I've generally been pretty impressed by Steven's analysis here, but Jack White's claims of photoshop fakery are far less convincing. He fails to point out a clear anomaly in the "chapter 6" photos at http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_j1WCY4T_2yI/S03M1AEl5OI/AAAAAAAAJX0/v1YJoSGmEpg/s1600-h/08-911%7E1.JPG.That page contains two photos of what we're supposed to take as being the same area. His observation is that if we are seeing the same "Heliport" sign in both photos, the lower photo has been surreptitiously modified to omit the electrical box and tall wooden pole in the upper photo.White never explains the benefit to the official account for modifying the photos this way. Why bother? He suggests that it was lazy fakery or a whistleblower trying to give us clues. That's nonesense.Look at the lettering of the sign in the lower photo. It's very crisp and easy to read. Surprisingly so. Notice the lack of harsh afternoon shadows evident elsewhere in the photo. Notice how even the lettering is for a surface that's at a severe angle to the camera's viewpoint. Blow it up in Photoshop and stare at it for a while--I did. It seems pretty clear that the "Warning Heliport Area" sign was pasted on top of the original image.Without that bit of black and yellow text, White's entire premise about what's actually wrong goes out the window. That he misses a fairly obvious modification while claiming to be photo expert really makes me scratch my head.Reading his other "pages" of Pentagon image deconstruction, I see he wants me to believe that a large percentage of Pentagon images are photographic fakes. Based on what he's said in "chapter 6", I can't take him seriously.
Post a Comment