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

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

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
Ace Baker - Video Composite Theory Set, merged threads

acebaker
post Nov 14 2008, 09:42 PM
Post #41





Group: Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



And, of course, the alleged computer modeling does not directly apply to my thesis. Hypothetically, even IF it is POSSIBLE for a 767 to penetrate the tower, this does not mean that it actually occurred. My evidence deals with what actually occurred.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Nov 15 2008, 11:04 AM
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Yes, thank you Turbofan. The "tone" of your post was right on. If I might allow myself to presume, AB has, as far as I can tell, taken this topic seriously and tried to sort the wheat from the chaff as it were ... and probably gotten a lot of flack for his views on various sites. As for P4T, AB, you might take this to heart, we thrashed out the NPT arguments here on this forum AT LENGTH a year ago. There were calls to ban the whole discussion, which we as admins and mods rejected, one of our comrades, a mod, a friend, was actually ejected over this topic. We have been through this up and down and sideways.

Still, the world doesn't change - unless you hang your hopes on Obama. ( rolleyes.gif )

WHAT IF ... there were no planes, video fakery was part of the hoax. And we have evidence.

SO WHAT???

We have all sorts of evidence, the most incriminating being the FDR files acquired and analyzed by members of this forum. Whoop - de - doo!!!! They won't let the mainstream media report on a group of professional pilots who analyzed the AA77 black box data - but "evidence" that the planes were CG'd is gonna get us somewhere???

IN YOUR DREAMS!!!!!!!

CONVERSELY, if ANYTHING, the NPT arguments - however true they may or may not be (depends on the argument - there's a lot of BS floating around regarding this subject ... I already commended AB for focusing on the real evidence and ignoring the junk) ... are fodder for the discrediting of the "truth movement" on the whole. Simply because the premise is too far-out in left field for many people to take seriously.

That's the truth, and the perpetrators know it, and that's why this NPT craze has been "fomented". I'm not suggesting for a minute that anyone that WE know is anywhere near the root of this, nor am I suggesting that AB's research is not of the highest caliber. I'm talking on a whole different level.

Ever hear the term, "Open Complicity"? - That's what No-Plane is. A means to tie the media in a concrete way to the 9/11 conspiracy, to ensure their eternal loyalty. It's a catch 22 for us, because it ensures that the media will fight any airing of 9/11 truth in a meaningful way - in perpetuity.

I'm sorry, I'm sort of rambling. AB's approach is, in my opinion from what I have read so far, on the admirable side ... especially considering the flood of bullsh#t we have seen from the NPT camp. I was convinced early on, for aluminum wings should not be able to slice through structural steel girders, much less reinforced concrete floor slabs, as miraculously appears to have happened. But so what? How is that knowlege going to save me from the day (maybe not so far off!!!) when they say ... you need to have this chip implanted in your arm ... otherwise, you won't be able to buy food.

????
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
acebaker
post Nov 15 2008, 11:31 AM
Post #43





Group: Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (Sanders @ Nov 15 2008, 11:04 AM) *
Yes, thank you Turbofan. The "tone" of your post was right on. If I might allow myself to presume, AB has, as far as I can tell, taken this topic seriously and tried to sort the wheat from the chaff as it were ... and probably gotten a lot of flack for his views on various sites. As for P4T, AB, you might take this to heart, we thrashed out the NPT arguments here on this forum AT LENGTH a year ago. There were calls to ban the whole discussion, which we as admins and mods rejected, one of our comrades, a mod, a friend, was actually ejected over this topic. We have been through this up and down and sideways.

Still, the world doesn't change - unless you hang your hopes on Obama. ( rolleyes.gif )

WHAT IF ... there were no planes, video fakery was part of the hoax. And we have evidence.

SO WHAT???

We have all sorts of evidence, the most incriminating being the FDR files acquired and analyzed by members of this forum. Whoop - de - doo!!!! They won't let the mainstream media report on a group of professional pilots who analyzed the AA77 black box data - but "evidence" that the planes were CG'd is gonna get us somewhere???

IN YOUR DREAMS!!!!!!!

CONVERSELY, if ANYTHING, the NPT arguments - however true they may or may not be (depends on the argument - there's a lot of BS floating around regarding this subject ... I already commended AB for focusing on the real evidence and ignoring the junk) ... are fodder for the discrediting of the "truth movement" on the whole. Simply because the premise is too far-out in left field for many people to take seriously.

