Shack Scores Again - Or, What's Not To Understand?, September Clues Part B Options

[ogrady]

A new offering from Social Service - September Clues Part B:

http://www.youtube.com/simonshack

[bill]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[Sanders]

0:00 - "The Ball". - I don't know what this proves. I wouldn't be surprised if from a helicopter from a great distance a compressed copy of a video of a plane going 500 mph didn't show the wingtips clearly. I don't know enough about the possible distorting effects of the medium here to comment further.

0:20 - "Camera Switch". - I agree, cutting to a different shot during a live broadcast (assume that's what this is) just before the impact of the plane is very suspicious.

0:30 - "Synched explosions in tower 1". - Not sure if that's really what that is, or maybe a disturbance related to the explosion happening next door, but no problem from me here - personally though, I would have followed the statement with a "question mark".

0:35 - "Once again, a NEWSMEDIA WITNESS of 1st strike also reports 2nd strike while on the phone." - Not sure how this is really significant - that a news outlet would stay on the phone with someone that was on their staff throughout this does not seem unusual to me.

"Once again, TV ANCHORS fail to notice plane approach." - Suspicious if you like, but this doesn't prove anything.

0:45 - "CBS Anchor MATT LAUER saw a plane... circling the building". - Well, that IS strange.

0:54 - "The BALL" is only to be found on the NBC archives. This private VHS tape shows only a faint, near invisible streak." ...

The resolution is poorer on the private tape. As is the focus. We are comparing apples and, well maybe not oranges, but pears maybe. Should we be able to see the alleged plane ("the Ball") in one more visibly than in the other? I don't know. If the plane was MORE visible in the footage that was more out of focus, then you would have something with which to make a case with. Since the opposite is the case, I find this sort of weak, but can't comment further.

1:15 - "This home VHS tape also shows an unexplicable series of 'markers' on the impact corner of tower 2" ..."Here are all the frames showing these markers". - Yes, this is strange, I agree. One can only speculate on what this might be though.

1:40 - "Let's now compare the NBC archives to what NBC aired on THE EVENING of 911". "THE BALL - Note: a. Ball's path, b. Tower's perspective, c. Backdrop"...

[Sigh.] Comments: Left side of screen, camera looking down on towers, as evidenced by high horizon. Right side of screen, camera looking up at towers, as evidenced by only sky in background. This difference in perspective is not apparent in any noticable tapering away of the vertical lines of towers because the shot is taken from a long distance with a zoom lens. This obvious difference in the height from where the footage in each shot is taken results in the alleged plane disappearing behind the closer building in different locations. This is (almost certainly) simply due to a difference in vantage points. This is NOT evidence of any fakery.

2:10 - (moving dark spot) - I don't know what that shadow that moves down along the leading edge of the tower in the foreground is. This may be evidence of something fishy, or may be an artifact of some kind, either natural or video related, I don't know. One can only speculate.

3:15 "Backdrop gone!" ... "2 distinct plane paths".

In one shot the camera is looking up toward the sky, in the other it looking down with the terrain visible in the background. The "backdrop" hasn't gone anywhere. Consistent with this difference in vantage points, the path of the plane registers differently. There is nothing out of the ordinary going on here, but you wouldn't be able to either confirm or disprove that from this comparison of points along the two towers.

He shows horizontal dotted lines, saying "2 pretty much identical tower perspectives". You can see that the bottom of the fire on the shot on the right extends down to the lower dotted line, and the same point on the shot on the left is slightly above the same dotted line. Almost the same, right? Yeah, and it should be almost the same, because the difference in distance between the faces of the two towers is only a couple hundred feet while the shot is probably taken from thousands of feet out. This looks a little wierd when you compare the shots, but that's because when you zoom in from a great distance the lines of perspective that you would expect to converge (at a theoretical point behind the towers) don't ... or I should say, the focal point of convergence recedes in direct proportion to the increase in distance from the camera to the object being filmed. Take a shot from a mile out and the visual-effect of converging perspective lines almost completely disappears - which looks wierd when you zoom in close - because despite the fact that the zoom lens makes the shot seem up-close, the lines of perspective do not recede into the distance as they would in a close shot.

