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
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.
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.
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?