koincidink that two worried 'muslim-looking' faces appear in the backdrop of this most-frequently-seen interview of a now familiar Clutha 'eyewitness'...



Having said that, I think this petty Clutha 'helicopter tragedy' scam (what with its imbecilic "eyewitness" narratives and sheer, outright silliness - what with "the band which kept playing after the copter crashed through the pub's roof") doesn't deserve much more of our time. As BTO best - and most succintly - put it:

Looks like Scottish thrifty spirit in action , psyop on top of a land grab. I reckon this Eurocopter was sold to some drug dealer/MI6 asset in South America but ordnung in papers muss sein as the Germans say.

And didn't you know...
Final death toll stands at 9
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gl ... th-2877351

[Libero]

I'm a bit confused by the reporting of the whole Paul Walker thing. Did the car explode on impact as seen from the TMZ video?
http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_oehej0ek

or did it take 60 seconds to catch fire as CNN shows?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/03/showbiz/p ... ker-death/

More stuff.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/03/video-eme ... e-4211549/

And here's a screenshot from the very first video released (in More stuff link above.) It would appear that there should be a lot more cars on the street, based on the newest TMZ video, unless the "explosion" has yet to happen. For reference, the white building at the top left center of the screenshot is the approximate place of the security camera where the TMZ explosion footage is supposed to come from.




Anyway, here are some on-site pictures I took of the crash site today if it helps anyone make more sense of things.

Taken from parking lot below crash site.


Building that evidently had piece of car fly into window




Directly across the street


View to across street from approximate crash site


Approximate view of CNN video


Likely taken from this camera


Approximate view of TMZ explosion footage


Likely taken from this camera


Very light skid marks











As a curious side note, James Dean was said to have stopped or been through the Santa Clarita area prior to his fatal accident in his Porsche as well.



http://www.scvhistory.com/gif/jamesdean ... 093055.jpg

[hoi.polloi]

@Hoi

Wasn't the ban on Evil Edna to harsh a punishment ? He was arrogant in his incompetence and went way too far when arguing with Lux but IMHO the guy is legit . You were showing much more patience and leniency to significantly worse characters ( Teriyaki for example ) than EE.

I am not pushing You in this matter , let's be clear on this . If, in your opinion , there had been some hidden agenda behind EE and his flawed image expertise I am completely fine with it.

I am sure Lux isn't mortally offended either

Just my 2 cents.

I appreciate the thought, but this forum is about one thing mainly and that is scrutinizing images. I just don't like a user here that can't listen to reason, tends to dodge issues and just can't see basic spacial logic. If they were legit, they were still the kind of poster we don't need around here waving their arms at phantoms. Pity if they are legit. I had no personal beef with them, I like most everyone. We just gotta have some standards.

If we are wrong, that's our own fault, but we're not going to overturn the whole purpose of the forum with one new member.

[Dcopymope]

I'm a bit confused by the reporting of the whole Paul Walker thing. Did the car explode on impact as seen from

Paul Walker ~ Michael Hastings revisited:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_cI0oLcHXg

[Evil Edna]

Hi, I just want to say thank you for giving me a second chance. I will endeavour to maintain a much higher standard of image analysis in the future. And just as importantly, I want to apologise, especially to Lux, for my insulting tone, and to Hoi Polloi, who was also very patient in explaining where and why my logic was flawed. While it would seem possible that many key photos from Glasgow are faked, that is irrelevant when the poor points I was trying to argue didn't prove a thing. As Hoi and Lux have advised, I will properly study the subjects of parallax/perspective before commenting again. Maybe I can also try to reassure that my motives for participating here were always sound, and remain so. All the research documented in September Clues and Clues Forum has proved unquestionably accurate, and I would never challenge that. Whenever possible I do try to disseminate your work to the wider audience, and will continue to do that whether or not a forum member. There is certainly no wish on my part to undermine any of the groundbreaking work you guys have been doing over many years now. I'm sorry everyone.

[lux]

OK