Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Probably nobody from believer side will address this crucial issue, nor debate the ventilation challenge, they know very well that this is lie, but for some purpose they defend it.
Without the holes, there is no reason to discuss anything else since every further claim depends on existence of the holes.
I'll also add this comparison with the broken concrete marked in green (from L to R: 1992, 1991, 1997, 1998, 2000):
Now, one can obviously see how the angle of the shot and the rotation of the camera has affected the distance of this broken concrete to appear as if it closer to the edge on the 1992 photo, as if the hole got filled up on the other photos. So if the angle and rotation of the camera can distort the appearance of the broken concrete/hole this much, is it not possible, that the edge of the hole looks oblique on the 1992 photo precisely because of this same reason? Just tilt your head to the right and imagine you're looking at the hole from that position. Does it still look oblique?
This post is intended for the reader to decide for himself who is right and who is confused. Any reply by SKcz will be ignored on my side, except admittance of wrongness and confusion.
So there you go, a nice example of how good folks work things out. Thanks.Toshiro wrote:Me and SKcz have come to an agreement via personal messages. I will quote our posts here, and you can ask SKcz for validity of any of them. I am sending this to you in the hope that you could add this as a final post in the locked thread
Read & see the information below.
Still see a "spot" on the 1992 photo?
Then why don't the other white "spots" right next to your "spot" show on the 1991 photo? Magic again?
SKcz wrote:I missed your point, pictures are of different light/exposure/time conditions, some parts are same, some are not, some are less visible due to exposure or different light conditions, some are missing because they were removed as I already wrote. The locations which I circled are there on both images, no magic.
Toshiro wrote:Circle the location on this photo, then explain why the surrounding white spots are not visible on the 1991 photo.
Either the 1992 photo is overexposed (white grass, white spots next to your spot), or the white spots got removed on the 1991 photo. Which one is it?
Remember, if you admit the 1992 photo is overexposed, you have no case, because this make plausible the possibility that your white spot is something different entirely. This is therefore simply your assumption, which in a court of law, is worthless. That said, it is obvious the 1992 photo is overexposed (white grass), so you have no case either way.
SKcz wrote:I already circled them here
http://forum.codoh.com/download/file.ph ... &mode=view
The problem is not only in different exposure, but in different conditions as well, they are not completely identical so you can´t expect that everything will be the same. Circled areas are on both photos, clear and visible. I admited overexposure of course, this is clearly visible to everybody, but this don´t mean that sun is able to create some bright stains on flat concrete surface from nothing.
Toshiro wrote:That is quite an overstatement to make! Not only is the 1992 spot not clear, there is a spot just as bright as it right next to it, missing entirely on the 1991 photo! Occam's razor tells us that your spot on the 1992 photo is nothing more than overexposure, as is evident by the white grass and the white concrete all around your "white spot." To say you see an "identical white spot as on the 1991 photo" in an almost entirely white edge is not only dishonest, it is blatantly false.
Explain what happened to the identically bright spots next to your spot (which can be seen all around the edge + white grass on the 1992 photo) on the 1991 photo. Where did they go?
SKcz wrote:Circle which spot is missing entirely.
Can you tell me how is possile that sun/flash is able to create this stain on this flat place, which is surrounded by dark concrete, from nothing? Explain me this phenomenon. The only way which is able to achive this is to use spot light.
Also, explain me what is the stain in 1991, 1997 photo, again overexposure or stain/discoloration?
Now explain what happened to this on the 1991 photo and then I answer to the rest of your post.
SKcz wrote:Regarding the stain which is in top, is not missing entirely, I already wrote that was partly removed during alteration and you can see the remaining part on your comparison as well.
Regarding the stain below, this could be removed during alteration as well.
I recently found evidence which dispute my theory almost completely but your theory partly as well and I only wonder that nobody notice it, see this.
Let me know and don´t forget answers on my questions.
Toshiro wrote:SKcz wrote:Regarding the stain which is in top, is not missing entirely, I already wrote that was partly removed during alteration and you can see the remaining part on your comparison as well.
Regarding the stain below, this could be removed during alteration as well.
I don't see the remaining part; I see a little brighter line, but to claim that is the same spot is a big stretch. Especially when one takes the angle/distortion into consideration.SKcz wrote:I recently found evidence which dispute my theory almost completely but your theory partly as well
Nice catch, and finally, progress. I don't see how this disputes my theory even partly, since I've been claiming from the start that the hole on the 1992 photo is skewed/trapezoidal because of the angle. I've demonstrated this with the broken concrete, and now you point to another broken piece of concrete. You've only confirmed what I've been saying.SKcz wrote:and I only wonder that nobody notice it
Must be because I have only found the 2000 photo later and added it in my last post on the 5th page. This second broken concrete is not visible on the other photographs. The source of the photograph is Charles D. Provan, "No Holes? No Holocaust?"
