It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Remains of 9/11 victim identified

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


So, have you given up on this one then, Pshea?




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by pshea38
reply to post by minikin84
 


Actually just noticed this!!!



Zoom in on her right hand.
What the f* is going on there? Did she lose her little finger in an accident?
If so, why show it off in so unnecessary a way in such an 'artistic' picture?


I think the hand looks odd because we're missing some detail due to the degraded resolution. The finger touching her chin is actually her pinky. It's being bent behind the knuckles of her other fingers. There's nothing wrong with it.


Man that is BS, and you know it!
Try doing yourself what you are suggesting.
That is not what this photo is showing.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by pshea38



i]
Millions of Middle-eastern men women and children were murdered on the back
of the 9/11 Official explanation, not to mind the drastic changes brought down upon
the Americans people and indeed the world at large. If there is even the slightest doubt
regarding the veracity of the claims regarding the genuity of the victims, should it not be
investigated thoroughly, openly and honestly?[/quote


edit on 12-2-2012 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)


You were doing so well and then you go and post this bs. Obviously no-one really died in the Middle East and I am staggered you have not seen the obvious fakery. Show me a single picture of a supposed middle eastern casualty where I can't make fun of their hair, ears, eyes, whatever.


Such transparent BS!
So, what's new Alf?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by pshea38

Here is one more (of the five) picture of Karol (with her sister) to be found
from a google image search.


www.nydailynews.com...


Image scaled up and cropped

Notice anything odd about this one?
(clue: She always had her head right on her shoulders, did Karol!)

And what is up with the eyes? The hair? Everything!

And her 'family' submit this in loving memory?

Are we beginning to realise yet?
We were all SUCKERED!

Where's the "evidence" here of something? So you don't like her eyes and her hair? Again--the only thing you lack is PROOF. Subjective inferences are meaningless.



I must agree with pshea.

Karol's face is off-set too far to the left in relation to the center line of her body where it normally and naturally would meet the center line of the face and neck.
Tilting the face to the left, doesn't raise the right shoulder muscles to the extent shown in the photo.

The knife-sharp vertical shadow-line on the left side of the sister's face is obviously an impossibility. This doesn't happen in the real world. Shadows follow the curves of the human body.

Fingers normally only consist of 3 distinct movable sections. On the photo we see 4 sections on the nearest finger. To 'blame' the last section as being a glued on plastic nail makes no sense, as we see no plastic nails on the other fingers.

I'll definitely vote for photo-shop-business as well.

Cheers





Ya djeminy, It is pretty obvious, isn't it? These people are showing themselves
up badly. But they are backed into a corner, see!



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by pshea38
 
Sometimes photos can play tricks on you. But it doesn't mean they're fake.

What about this one--do you see anything wrong in this photo? If so, do you believe its fake? If so, is the person fake?




Well the legs appear to be the wrong way around, but looking at toes of the left foot, I would
say that the left leg is a prosthetic limb and her left stump is concealed behind it, giving
the impression that it connects to the right leg.

If this is the case, it is surely a deliberate attempt to deceive.
If not, then I don't know.

I do see the face in the background also.

So my answer is All Real, but it is a trick/false comparison.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 

"Man that is BS, and you know it!
Try doing yourself what you are suggesting.
That is not what this photo is showing."

I think you're wrong.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by pshea38
 
Sometimes photos can play tricks on you. But it doesn't mean they're fake.

What about this one--do you see anything wrong in this photo? If so, do you believe its fake? If so, is the person fake?




Well the legs appear to be the wrong way around, but looking at toes of the left foot, I would
say that the left leg is a prosthetic limb and her left stump is concealed behind it, giving
the impression that it connects to the right leg.

If this is the case, it is surely a deliberate attempt to deceive.
If not, then I don't know.

I do see the face in the background also.

So my answer is All Real, but it is a trick/false comparison.


The photo is of Spanish minister Carme Chacón. She definitely does not have a prosthetic leg, and the photo is real.

Now if you were going to be consistent, you would need to declare the photo and the person fake, since she has no prosthetic leg and "the legs appear to be the wrong way around", surely an "attempt to deceive", therefore, FAKE. Fake photo=fake person, so you have proven that Carme Chacón is a sim.