That's the truth, and the perpetrators know it, and that's why this NPT craze has been "fomented". I'm not suggesting for a minute that anyone that WE know is anywhere near the root of this, nor am I suggesting that AB's research is not of the highest caliber. I'm talking on a whole different level.

Ever hear the term, "Open Complicity"? - That's what No-Plane is. A means to tie the media in a concrete way to the 9/11 conspiracy, to ensure their eternal loyalty. It's a catch 22 for us, because it ensures that the media will fight any airing of 9/11 truth in a meaningful way - in perpetuity.

I'm sorry, I'm sort of rambling. AB's approach is, in my opinion from what I have read so far, on the admirable side ... especially considering the flood of bullsh#t we have seen from the NPT camp. I was convinced early on, for aluminum wings should not be able to slice through structural steel girders, much less reinforced concrete floor slabs, as miraculously appears to have happened. But so what? How is that knowlege going to save me from the day (maybe not so far off!!!) when they say ... you need to have this chip implanted in your arm ... otherwise, you won't be able to buy food.

????


You are quite correct about the flood of nonsense from the NPT "camp". September Clues is 90-95% false. After extensive interaction with Simon Shack (September Clues), Fred BS Registration (911 Octopus), Webfairy, Nico Haupt, and Killtown, I'm convinced they are screwing up the case ON PURPOSE. They don't want to get it right. Killtown has banned me from his forum, Fred has made videos accusing my wife of being a Mossad agent, etc.

I have no ear for the argument that NPT "discredits the movement". This is a political argument, not a scientific one. If you want to be part of the "911 Political Correctness Movement", then go for it. But "Truth" must be about truth.

The truth is, those videos are video composites. I strongly urge P4T members who feel NPT is bad for the movement to follow one of two courses:

1. Review the evidence, change your mind, understand the vital importance of NPT, and promote it with conviction.

or

2. Change the name of this group to "Pilots for 9/11 Political Correctness" (P4PC).

Sinerely,

Ace Baker

This post has been edited by acebaker: Nov 15 2008, 11:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
acebaker
post Nov 15 2008, 11:35 AM
Post #44





Group: Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Hopefully members will actually review this evidence, and reach a forum consensus that the 9/11 videos are composites, and that this proves no plane crashes at the WTC. Otherwise, please attempt to refute it, that is why I'm here.

22 data points.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Nov 15 2008, 12:40 PM
Post #45





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (INP @ Nov 14 2008, 09:58 PM) *
Thank you very much Ace!

I find the analysis outstanding and well researched.
Unfortunately it is quit difficult to get people used to the idea ALL "live" coverage we saw on 9/11
was manipulated since this results to question nearly everything shown on TV.

Some month ago I more accidential bumped into some similar research on this topic and it convinced
me.
By any chance, do you know if any background scan of the Naudet brothers was done? To me these two
guys are highly suspect.

Again many thanks for your efforts. thumbsup.gif


Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Nov 15 2008, 12:40 PM
Post #46



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



I was in relative agreement with you until ...

QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 19 2008, 11:31 AM) *
2. Change the name of this group to "Pilots for 9/11 Political Correctness" (P4PC).


You are out of your league here. You think we haven't been over, through, inside and out of this argument?

You think that NPT will save this nation???


Here, I'll give you some "politically correct" commentary from a P4T administrator ... NPT, however true, is essentially masterbation. That's why I don't pay attention to this anymore.

Show me how you will eliminate the Federal Reserve's stranglehold on America, and you have my attention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 15 2008, 12:52 PM
Post #47


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


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



QUOTE (Sanders @ Nov 15 2008, 09:40 AM) *
I was in total agreement with you until ...

QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 19 2008, 11:31 AM) *
2. Change the name of this group to "Pilots for 9/11 Political Correctness" (P4PC).


You are out of your league here. You think we haven't been over, through, inside and out of this argument?

You think that NPT will save this nation???


Here, I'll give you some "politically correct" commentary from a P4T administrator ... NPT, however true, is essentially masterbation. That's why I don't pay attention to this anymore.

Show me how you will eliminate the Federal Reserve's stranglehold on America, and you have my attention.