Next time you watch a baseball game on TV, notice how the pitcher and the catcher a distance behind him appear to be the same size. It looks quite odd if you really look at it. When you video-tape at a baseball stadium using a high powered zoom lens from way out in the bleachers the catcher will appear nearly the same size as the pitcher, even though he is 60 feet behind him. This 60 feet is insignificant in comparison to the hundreds of feet between the infield and the camera, so the pitcher and catcher appear nearly the same size on film. It looks wierd because the cameraman has zoomed way in on it. Go to google earth and see how the edges of tall buildings between the tops of the buildings and the ground are straight and perfectly parallel with one another. No receding lines of perspective are apparent - because the shots are taken from space with a super-high zoom factor. It is for this very same reason that the vertical lines of the towers in these two WTC shots remain parallel despite the fact that the height of the cameras in the two shots are completely different. The effects of parallax (lines of perspective receding in the distance) decrease in proportion to the increase in distance between the camera and the object being filmed.

It is for this reason that Simon Shack's comparison of points along the two towers is meaningless. This phenomenon, as it has been overlooked and misinterpreted in various NPT/VF related videos on the web over and over, has been discussed at great length here at this forum. (Arrghhh.)

3:20 "Why was an airplane inserted in this shot? "Why was its entire backdrop erased?" (See above).

3:40 "On the NBC evening news ... "the Ball" wasn't considered newsworthy". - (Shows cuts between shots on a re-broadcast, obstensibly to "hide" "the ball). (Proof of nothing.)

4:00 "Live Shot 5." "An oil painting?" ... "or..." ... "another live picture?" "No, just another MATRIX variant". ..."With yet another plane path".

He has superimposed the two live shots so that the two towers match positions perfectly, yet the path of the plane in each is slightly different. AGAIN, Simon Shack does not understand the physics of the phenomenon he is describing to us. A minor difference in camera position (i.e. height) will not reflect any significant difference in how the towers appear when the shots are taken from a great distance, but the path of the plane will certainly change. This is especially true because the alleged plane is moving at high speed. In one second the plane moves 750 feet or thereabouts - substantial even in relation to the (unknown) distance between the camera and the towers.

4:25 - "The MATRIX was used and abused". (No comment).

4:30 - "The Matrix was a full-frontal tower view 'served' in various colors...". "...and sceneries". (Shows the top of a building impeding the view of the towers in one shot, and a clear shot of the towers in another.) - No, again, from thousands of feet away you could move the camera up or down hundreds of feet and not be able to discern any significant difference in how the QUARTER-MILE-HIGH towers appeared to the camera. This proves nothing, it indicates nothing.

A few seconds later he gives us a dotted line to show that the width of the towers in the two images he is comparing for us is the same. Tower width in this case is even more meaningless than any of the other dimensions you could possibly pick to search for clues that the vantage point was significantly different. Totally meaningless.

4:45 - "Black spot always there". I don't know what this "black spot" is ... Simon Shack has offered no explanation for why it is there, other than that it's "suspicious". No comment.

4:55 "Even CBS had their own version of the Matrix". - Simon Shack points out that 5 different live shots were all taken from up-town, along the same axis. Well, of course nearly all of the wide shots from that day would be taken from uptown looking downtown, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that the shots were taken from a general axis along the center of the island ... isn't that where all the tall mid-town buildings are? I do not believe an accurate enough perspective analysis of the images taken of the WTC in these shots (per-se), particularly given the quality of the images, can be done to identify the locations of the cameras to any degree of accuracy, apart from to say that they were all taken from up-town, roughly from the center of the island. That proves what ? It proves nothing, I believe it is just what one would expect.

End of WTC section.

2nd half - Pentagon and Shanksville - This is all very relevant stuff, good work, I totally agree, Mike Walters is a pathetic shilling scumbag and no passenger jet crashed at Shanksville, at least not where and in the way we were told.

My 2 cents.