Evil Edna wrote:_
Dear Lux, the fabricated skyline is the interest!
You mentioned
the "fabricated skyline" before, as follows:
Evil Edna wrote:
The skyline is obviously falsified. Building 'B' does not exist in that position. 'B' is a small sandstone tower of
the City Union Railway Bridge. But that is much further to
the left. It is not visible from
the supposed camera location. So Building 'B' has been spliced in.
The image is a blatant composite fake.
You showed two completely different photos as evidence of this "fabricated skyline." Stating that a structure exists in one photo but not
the other. And this, you claim, is evidence of a faked skyline.
Sorry, EE, but I don't see it. What I see is that you're doing your best to fill
the forum with a bunch of non-evidence and hoping
the members don't look too closely at it.
And, you've done it again here:
Evil Edna wrote:
Look at these two GSV images of
the same view. Note how they are subtly different.
The infamous 140 YEAR OLD sandstone tower is present in one Google Street View but mysteriously DISAPPEARS just one click ahead!
Full size montage:
http://i.imgur.com/hMJN05u.jpg
Check out
the GSV images closely. Both are dated
October 2012. Ostensibly, they were created at
the same time:
the cars are in
the same place,
the red & black wheelie bins,
the bicycle and washbasins leaned-up for sale. All in
the same place.
Most everything is in
the same place, EXCEPT for that 140 year old tower! It appears/disappears from view!
The photo pairs are obviously taken from different angles. When you take photos of distant objects behind foreground objects
the ones on
the background "move" relative to
the scene.
The objects you claim have "disappeared" are simply now behind trees or other closer objects. This is how street view photos are taken -- from a moving vehicle.
Not to mention
the complete lack of logical purpose for "fabricating
the skyline" in
the photos you've posted.
... and, sorry to be blunt, but I consider
the following to be contrived speculation that really doesn't belong here:
Evil Edna wrote:
The few photos we do have of Lucky Lucan all seem very similar in terms of his pose, his hair style, his moustache, and his supposed age in the photos. Almost always, Lucan is looking down his nose at the camera, as if to emphasize that he's a ghastly, arrogant snob! Hardly an image any man, even an earl, would want to cultivate of himself, if he were genuine! But a very suitable stereotyping for the monster he was to allegedly become. Almost all of the photos of the earl have him looking slightly to his right, as well. Perhaps indicating that all these Lucan "photos" have the same genesis, taken at a single studio session.
Same with this:
I haven't checked the newspaper archives yet, but I would bet that the name Lord Lucan didn't even enter the public psyche until AFTER his supposed murder of the family nanny in 1974. Yet Lucan supposedly inherited his title ten years earlier in January 1964, on the apparent death of his father, the 6th Earl of Lucan. And yet there are few, if any photos of Lucky Lucan or his wife, over those ten years that followed. No snaps from 1964 to his alleged disappearance in 1974? No photographically documented history for over 10 years? Is that credible?
Maybe you ought to check those archives before posting your speculation on a site that prides itself with fact checking, sourced material and sound reasoning, eh?
Let's have another go at it. 