Ditto what Sanders said. First of all, it is disrespectful and condescending. It's an attitude I've seen displayed by the NPT/VF crowd over and over again -- and then they wonder why few of us take them seriously. It isn't a matter of "political correctness," it is a matter of what can be independently corroborated by evidence. It is one thing to show that there are anomalies with the video evidence that was broadcast that day -- there is. It is quite another matter to PROVE conclusively that these anomalies were a consistent pattern of deception to the point where the entire global population were persuaded to believe something that did not in fact happen. Truth isn't an "all or nothing" matter. People may begin with a thread of doubt and, through following their question, begin to convince themselves that what they once believed to be true may not be in fact true. This is how it works and there are LEVELS to this. Jesus, it isn't just about PLANES on 9/11 that we've been deceived -- once one begins to go down the rabbit hole, one realizes that DECEPTION is the rule; it is HOW they rule. But it takes a long time to get to that point and then, from that point, begin to try and separate the 'wheat from the chaff' about not only the history of this country, but the history of everything including who and what we are and why we're here and what, if anything, all this means -- not to mention what if anything we can or will do about it.

So, Ace, please don't lecture us. That isn't going to win you any friends here. Make your case. Be open to criticism. Get the chip off your shoulder. Work with us, not against us. Respect us enough to conclude that your work will speak for itself and we're intelligent enough to draw our own conclusions and, more over, to be willing to change our conclusions (or not) as new information and evidence is presented. That's the way it works.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Nov 15 2008, 01:54 PM
Post #48


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Nov 14 2008, 12:47 PM) *
I still have one question that proponents of NPT don't seem to be able to answer. How do you explain the real life human beings who were in NYC that day who saw airplanes hit the buildings with their own eyes? The ones who saw it in real life, not on TV?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 15 2008, 02:51 PM
Post #49


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


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



I haven't yet gone all the way through the lengthy presentation by AB that launches this thread. However, I want to make an obvious point regarding post #3 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758713 and the analysis put forward in these two images:





This analysis assumes that the alleged plane is traveling parallel or roughly parallel to the plane of the photo receptors of the camera. That should be a question. Was it? If yes, then this method of determining where the plane "ought" to be is accurate or sufficiently accurate for discussion. However, if it was NOT traveling parallel or nearly parallel to the picture plane of the camera, then this analysis has to be rejected as flawed.

The reason is PERSPECTIVE -- and for purposes of this discussion there are two kinds of perspective: spatial and atmospheric.

Spatial Perspective: Imagine that you are looking at a long sequence of fence posts on a flat surface (no hills) that are equal or roughly equal distant apart. Imagine that these posts form a line that stretches from horizon to horizon (that is, a great distance, such that the most distant posts to the right and left appear to 'go over' the horizon -- what artists call "the vanishing point" or VP). What you will see will depend upon A: your angle or line of sight and B: your distance from the line of posts. If you are standing directly beside the line of posts, looking parallel to the line, your field of vision will be narrow and all posts you can see will appear to be roughly equal distant apart. However, from this close vantage, to see more posts (those outside your peripheral vision) you are going to have to turn your head to the left or right and as you do so your angle of perspective changes. If you look to the left you will see all the posts receding away from you to the left horizon, if you look to the right, same thing. And what is apparent then is that the posts do not 'appear' to be equal distant. They appear to be closer and closer together as they recede toward the vanishing point. There is even a geometric formation for representing this:



Now, the further one is away from this line of fence posts, the less obvious this "foreshortening" (as artists call it) is going to be evident. If I'm standing a long ways away looking at the fence and looking parallel to it, I will see many posts in my field of vision and they will all appear more or less equal distant. But the basic principal remains. Even from this far vantage point to see all the posts I will have to change my angle of vision and turn my head slightly one way or another to see what is beyond my peripheral vision and, as I do this, the same observation will be made. Those receding into the far distance will appear closer together until they "vanish" at the horizon.

Applying these principals of spatial perspective to the question of determining where the plane "ought" to be, we have to know how far away the camera is from the line the plane is traveling on. We have to know whether or not the camera is looking straight on, parallel, to the flight path or whether the camera is looking at the flight path from an angle. In either case, one can't merely assume that taking one measurement and applying it equally over the long, wide angle shot, will give us a precise indication of where the plane "ought" to be visible. Maybe, maybe not. This problem of determining the location is compounded if the plane is not traveling level across the ground (if it is descending from one altitude to another, for example) AND/OR if the plane is not traveling in a straight line but CURVING.

All the above need to be taken into account in order to stipulate emphatically that we know for a certainty where the plane OUGHT to be in any given frame.