Then again, sometimes photographs can play tricks on you.

See the photo here.
edit on 13-2-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
pshea38.. i spent more time than I feel I should have trying to see your point of view. Now I ask one more thing from you. I scoured that site up and down reading how the people are fake, and the images are photo shopped.. but I didn't see one, not 1.. proof, that any photo had been photo shopped. if you could prove to me, that any of the photos are photo shopped, and I mean prove, not saying her lip looks weird, or eye is crooked.. actual data showing the picture was taken date a, and edited date b.. I will again continue to see your point of view.. but until that happens, I cannot see your point of view. it doesn't add up.. it isn't logical, regardless how many times the members of that site say its obvious, its not.. so.. please, prove that any photo of the victims, or of the site is photo shopped, besides the pic of the guy standing on the roof showing a boeing, and besides the devils face..
edit on 13-2-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)


Man, there is no quick fix to wrapping your head around this.
If you can appreciate just a few of the problems exposed Here, and this encourages you to delve deeper, then good.
If not, that is up to you. I know it took me weeks to go through everything, and
I haven't looked back. Don't the photos of Karol-Ann tell you anything? There are
many more where they came from.

It is the evidence when taken in total which proves that 9/11 was a hoax through and through.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by pshea38
 
Sometimes photos can play tricks on you. But it doesn't mean they're fake.

What about this one--do you see anything wrong in this photo? If so, do you believe its fake? If so, is the person fake?




Well the legs appear to be the wrong way around, but looking at toes of the left foot, I would
say that the left leg is a prosthetic limb and her left stump is concealed behind it, giving
the impression that it connects to the right leg.

If this is the case, it is surely a deliberate attempt to deceive.
If not, then I don't know.

I do see the face in the background also.

So my answer is All Real, but it is a trick/false comparison.


The photo is of Spanish minister Carme Chacón. She definitely does not have a prosthetic leg, and the photo is real.

Now if you were going to be consistent, you would need to declare the photo and the person fake, since she has no prosthetic leg and "the legs appear to be the wrong way around", surely an "attempt to deceive", therefore, FAKE. Fake photo=fake person, so you have proven that Carme Chacón is a sim.

Then again, sometimes photographs can play tricks on you.

See the photo here.
edit on 13-2-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


Cool. I see it now.

I did say 'If' in my response, but that's fine now that it's cleared up.
(If it was designed as a deliberate but real deception, my attempt wasn't bad, no?)

This is not the same though as the other issues, and you know it.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by pshea38
 
Sometimes photos can play tricks on you. But it doesn't mean they're fake.

What about this one--do you see anything wrong in this photo? If so, do you believe its fake? If so, is the person fake?




Well the legs appear to be the wrong way around, but looking at toes of the left foot, I would
say that the left leg is a prosthetic limb and her left stump is concealed behind it, giving
the impression that it connects to the right leg.

If this is the case, it is surely a deliberate attempt to deceive.
If not, then I don't know.

I do see the face in the background also.

So my answer is All Real, but it is a trick/false comparison.


The photo is of Spanish minister Carme Chacón. She definitely does not have a prosthetic leg, and the photo is real.

Now if you were going to be consistent, you would need to declare the photo and the person fake, since she has no prosthetic leg and "the legs appear to be the wrong way around", surely an "attempt to deceive", therefore, FAKE. Fake photo=fake person, so you have proven that Carme Chacón is a sim.

Then again, sometimes photographs can play tricks on you.

See the photo here.
edit on 13-2-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


Cool. I see it now.

I did say 'If' in my response, but that's fine now that it's cleared up.
(If it was designed as a deliberate but real deception, my attempt wasn't bad, no?)

This is not the same though as the other issues, and you know it.

It demonstrates a key point--that just because you THINK your are seeing a fake image, doesn't mean you are. And even if it was fake in some respect, doesn't mean she doesn't exist. The difference here is that Carme Chacón is a famous politician and so verifying her existence is easy, the web alone is full of myriad professional high-quality photos and video of her.