As for your previous post:SKcz wrote:Can you tell me how is possile that sun/flash is able to create this stain on this flat place, which is surrounded by dark concrete, from nothing? Explain me this phenomenon. The only way which is able to achive this is to use spot light.
As you have demonstrated with your latest picture, this spot is on the second broken concrete and is something different entirely, exactly what I've been saying. There are many of these spots on that concrete, as can be seen on the 1990 photo.SKcz wrote:Also, explain me what is the stain in 1991, 1997 photo, again overexposure or stain/discoloration?
It is both.
SKcz wrote:Your theory about "not altered west side" is disputed partly, because this piece was reduced a lot as you can see from comparisons, it was reduced a lot. But of course this have nothing to do with hole, but with surrounds of the hole.
If this is correct, my theory is refuted almost completely with using my own catch, but not completely, in this case I still think that this hole was altered in west side but much less than I expected with using my earlier evidence. This piece is also great proof of alteration from 1945-
No, this could be noticed even without your latest 2000 photo.
You missed subject of my question, according to you this is not discoloration, but sun/flash stain, answer my question again about this phenomenon.
He is not different completely, he looks identical and can be mistaken, in my earlier evidence I had no reason to doubt it. I also circled this stain in 1990 photo, is there.
So discoloration enhanced by light. But stain circled on the piece of concrete is some sun/flash "spotlight" stain? See question above.
Toshiro wrote:The only thing I see is that the hole is skewed on the 1992 photo because of the angle. I see no alterations of the hole or the surrounding.
Your theory is refuted by the concrete which I've caught and the concrete you've caught. Completely. I see no alteration of the hole or its surroundings; it only looks like it does because of the angle of the camera.SKcz wrote:No, this could be noticed even without your latest 2000 photo.
Perhaps.SKcz wrote:You missed subject of my question, according to you this is not discoloration, but sun/flash stain, answer my question again about this phenomenon.
It is both. The sun/flash enhanced it and made it look brighter than it is. If you look at the hole in real life, you won't see any white spots, but grey/light grey/dark grey.SKcz wrote:He is not different completely, he looks identical and can be mistaken, in my earlier evidence I had no reason to doubt it. I also circled this stain in 1990 photo, is there.
"Identical" is a stretch, especially when the 1992 one is surrounded by white "spots." Both are bright marks; but that is it.SKcz wrote:So discoloration enhanced by light. But stain circled on the piece of concrete is some sun/flash "spotlight" stain? See question above.
The 1992 photo is overexposed in its western edge, so the light is bouncing off of everything. We aren't speaking about a single "bright stain" on the 1992 photo, but about the entire western edge/concrete that is being enhanced by the light.
SKcz wrote:I see that this big piece was reduced.
No, your green concrete did not refute me, it was close because of angle, because is several inches above the edge, this means that with perpendicular view the green piece will be far away of course. I don´t see anything from you which dispute my theory.
But this was my point from the beginning, discoloration brighter than roof enhanced by light. I never claimed that you can see white spots, only bright spots, brighter than dark roof.
No, you can see that this stain is surrounded by dark concrete. Ths is clearly discoloration enhanced by light as i claimed from the beginning.
Do you admit that this is no "sun/flash spotlight"stain?
Toshiro wrote:SKcz wrote:I see that this big piece was reduced.
No. It is the angle. Again.
My concrete proved the hole is skewed because of the angle. Period.
The entire western edge looks bright because light is being bounced from this "dark concrete" as well. Your broken concrete looks white when in fact it is grey with white spots in real life. This is because the 1992 photo is overexposed.
No, I don't admit that for the 1992 photo. It is clearly overexposed and some of those "spots" are nothing more than the overexposure by the sun/flash.
SKcz wrote:Toshiro wrote:No. It is the angle. Again.
Oh yes, sure, I forgot. I don´t agree.Toshiro wrote:My concrete proved the hole is skewed because of the angle. Period.
If you believe it...
So impossible light effect caused by unknown phenomenom which you can´t explain to me. But other stains are not this case, they are stains. Ok, strange, but ok.
Toshiro wrote:It's not an impossible light effect caused by an unknown phenomenon. It's simple overexposure. It's light bouncing from the light and dark concrete. It's not just bright stains that are overexposed, it's the entire edge, the entire concrete block.
I forgot to ask, what would the purpose of altering the surroundings of the hole be? I don't see why anyone would do this. What is the point?
SKcz wrote:But you still miss, that there must be some discoloration to make it overexposured, this is clearly visible, white circle stain in dark flat area, so discoloration enhanced by light or some magic spotlight.
Propably the same as altering the east side of the hole.
Toshiro wrote:So you still believe the hole was increased in its western side, just not as much?
SKcz wrote:Increased is maybe strong term, the west side was propably chiseled to look better, and also the piece of concrete, lot of moss, grass, lichen and etc. were removed.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests