IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
My Analysis Of The Pentagon Fish-eye Lens

Chris2005
post Sep 24 2009, 12:40 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 24-September 09
From: South Carolina
Member No.: 4,628



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAw_mGdGSs

I would like some opinions, if possible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Sep 24 2009, 01:42 PM
Post #2


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



OPINION: It is fairly useless to "analyze" electromagnetic data sets unless you have access to the original electromagnetic data file -- or at the very least a copy of that file from an official (government or other) source.

On one hand I don't want to be too critical of your approach because the fact that you have attempted an analysis at all is worthy of commendation. At least you give enough of a damn to try and understand something. Most people don't. So, this is to be applauded and encouraged. On the other hand, one needs to consider what is worth "analyzing" and in what way it can be analyzed given the limited access to available data sets.

In this particular instance you are analyzing a data set that is so far removed from the original we have no idea how relevant a close examination of this highly compressed copy of a copy of a copy (ad infinitum) can be EXCEPT in very general terms. For example, we see what "appears to be" a white smoke or vapor trail that dissipates from view in the space of 2 video frames -- that is, in approximately 1/60th of a second. If one concludes (as I do) that THAT is physically impossible on its face, then one can fairly easily conclude that the entire data set is a FALSIFICATION regardless of what else it presumes to show.

The problem with discussion about such data sets is that they invariably lead to conflicting opinions with no further proof available to reconcile these conflicts. This is a strategy counterintelligence operatives are fond of because it keeps those one wishes to control caught up in 'discussion' and 'argumentation' over the interpretations of the data set, potentially indefinitely. One says 'x' the other says 'y' and since neither can prove unequivocally their position from the available data, the 'discussion' and 'argumentation' about the data's meaning and significance distracts the researcher such that the culprits continue their activities with no meaningful interference. It's as if I was a thief who broke into your house and stole some valuables leaving behind this "clue":



Upon which you and other members of your household proceeded to argue whether it depicted a face of a vase and what meaning it had -- when what one needed to look at was whether it contained any fingerprints or other traceable substances that might lead to my detection.

The whole enterprise of counterintelligence consists fundamentally of misdirection. If I can get you to ask the wrong questions and argue endlessly about those questions, I will have succeeded with my intention of escaping detection.

/OPINION
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th October 2019 - 10:51 PM