must see new pic of 175, real or not, it shows things I've never seen b4 Options

[waterdancer]

Like a precisely identifiable ground location, pedestrians, a named photographer, etc. Now, some can (and probably will) argue NPT and photo fakery till the cows come home, I know. But at least we should argue about the veracity of this one, no?


http://911digitalarchive.org/repository_ob...object_id=33123

http://911digitalarchive.org/REPOSITORY/IM...HOTOS/867.pjpeg

[waterdancer]

Screenshot of part of the page the pic is on + as close as I could get to a location match using Google street view:

(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/175-1.jpg)
(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/google-maps-175.jpg)

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Mar 16 2008, 09:08 AM

[rob balsamo]

How these supposed "hijackers" were able to put that aircraft into that building at those speeds and bank angles with their "best pilot" (according to 9/11 Commission Report) not able to control a 172 at approach speeds.... well.. lets just say Sept 11 was a very "lucky" day for the "hijackers" in all events on that day... if the govt story is in fact true. Which we know it is not.

Good to see you back WD. Like the new digs?

[waterdancer]

Yeah, pretty cool so far, though I haven't explored the new stuff much yet.

[tumetuestumefais...]

The people in the street seem not being very disturbed there is the tallest skysraper in N.Y. with a hole burning above their heads for already more than 15 minutes... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 17 2008, 11:16 AM

[Carl Bank]

Hi WD!

Have you noticed the wingspan of that plane?

It is almost the width of the tower in that pic, but due to the fact
that the photographer stands closer to the building than to the
approaching aircraft it should be much smaller.
Compare the wingspan here:

(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/175.jpg)

(IMG:http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911CBCSouthTower1_files/Q.jpg)

in other words:
Have you recognized my signature?
It shows the head of Stephen Jobs, but the head is a little too big
in proportion to the 911 he`s apperently sitting in.
IMO this is due to the same reason, why the plane is
that big compared to the tower: Adobe Photoshop.




no doubt in the mind of: Carl

[painter]

Hi WD!

Have you noticed the wingspan of that plane?

Oh, god, not this again. Sorry, Carl, but we've been over the problems in determining both size and distance of an object when using telephoto lenses several times in this forum.

The plane appears too dark, too large, too low, etc. etc. etc. I'm not saying it is NOT a fake. What I'm saying is that the fact that it may appear wrong in the photo in and of itself is no PROOF that it is or is not fake in and of itself. We have to know the precise angle of the sun, the precise lens and zoom when the picture was taken, etc. etc. which, of course, we do not know.

The best way is to analyze the ORIGINAL photo data whether film or digital for tell tail signs of manipulation.

[Carl Bank]

Oh, god, not this again.

Thanks for he compliment, but don't overestimate me, Painter!


just call me: Carl

[painter]

Thanks for he compliment, but don't overestimate me, Painter!

just call me: Carl

I don't think I could ever overestimate you, Carl. In any case, I found one of my posts on this subject from some time back and am copy/pasting it here:

Compound lenses in cameras can cause all sorts of distortions -- wide angle distortions, depth of field distortions, focal length distortions, and so on. In other words, to figure out precisely where a shot was taken requires one to know what kind of camera was used, what the size of the lens was and, with a zoom lens, the zoom amount. Given these distortions, it is actually possible to completely alter the composition of a photograph depending upon angle, distance from certain objects, lens size, zoom amount and so on. Below are examples of various lenses all pointing at the same group of objects. Note how they distort the size and spatial relationships of these objects. I do not know whether they were all taken from the same spot. It is likely that they were not, that the photographer was finding the spot where the foreground object looked the same size while the background objects changed -- IOW, he was probably moving further away from the 'foreground' object.

NOTE: I'm not offering this to prove or disprove anything in regards to the video in question. I'm simply saying that TO BE PRECISE in locating a position from which a particular photograph is taken one needs to know more than the information presesnted in the image itself.


28mm (wide)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/28mm.jpg)

35mm (wide)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/35mm.jpg)

50mm (normal)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/50mm.jpg)

70mm (telephoto)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/70mm.jpg)

100mm (telephoto)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/100mm.jpg)

135mm (telephoto)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/135mm.jpg)

200mm (telephoto)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/200mm.jpg)

[maturin42]

I don't think I could ever overestimate you, Carl. In any case, I found one of my posts on this subject from some time back and am copy/pasting it here:

When I opened this pic in photoshop last night and went in as tight as I could, the plane look like it might have been cut out of another picture. There are some artifacts near the low side wing root.

I'm suspicious.

I agree with Carl, the wingspan appears too wide - that was my immediate impression the first time I looked at it.

(And don't even get me started on the expression on Ameilia Earhart's face!)

[painter]

When I opened this pic in photoshop last night and went in as tight as I could, the plane look like it might have been cut out of another picture. There are some artifacts near the low side wing root.

I'm suspicious.

I agree with Carl, the wingspan appears too wide - that was my immediate impression the first time I looked at it.

(And don't even get me started on the expression on Ameilia Earhart's face!)

Were you working from the original file WD linked to? The image above is a screen shot, not the original link:

http://911digitalarchive.org/REPOSITORY/IM...HOTOS/867.pjpeg

EDIT:

Here is a zoomed in as far as I can go in phtoshop screen shot.

(IMG:http://www.offrampstudios.net/pilots/zoomedin.jpg)

Yes, there are compression artifacts around the plane. That is to be expected in an area of such contrast, especially on an object that was moving. Again, I'm not saying it is or isn't legit; just saying without access to the original it is very difficult to say.

Reason for edit: Added pic

[waterdancer]

Whether or not the image is legitimate (which I can't tell- having a print copy/negative/EXIF data or whatever would help, though), I think it raises some interesting issues-

1.) unless multiple images were merged together (which is something to look for) the time frame of at least a portion of the photograph was indeed between 8:47 AM and 9:03 AM- one tower with a hole and smoke, the other one not.

2.) due to the precisely determinable location of the photograph, camera position and angle should be able to be approximated fairly closely.

3.) since the photographer has identified himself, we know it's not an anonymous photoshop fake.

Also, I don't think too much can be read into the lack of gawking pedestrians. If you were on the street that morning- having just come out of a subway station and on your way to work, for instance, would you have known where to be gawking even if you heard the sound of an approaching airplane? Chances are, probably not. Only if you'd been a witness to the original event, had a glimpse of the tower already or encountered other gawkers would you be looking at the twin towers, most likely. How often do city dwellers look up while on their way to work? I'm betting not very. For most of the visible pedestrians, I suspect that trees/buildings were obstructing their view.

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Mar 18 2008, 04:18 AM

[KILL YOUR TV!]

I tend to agree with carl too.

although very nice post painter - something to definitely keep in mind going forward.

I would place this guys lens anywhere from standard to wide, nowhere near telephoto ( we see too much background - too wide ). My feeling is that with a telephoto lens the towers would be bigger in relation to the Woolworth building. In the lens comparison pictures... notice how, as we move from wide to telephoto the gazebo get's bigger and bigger while the fountain stays the same size. Wideangle creates more depth, pushes the background further away from us and background elements appear smaller than foreground ones.

So for me plane just looks out of proportion...... too darn big!

I agree with the artifacts and the pixelation seems to be consistent. Could be photoshopped, then exposed back onto film, then re-scanned. A pro job so to speak, although upscaling the plane so that Joe Public wouldn't mistake it for a bird or something.

this is ihmo and gut feel after 12 years in the business ( of photography and glossing things over in photoshop! ). If the photographer could provide a RAW file or original neg I could stand corrected.

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

edit: typos... drat!

This post has been edited by KILL YOUR TV!: Mar 18 2008, 06:46 PM

[CocaineImportAge...]

...take a look at this picture here.....pic`

...notice the height the photographer is at in relation to the building and plane.... notice the amount of smoke visible!... some smoke is visible at the approximate height the plane is at!... in WD`s pic`.... you are at ground level looking up!... more smoke should be visible!... but you see none?.... the pic` is fake!... imo!

[UnderTow]

That's exactly how the plane looks in Road to Tyranny. color, lighting and such.

I don't know about this.