But were she not famous and if the above photo was only one of three or four that you had access to and it was reported by the media that she had died in a mysterious, unusual, or suspicious way, you might be inclined to question the authenticity of the photo and the person.

As with Carme Chacón, the only real way to verify a person's authenticity is to gather more information on her. In the case of Karol Ann Keasler, how can you be so sure from a couple very low quality photographs that she (or any other 9/11 victim) is fake? You can't. Photographs can deceive. You would need to talk to her friends and family, gather more substantial evidence, and only then make a legitimate determination.

How objective and open-minded would you have been about the apparent anomaly in above photo if you had been told she was a victim of 9/11?

Ever heard of the overconfidence effect?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


Sure, I get it. It's only when CTers are looking for an anomaly that an odd looking photo is obviously fake, and therefore so is the person.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by pshea38
 
Sometimes photos can play tricks on you. But it doesn't mean they're fake.

What about this one--do you see anything wrong in this photo? If so, do you believe its fake? If so, is the person fake?





Well the legs appear to be the wrong way around, but looking at toes of the left foot, I would
say that the left leg is a prosthetic limb and her left stump is concealed behind it, giving
the impression that it connects to the right leg.

If this is the case, it is surely a deliberate attempt to deceive.
If not, then I don't know.

I do see the face in the background also.

So my answer is All Real, but it is a trick/false comparison.


The photo is of Spanish minister Carme Chacón. She definitely does not have a prosthetic leg, and the photo is real.

Now if you were going to be consistent, you would need to declare the photo and the person fake, since she has no prosthetic leg and "the legs appear to be the wrong way around", surely an "attempt to deceive", therefore, FAKE. Fake photo=fake person, so you have proven that Carme Chacón is a sim.

Then again, sometimes photographs can play tricks on you.

See the photo here.
edit on 13-2-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


Cool. I see it now.

I did say 'If' in my response, but that's fine now that it's cleared up.
(If it was designed as a deliberate but real deception, my attempt wasn't bad, no?)

This is not the same though as the other issues, and you know it.

It demonstrates a key point--that just because you THINK your are seeing a fake image, doesn't mean you are. And even if it was fake in some respect, doesn't mean she doesn't exist. The difference here is that Carme Chacón is a famous politician and so verifying her existence is easy, the web alone is full of myriad professional high-quality photos and video of her.

But were she not famous and if the above photo was only one of three or four that you had access to and it was reported by the media that she had died in a mysterious, unusual, or suspicious way, you might be inclined to question the authenticity of the photo and the person.

As with Carme Chacón, the only real way to verify a person's authenticity is to gather more information on her. In the case of Karol Ann Keasler, how can you be so sure from a couple very low quality photographs that she (or any other 9/11 victim) is fake? You can't. Photographs can deceive. You would need to talk to her friends and family, gather more substantial evidence, and only then make a legitimate determination.

How objective and open-minded would you have been about the apparent anomaly in above photo if you had been told she was a victim of 9/11?

Ever heard of the overconfidence effect?





Actually there IS something quite wrong with this photo.

On normal people the big toe is placed on the inside of each foot, such that on the left foot the big toe is on the right side and vice versa on the right foot, which makes the two big toes sit next to each other when a person is standing up normally with legs side by side.

If you should imagine the lady now standing up in a normal position, you'll find that her big toes are now placed in the completely opposite positions, i.e. on the outside of each foot, instead of their natural inside placements.

Should you further try to copy the way the lady is sitting, with her right leg crossed over her left leg, and her left hand resting on her right knee, you'll find that the big toe on your right foot will line up with the knuckles on your left hand and the smaller toes on same foot will line up with the fingers on the same hand.

If you study the photo carefully you will quickly see that the opposite is happening with the lady's right foot in relation to the knuckles and fingers on her left hand.

Seems like some 'smart alec' fool was having some fund photoshopping this picture!
(Could very well be the smirking man behind the window who did it)!!

So it appears that you were "partly" right at least with the following: Something is not always what it appears to be!

