Boston -staged pictures theory- busted.

Originally posted by OutonaLimb


how can the shadow directions be reconciled here boncho?
(wait. let me guess. fish-arse lens?).

the thread is up to 50 pages now and what you have presented is a possible
plausible explanation but when all the other evidence gathered is assessed in
conjunction, the conclusions are inescapable.

why are you trying so hard here? you remind me of all the chemtrail
debunkers (you being one, of course).

boncho protesteth way too much, methinks!

edit on 1-5-2013 by OutonaLimb because: (no reason given)

What is wrong with the shadows here? I don't even see a problem with them, they are the same direction in the video by the way.

Really? You say I am trying too hard? Dear god man, I actually have a life outside of this site, and the internet in general, I don't have the time to tackle all the crap being brought up about Boston. You see, I am not on welfare while simultaneously trying to make money off "Boston Is teh False Flag" videos on YouTube. I do not make money of forum hits or forum posts. I cannot spend 40 hours/week like some can on the matter.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by OutonaLimb


how can the shadow directions be reconciled here boncho?
(wait. let me guess. fish-arse lens?).

the thread is up to 50 pages now and what you have presented is a possible
plausible explanation but when all the other evidence gathered is assessed in
conjunction, the conclusions are inescapable.

why are you trying so hard here? you remind me of all the chemtrail
debunkers (you being one, of course).

boncho protesteth way too much, methinks!

edit on 1-5-2013 by OutonaLimb because: (no reason given)

What is wrong with the shadows here? I don't even see a problem with them, they are the same direction in the video by the way.

Really? You say I am trying too hard?

Dear god man, I actually have a life outside of this site, and the internet in general, I don't have the time to tackle all the crap being brought up about Boston. You see, I am not on welfare while simultaneously trying to make money off "Boston Is teh False Flag" videos on YouTube. I do not make money of forum hits or forum posts. I cannot spend 40 hours/week like some can on the matter.

dear God bonche, you're just playing dumb now!

simple question, but difficult for a mind like yours to process??

let me make it even simpler. and stop your whimpering.

the cop lady to the left of the picture has her shadow direction veering
off in a different direction to that the others.

others in a 5 'o clock direction. her's in a six 'o clock direction.

jesus!!

reply to post by OutonaLimb

the cop lady to the left of the picture has her shadow direction veering
off in a different direction to that the others.

others in a 5 'o clock direction. her's in a six 'o clock direction.

jesus!!

I honestly couldn't understand what you were trying to get at. Although, in cityscape more often than not you will find shadows going in different directions because of lights being bounced off, or blocked by buildings, you don't even need such an elaborate answer for this case.

The direction of her shadow is the same as the others. You will notice her body is bent, she is going in one direction and if you follow the shadow, it's the same direction as the others. The only reason you are getting confused is because she is not in the same position (Standing straight up like the other officers) so you assume her shadow is pointing 6 o clock direction instead of a 5 o clock like the others.

Like I said, "what are you talking about" because there is nothing wrong with the shadows. You are grasping now...




Take a look at this rendering program (That is freely available to the public from Google)



You see how simply changing the direction of someone's body can make it appear as if their shadow is going in a completely opposite direction?

This should be enough for you to give your head a shake. Although I highly doubt an apology from you, or even admitting an error. No, I assume you will now tell me the guns the cops have are fake and I need to get you the serial numbers for you to believe this is a real photo.

reply to post by OutonaLimb


Let me help by drawing in the directions of the shadows for you.



Notice anything?

And you're welcome.

Originally posted by roguedesigner
reply to post by OutonaLimb

 

Let me help by drawing in the directions of the shadows for you.

Notice anything?

And you're welcome.

edit on 7-5-2013 by roguedesigner because: (no reason given)

yes, i notice quite a few anomalies with this snapshot, and they have been dealt
with before and elsewhere.

Let me help by drawing in the actual directions of the shadows for you.



i think this is a case of let the viewer decide, as me and bonche are getting nowhere.
(and as a rule: if i am wrong, and i know i am wrong, i will apologise.)

reply to post by OutonaLimb


I'm just finding it hard to believe that you can take so little notice of the physical world around you that you think that the line you drew on the left represents the angle of that shadow.