Atmospheric Perspective:



Finally, we need to include the effects that atmosphere plays upon perspective. None of this negates what is said about spatial perspective but includes another element because the fact is the further something is away from us in an atmosphere, the less contrast it has and the less visible it is There are a lot of variables regarding atmospheric perspective but primarily it has to do with the amount of humidity or pollution in the atmosphere and the angle of light relative to what I'm looking at. The more humidity or pollution in the atmosphere, the further away the object is, the smaller the object is relative to the scale of the scene, the more the light reflecting off that object is going to be scattered through the atmosphere. If it is a relatively small object very far away and it is not a cold, clear day, I might not see it at all because no light reflecting off its surface reaches me. It is all scattered about in the atmosphere. As it draws closer, of course, at some point it will become visible. The question relevant to this discussion is at what point? This question is compounded because we are dealing not with the human eye but with a camera which is less sensitive than the human eye. Worse, we're dealing with a digitized version of an original video source. We don't know what faint visual data may have been lost in transition and compression.

What I'm presenting here is not an argument against NPT/VF but a critique of AB's methodology in this instance. He has not taken these two principals of perspective into account and assumes that the plane ought to be within the field of the camera at a set point and uses the fact that it is not as a support for his general NPT/VF theory. What I'm indicating is that we can not reasonably assume this to be the case. There are many variables which need to be addressed before we can make this assertion of a set point on a picture plane where the aircraft ought to be visible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
acebaker
post Nov 15 2008, 03:44 PM
Post #50





Group: Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 15 2008, 02:51 PM) *
I haven't yet gone all the way through the lengthy presentation by AB that launches this thread. However, I want to make an obvious point regarding post #3 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758713 and the analysis put forward in these two images:





This analysis assumes that the alleged plane is traveling parallel or roughly parallel to the plane of the photo receptors of the camera. That should be a question. Was it? If yes, then this method of determining where the plane "ought" to be is accurate or sufficiently accurate for discussion. However, if it was NOT traveling parallel or nearly parallel to the picture plane of the camera, then this analysis has to be rejected as flawed.

The reason is PERSPECTIVE -- and for purposes of this discussion there are two kinds of perspective: spatial and atmospheric.

Spatial Perspective: Imagine that you are looking at a long sequence of fence posts on a flat surface (no hills) that are equal or roughly equal distant apart. Imagine that these posts form a line that stretches from horizon to horizon (that is, a great distance, such that the most distant posts to the right and left appear to 'go over' the horizon -- what artists call "the vanishing point" or VP). What you will see will depend upon A: your angle or line of sight and B: your distance from the line of posts. If you are standing directly beside the line of posts, looking parallel to the line, your field of vision will be narrow and all posts you can see will appear to be roughly equal distant apart. However, from this close vantage, to see more posts (those outside your peripheral vision) you are going to have to turn your head to the left or right and as you do so your angle of perspective changes. If you look to the left you will see all the posts receding away from you to the left horizon, if you look to the right, same thing. And what is apparent then is that the posts do not 'appear' to be equal distant. They appear to be closer and closer together as they recede toward the vanishing point. There is even a geometric formation for representing this:



Now, the further one is away from this line of fence posts, the less obvious this "foreshortening" (as artists call it) is going to be evident. If I'm standing a long ways away looking at the fence and looking parallel to it, I will see many posts in my field of vision and they will all appear more or less equal distant. But the basic principal remains. Even from this far vantage point to see all the posts I will have to change my angle of vision and turn my head slightly one way or another to see what is beyond my peripheral vision and, as I do this, the same observation will be made. Those receding into the far distance will appear closer together until they "vanish" at the horizon.

Applying these principals of spatial perspective to the question of determining where the plane "ought" to be, we have to know how far away the camera is from the line the plane is traveling on. We have to know whether or not the camera is looking straight on, parallel, to the flight path or whether the camera is looking at the flight path from an angle. In either case, one can't merely assume that taking one measurement and applying it equally over the long, wide angle shot, will give us a precise indication of where the plane "ought" to be visible. Maybe, maybe not. This problem of determining the location is compounded if the plane is not traveling level across the ground (if it is descending from one altitude to another, for example) AND/OR if the plane is not traveling in a straight line but CURVING.

All the above need to be taken into account in order to stipulate emphatically that we know for a certainty where the plane OUGHT to be in any given frame.

Atmospheric Perspective:



Finally, we need to include the effects that atmosphere plays upon perspective. None of this negates what is said about spatial perspective but includes another element because the fact is the further something is away from us in an atmosphere, the less contrast it has and the less visible it is There are a lot of variables regarding atmospheric perspective but primarily it has to do with the amount of humidity or pollution in the atmosphere and the angle of light relative to what I'm looking at. The more humidity or pollution in the atmosphere, the further away the object is, the smaller the object is relative to the scale of the scene, the more the light reflecting off that object is going to be scattered through the atmosphere. If it is a relatively small object very far away and it is not a cold, clear day, I might not see it at all because no light reflecting off its surface reaches me. It is all scattered about in the atmosphere. As it draws closer, of course, at some point it will become visible. The question relevant to this discussion is at what point? This question is compounded because we are dealing not with the human eye but with a camera which is less sensitive than the human eye. Worse, we're dealing with a digitized version of an original video source. We don't know what faint visual data may have been lost in transition and compression.

What I'm presenting here is not an argument against NPT/VF but a critique of AB's methodology in this instance. He has not taken these two principals of perspective into account and assumes that the plane ought to be within the field of the camera at a set point and uses the fact that it is not as a support for his general NPT/VF theory. What I'm indicating is that we can not reasonably assume this to be the case. There are many variables which need to be addressed before we can make this assertion of a set point on a picture plane where the aircraft ought to be visible.


At last, an actual scientific critique. Though not included in the thread, I did take time to see that the path of "UA175" was nearly perpendicular to the line of sight. Following will be a post of a Google Earth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
acebaker
post Nov 15 2008, 03:57 PM
Post #51





Group: Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Chopper 5 wide shot is frame 1-170. Plane "impact" at frame 427.
427 frames / 30 = 14.23 seconds.
Plane travels 542 mph (NIST).
542 mph = 794.93 feet/sec.
795 feet/sec * 14.23 sec = 11315 feet away from tower at frame 1.
170 frames = 5.67 sec
5.67 sec * 795 feet/sec = 4504 feet traveled during 170 frames.
11315 feet - 4504 feet = 6811 feet away in frame 170.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
acebaker
post Nov 15 2008, 04:05 PM
Post #52





Group: Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Of course, any object on video will disappear at some point, as the camera is pulled back. Go far enough out in space, the whole earth would disappear. The question is, will a 767 disappear at 4 1/2 miles, silhouetted against a bright sky, zoomed out?

My control case says no. I was 6 1/2 miles, similar situation, bright sky, zoomed out.

The question of whether the plane would be in frame is decided with certainty. Besides the two different proofs offered in the thread, I have also employed a third, completely different method. I modeled the motion of the airplane, after scaling the frames. All 3 methods agree.

If someone wants to demonstrate video refuting my control case, I'll have a look at it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
acebaker
post Nov 15 2008, 04:49 PM
Post #53





Group: Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



If posters do not have any scientific response the the 22 data points that prove video compositing, I ask that you please refrain from posting on this thread. Thank you.

Ace Baker
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Nov 15 2008, 05:06 PM
Post #54


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Here's a side thread so we can keep this one on topic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 15 2008, 05:19 PM
Post #55


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


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



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 15 2008, 01:05 PM) *
Of course, any object on video will disappear at some point, as the camera is pulled back. Go far enough out in space, the whole earth would disappear. The question is, will a 767 disappear at 4 1/2 miles, silhouetted against a bright sky, zoomed out?

My control case says no. I was 6 1/2 miles, similar situation, bright sky, zoomed out.

The question of whether the plane would be in frame is decided with certainty. Besides the two different proofs offered in the thread, I have also employed a third, completely different method. I modeled the motion of the airplane, after scaling the frames. All 3 methods agree.

If someone wants to demonstrate video refuting my control case, I'll have a look at it.


First, I appreciate the added information in your post #57 above. This pretty much rules out spatial perspective PROVIDED the flight path you've indicated is accurate. Missing from what you've provided is angle of descent. Not an overwhelming factor but it might be relevant if significant.

Second, I would appreciate it if you'd link to your "control case" mentioned above. It might very well be in this thread but I don't have time to go looking for it. I'm multi tasking as it is.

Third, have you considered the effects of FOCUS when dealing with a video zoom lens that is moving from wide angle to telephoto? I'm not a videographer much less someone who understands lens optics but this could be an important detail, especially in relation to atmospheric perspective. As indicated in my post above, the further an object is from the camera, the more dispersed the light reflecting off it will be with the atmospheric conditions being a variable. The question is, what role does zooming in on a distant object have in relation to its visibility in the atmosphere? Does that question make sense?

