Reply #58: You are simply wrong

[William Seger]

Obviously, you're not going to take my advice about finding another hobby, but seriously: photo analysis just ain't your thang. LARED is correct about the trees, and there is absolutely nothing inconsistent in your photos. If you don't believe it, you can go to Google and use the satellite and street views to see if you can figure out what's happening in those photos. If you still can't figure it out, it really doesn't matter, since I'm pretty sure most people can.

> Multiple witnesses say the plane flew on a different path than the official story.

Well, gee, that might be convincing if it weren't for the fact that multiple witnesses say it flew over the bridge and hit those poles, and a huge number of witnesses say it hit the building, including Ranke's own. That's when a judge would turn to the physical evidence to decide who was right. Using the physical evidence, we would know the exact path even if there wasn't a single witness. You still fail to comprehend what Ranke is up against when he uses the path described by a tiny handful of witnesses to claim that all the other witnesses are wrong or lying, and all that physical evidence must have been faked by means that Ranke doesn't even begin to explain. There's nothing unusual about witnesses saying they saw different things, and it doesn't necessarily mean that any of them are lying. There could be misperceptions, which is most likely the case with the maintenance shop workers: Ranke asked them to draw the plane's path on a map, but of course the plane was in the air, not rolling on the ground! They were perpendicular to the path, so the only thing they could possibly use to judge the path would be an estimate of how far away the plane was, and the distance to objects in the air is notoriously difficult to judge. A huge 757 in the air could easily look closer than it really was, which would cause them to put the path farther north than it really was. Or witnesses could simply be misremembering what they saw, which is likely the case of the police officers. Since those officers worked together, it's possible that one really gets his "memory" of what happened from the other, which frequently happens, which is why they both now "remember" the same path. One of Ranke's original witnesses actually puts the plane on a path that couldn't possible agree with the officers yet Ranke treats people like they are stupid by trying to fudge that path so it could. If it was where the officers say, there's no way in hell the auto shop witness could have seen the plane at all out his office window, so according to that witness the officers are certainly wrong. That leaves you claiming that Ranke's witnesses' perceptions and memories are infallible while ignoring that they tell completely contradictory stories.

> It doesn't matter how implausible this may be when these are the facts that dispute the official story.

Facts certainly take precedence over probabilities -- which is why your incredulity about the pole through the windshield is completely irrelevant -- but Ranke and you have failed miserably to produce any "FACTS that dispute the official story." As I said, I really can't understand how you could possibly be that far out of touch with reality, and now you insult my intelligence AND my integrity by insinuating that maybe I don't believe what I'm saying? Once again, I find that DU's rules won't permit me to make a appropriate response to that insult.