Never mind, lets go at this from another angle.

Why has that police officer been photoshopped into the picture as you claim? To what end? Are these actors on appearance fees for each image they appear in? Did she have a prima donna moment and positively demand, in that terribly over the top actorly way, to be put into that picture?

I'm finding it astonishing that one of the greatest conspiracies foisted upon the world in history has been perpetrated by so many incompetent actors, graphic designers and myriad other people. We need explanations, and we need them now.

ETA:
the clue to the actual real world angle is in the way the shadow of her raised leg runs parallel to the leg.

Originally posted by roguedesigner
reply to post by OutonaLimb

 

I'm just finding it hard to believe that you can take so little notice of the physical world around you that you think that the line you drew on the left represents the angle of that shadow.

Never mind, lets go at this from another angle.

Why has that police officer been photoshopped into the picture as you claim? To what end? Are these actors on appearance fees for each image they appear in? Did she have a prima donna moment and positively demand, in that terribly over the top actorly way, to be put into that picture?

I'm finding it astonishing that one of the greatest conspiracies foisted upon the world in history has been perpetrated by so many incompetent actors, graphic designers and myriad other people. We need explanations, and we need them now.

ETA:
the clue to the actual real world angle is in the way the shadow of her raised leg runs parallel to the leg.

edit on 7-5-2013 by roguedesigner because: (no reason given)

you can't handle the truth.

i have given links which explain in detail
what is going on, and i won't rehash it here.

the shadow directions and the shadows of the police behind the front row
don't make sense in the real world.

reply to post by OutonaLimb




Hope that helps.

Originally posted by roguedesigner
reply to post by OutonaLimb

 

Hope that helps.

no it doesn't. the light is being filtered to different degrees through the buildings in the background.

show me one genuine photo of human beings stood close together in direct
sunlight, whereby the shadow directions vary as drastically as in the snapshot
under question.

i don't think you can.

reply to post by OutonaLimb


Erm... shadows do not distinguish between animate and inanimate objects. You did know that, right?

Originally posted by OutonaLimb

Originally posted by roguedesigner
reply to post by OutonaLimb

 

Let me help by drawing in the directions of the shadows for you.

Notice anything?

And you're welcome.

edit on 7-5-2013 by roguedesigner because: (no reason given)

yes, i notice quite a few anomalies with this snapshot, and they have been dealt
with before and elsewhere.

Let me help by drawing in the actual directions of the shadows for you.

i think this is a case of let the viewer decide, as me and bonche are getting nowhere.
(and as a rule: if i am wrong, and i know i am wrong, i will apologise.)

The picture you posted is a false shadow direction. The other poster posted the correct shadow position. I took the light from the day in question in a rendering program, and showed how body angle, can change the way the shadow appears.

You simply draw a line on a shadow, that does not mean that's where the shadow is going. I posted an image from a rendering program, that has the same light overhead as the date and time in Boston during the events. You see how I changed on person and the shadow appear to get west to east?

If you notice the female officer she is not standing straight upwards. She is bent forward, and the other poster's arrow shows exactly where her shadow is from. If you take her body and cut it in something like MS Paint, as you lower it you will see how it matches up with the shadow.



The above shows what I mean. If you bring the woman's body down you see it match up with the shadow. Many of us can do this without aide.

reply to post by boncho


You are right about the shadows, they are correct in that pic, it seems off because the left cop is hunched over but the shadow does line up in the right direction.

I agree that cluesforum does get stuff wrong, and often it goes unchecked there, however, some things cannot be explained,



How would you explain that?

reply to post by DaveStinger

Technically, you should be making your own thread about it. or you could consider the answers offered up in the debate forum (but maybe they aren't adequate enough, the OP should have got the original pic). Because the photo is grainy, I'd say a definitive answer is likely unclear from the pic you provided.With the original, everything changes.




For future reference, the picture you used was sourced from here. and proper etiquette, you should have posted that yourself, I shouldn't have to chase it down.

If you look at a high res version of the picture, the problems you are having with the pic are purely compression problems. It is quite evident there is no cut through the mans hand in the high quality versions:



Here is the address so you can see for yourself.

www.flickr.com...

An obvious section to question is the hands. As the hand looks a little deformed. Although, if you count you actually just get 4 fingers and a thumb. Although, I think it may be possible there is two hands in that small space as you can see he is taking off his jacket.

If you are familiar with taking off your jacket behind your back you would know exactly what I am talking about.

In any case, these pictures are not peculiar in any way, shape or form.

The only thing that made them seem odd, was the fact that people have been saving them and resaving them, causing artifacts and other compression problems to appear.

But you thought this was indicative of something larger, darker and nefarious right? You were under the impression this might be the smoking gun to faked events, CGI, no bombs, mystery men, government false flag, martial law, etc.

Correct?

Sometimes very mundane answers are the correct ones. Now that our time has been wasted, do we get the honour of the accusers to actually do a little research themselves before making accusations and pointing fingers on the forum?

Or are the rational people forever obliged to correct ignorance of others unwilling to do it for themselves?

reply to post by boncho


You can yap all you want Boncho, did you miss the two other glaring issues in the pic, one of them clearly visible in your high res pic?

The text of the billboard behind him going through his leg?

What about the issues with his shoes?

I can't believe you would adress one issue but totally ignore the others even though they were clearly pointed out in the pic I posted.

The only reason I can think of is that you had no explanation for them.

reply to post by boncho

Technically, you should be making your own thread about it.

What?

It is a response to your op about how pics weren't faked. Seems to be in the right place here as proof against your premise.

I understand that this is not what you would like, but hey, fair game.

Originally posted by DaveStinger
reply to post by boncho

 

You can yap all you want Boncho, did you miss the two other glaring issues in the pic, one of them clearly visible in your high res pic?

The text of the billboard behind him going through his leg?

Did you go to the source file or just look at the higher res screen cap I took? I told you already saving and compressing makes the images unreliable. I had to compress because ATS only allows files so big.

What about the issues with his shoes?

I can't believe you would adress one issue but totally ignore the others even though they were clearly pointed out in the pic I posted.

Again, you should read my entire posts and source the data I am providing. If I take a screen cap of the shoes, it's going to be compressed and show the same problem you are seeing. When I go to the source image and look at it, zoom in, there is absolutely no problem, whatsoever with the man's shoes. The shoes are very close to the color of the background, so it looks as though without zooming in they may be fading into the background. And, part of it is blocked by the hat on the ground but there really is no issue. Once again, when you zoom in you see there is no issues.

I recommend a high resolution monitor, and a mac works well for zooming in. If you are on an old computer, go to the Apple store and look at the pic again with a retina display.

The only reason I can think of is that you had no explanation for them.

Well, we already have uncovered your poor reasoning skills already. I don't believe you think I'm stupid, yet you claim the only possible explanation in the world for me not to cover non-issues is that I have no explanation for them. While if I had no explanation for them, it's quite possible I might just say I have no explanation for them.

I am curious, can you please answer me your alternative explanations for this. Every single issue proposed in this thread has been accounted for. But, let's say it hadn't. What would have been your explanation for everything?

I posted this in another thread, and I'll do the same for you, Occam's Razor.

Sometimes the simple answer is the most logical. In this case, we have a set of photos, 151 photos in all. This was taken minutes after the explosion, some of them up to 54 minutes before the explosion.

Now, I assume you pointing out the "problems" you see in the pictures for a purpose. I am curious what is your purpose. What message are you trying to get across?

Are you suggesting that if these photos were not easily explained away than it is proof of the "actor theory"? Does it, like on cluesforum, suggest that all the pictures are CGI? That this never happened at all? What exactly are you trying to get across and why do artifacts and compression problems elicit so much curiosity from you, but not enough to actually go find the photos yourself and look for yourself and get actual answers for yourself?

Is it more like that:

A) There are compression problems in photos that keep being resaved all over the internet from a photographer that took over a hundred during and after the marathon.

or

B) There is obvious signs of tampering which means without a doubt, the whole thing must be staged, no one was injured, this is all CGI and Elvis is alive somewhere. (Okay I'm being facetious with the Elvis bit)

But honestly what is it?

I ask myself this:

A) Does this poster honestly care about the truth, so much so, that he/she sees things peaking his curiosity, things unexplainable to them, so they go searching through the internet to find answer, the truth... and in that search track down all the originals from which the bad compression copies had been made from.

or

B) This poster is either looking for attention, or unwilling to believe there is not "proof" of something nefarious so they immediately gravitate to anything that will support their pre-drawn conclusions.

You could only imagine which multiple choice answer I go with, I am curious on the first set of questions. What is it for you exactly? If I hadn't given you an explanation, what exactly would that show "proof" of?

reply to post by boncho


I edited my post cause I misread.

Did you go to the source file or just look at the higher res screen cap I took? I told you already saving and compressing makes the images unreliable. I had to compress because ATS only allows files so big.

This is were I really start doubting your sincerety.

This BS. Compression artifacts don't make objects that should be obscured, appear in front of the image, they don't cut of shoes. Photoshop does.

The amount of effort you put in off topic irrelevant babble feels unnatural.

Compression is really a weak argument here.

Please post the link to the high ress pic.

Originally posted by DaveStinger
reply to post by boncho

 

You can yap all you want Boncho, did you miss the two other glaring issues in the pic, one of them clearly visible in your high res pic?

The text of the billboard behind him going through his leg?

What about the issues with his shoes?

I can't believe you would adress one issue but totally ignore the others even though they were clearly pointed out in the pic I posted.

The only reason I can think of is that you had no explanation for them.

edit on 8-5-2013 by DaveStinger because: (no reason given)

Please tell us why the person who "photoshopped" that took the time and effort to lift the text from the background and then place it on a new layer OVER THE TOP of the person he had spent some considerable time comping into the image. It just winds me right up when people who clearly have no idea of the processes involved in comping an image in photoshop come out from beneath their tinfoil hats screaming "faaaaaaaake!!!".

And seriously, other than being a little unfashionable, what are the issues with his shoes?

All of this "ZOMG fake photoshop pix" nonsense seems to conveniently ignore quite a few factors, doesn't it? Not least of which is that you have this central claim that the people we are looking at are actors. The whole scene was set up and directed, you would all have us believe.

So why, in the name of sanity, having carefully contrived this vast smorgasbord of actors did they need to ice the cake with a bunch of fake pictures that are so inexpertly done that even the most clueless of internet super-sleuths can blow them wide open?

Answer: because it didn't happen that way. You're looking at real people, in a real event, suffering from real injuries.

reply to post by DaveStinger


There is nothing wrong with the pictures, the sign, or his shoes.
He is down on his right knee, and his left leg is in front of him, bent at a 90 degree angle. This is how a person would stoop to help before going on two knees,(edited to add the freakin' obvious) especially when kneeling down on broken glass, because who would risk two jacked up knees which seems to be what you believe the shot to show.
The sign is showing in the space between his butt and the ground; his leg is not in the way at all. From the photo angle, his left leg would be completely out of view behind his right leg. So is his left foot.
The shoe is fine, you can't see it all because it is behind a hat.

What is your problem? These pictures do not require any flights of fancy, they are ordinary shots of ordinary people doing ordinary things in an extraordinary moment.

Originally posted by DaveStinger
reply to post by boncho

 

I edited my post cause I misread.

Did you go to the source file or just look at the higher res screen cap I took? I told you already saving and compressing makes the images unreliable. I had to compress because ATS only allows files so big.

This is were I really start doubting your sincerety.

This BS. Compression artifacts don't make objects that should be obscured, appear in front of the image, they don't cut of shoes. Photoshop does.

The amount of effort you put in off topic irrelevant babble feels unnatural.

Compression is really a weak argument here.

Please post the link to the high ress pic.

edit on 8-5-2013 by DaveStinger because: (no reason given)

Here is the source of the High Res pic.

You can double check the resolution while you are there, to make sure you have the right one.