Cheers

PS!
Again, Pshea was pretty right with his first observation, 'that the legs appears to be the wrong way around', and which turns out to be the truth
edit on 14-2-2012 by djeminy because: PS! added



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 


What you're describing is exactly the point of my posting this photo. It LOOKS off, like each foot is on the wrong leg. However, there's actually nothing wrong with the photo and it hasn't been altered. It's an unintended illusion.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by djeminy
 


What you're describing is exactly the point of my posting this photo. It LOOKS off, like each foot is on the wrong leg. However, there's actually nothing wrong with the photo and it hasn't been altered. It's an unintended illusion.



You're not quite getting it. It LOOKS off because it IS off.
Her legs are crossing each other twice, which is virtually impossible to do.

If you move her right foot over on the other side, so the foot now sits together with the left foot, the two big toes are placed next to each other, BUT her legs are still crossed. Should she now un-cross her legs again, the two big toes will cease to be placed next to each other. Instead they will now be placed in opposition to each other.

As i think it very unlikely she was born in that strange way, there's definitely no' illusion' present in this photo.

The photo has been altered. The photo has been photo-shopped to appear like a "trick photo".

Cheers




edit on 14-2-2012 by djeminy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


NO. that image doesn't tell me anything. you havent proved its a fake image. that it has been tampered with, or created digitally.

I most likely will not continue down this avenue, as I believe it isn't feasible. Perhaps 1 or 2 victims may be fake, but highly doubt the numbers drops below 2800 people. it was a horrible event, and yes, lots of people died. I think you should face that one day. I don't know how old you are, but I hope you don't consume your life with that.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 


No. crossing your legs twice is not impossible. where are you guys coming from? Haven't you spent anytime around people before? I'm glad you are all convinced of your position, but sometimes i question if you even believe what you say. Thus why I tried seeing yours and pshea point of view,. But I dont think either of you two actually believe what you say.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by djeminy
 


No. crossing your legs twice is not impossible. where are you guys coming from? Haven't you spent anytime around people before? I'm glad you are all convinced of your position, but sometimes i question if you even believe what you say. Thus why I tried seeing yours and pshea point of view,. But I dont think either of you two actually believe what you say.



You're right Myendica.

I once did it 5 times in a row. I had to do a wee. it was in the cinema, but i didn't want to miss the action on the big screen until it was absolutely necessary for me to do the damn run to the loo.

It was a long long time ago though, but think i could still do it today if the same kind of occasion ever came up again!

Btw, i also think that you must somehow have missed completely what this little argument is all about, but that's really OK with me.

Cheers



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 


prove that the photos are photo shopped. You cannot. Cause you dont care.. You have a view and believe it without proof. Its ok.. Just dont pretend you know when you dont. If you can prove its fake, I will personally applaud you.. And maybe even donate money to a foundation in your members name... But you wont..



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
She's not crossing her legs twice. There's an optical illusion caused by the position of the cuff on her left arm. It makes it appear that her legs are crossed when they aren't. Of course if she was a 9/11 victim this would be enough in your eyes to brand her a vicsim. Wouldn't it?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by djeminy
 


What you're describing is exactly the point of my posting this photo. It LOOKS off, like each foot is on the wrong leg. However, there's actually nothing wrong with the photo and it hasn't been altered. It's an unintended illusion.



You're not quite getting it. It LOOKS off because it IS off.
Her legs are crossing each other twice, which is virtually impossible to do.

If you move her right foot over on the other side, so the foot now sits together with the left foot, the two big toes are placed next to each other, BUT her legs are still crossed. Should she now un-cross her legs again, the two big toes will cease to be placed next to each other. Instead they will now be placed in opposition to each other.

As i think it very unlikely she was born in that strange way, there's definitely no' illusion' present in this photo.

The photo has been altered. The photo has been photo-shopped to appear like a "trick photo".

Cheers

edit on 14-2-2012 by djeminy because: (no reason given)


You're not getting it. Her legs are not crossed. It's an illusion. Her arm is in a place where it causes your brain to be tricked. Here's what's happening:

(yes, the image on the above left has been poorly photo-shopped in order to remove her arm and reveal what's happening behind it. Her legs are not crossed, only her feet are).



edit on 14-2-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join