One other question I have, especially in relation to this particular video, is the 'atmospheric quality' evident in the video. It appears very hazy, almost as if it was taken on a day that was not clear when we know it was a relatively clear day and, moreover, the color of the sky is very warm (yellow), not a cool blue. Why is this do you think? What does it tell us about the quality of the video? Was it being shot through a dirty window or through an open door/window? What effect does this have on the question of the visibility of the alleged craft in a long shot?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
acebaker
post Nov 15 2008, 06:29 PM
Post #56





Group: Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 15 2008, 06:19 PM) *
Second, I would appreciate it if you'd link to your "control case" mentioned above.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758714
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 15 2008, 07:11 PM
Post #57



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I really dont have the time to go over this, and i rarely entertain such theories when hard data is available for other issues/conflicts with the govt story... but i did want to throw in my 2 cents... for now..


Ace,

Until you have a list like this ...

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82

eg. Breaking down all witnesses who claim to have seen the WTC hit...

...and...

.... witnesses filmed on location like this....

http://thepentacon.com

.... your theories are missing a very important piece of evidence (or rebuttal to evidence) as required in a court of law and no one will entertain your theories more than has been offered. As you have experienced, your theories are waning support, not growing in support. It appears P4T forums are your last chance to gain any type of support since we honor free speech more than any theory and everyone else has either banned you or your theories.

One point i'd like to make is that your theories are just that, theory, and are not proven, mainly due to the fact you havent interviewed witnesses whose statements conflict with an impact. But more importantly because you describe your theories as such... theory and hypothesis.

I'd also like to know what type of experience you have with CGI, Alpha channels and chroma keying as i have a bit of experience myself.. wink.gif

...and i do know how easy and possible it is to fake a video.... but with so many live witnesses who have not been contacted for interview? hmmm...

I also disagree with your 4.5-6.5 mile visual acuity having experienced it first hand many times through my own eyes in all types of weather, and with cams.

Good luck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Nov 15 2008, 07:59 PM
Post #58





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 16 2008, 01:11 AM) *
I really dont have the time to go over this, and i rarely entertain such theories when hard data is available for other issues/conflicts with the govt story... but i did want to throw in my 2 cents... for now..


Ace,

Until you have a list like this ...

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82

eg. Breaking down all witnesses who claim to have seen the WTC hit...

...and...

.... witnesses filmed on location like this....

http://thepentacon.com

.... your theories are missing a very important piece of evidence (or rebuttal to evidence) as required in a court of law and no one will entertain your theories more than has been offered. As you have experienced, your theories are waning support, not growing in support. It appears P4T forums are your last chance to gain any type of support since we honor free speech more than any theory and everyone else has either banned you or your theories.

One point i'd like to make is that your theories are just that, theory, and are not proven, mainly due to the fact you havent interviewed witnesses whose statements conflict with an impact. But more importantly because you describe your theories as such... theory and hypothesis.

I'd also like to know what type of experience you have with CGI, Alpha channels and chroma keying as i have a bit of experience myself.. wink.gif

...and i do know how easy and possible it is to fake a video.... but with so many live witnesses who have not been contacted for interview? hmmm...
Good luck.


Rob, the witness issue goes to the heart of wether or not a planes actually hit the WTC, not wether the videos are fake. Just wanted to make that distinction. The physics of the strike videos alone bear out fakery. To the point of NPT, regardless of how many people supposedly saw planes hit the towers, no witnesses that have come forward claiming to have seen any debris in the one area you would most expect to see it - on the ground under the gash. Nor are there any photos or videos of debris under the gash. Not a one. FWIW, I find that more than just a little odd if not highly unlikely.

Additionally, many witnesses have been interviewed and have almost as many credibility problems as supposed Pentagon witnesses. In particular, there are the WTC strike film takers themselves.

Lastly, the CIT team has compiled a list of 26 people who claim to have "seen" the impacts even though we know no such impact occured. Mike Walter (USA Today) is an example of someone who is a professianl liar along with Gary Bauer. Aside from the professionals, I would imagine there are more than a few that like to "embed" themselves in stories for myriad reasons. I would also imagine that New York City, with a much more sizable population, and with much of it focused on the WTC after the 2nd tower "hit", might have many more such supposed witnesses. Of the WTC impact witnesses we DO know of, most are from the media and fall into the category of Mike Walters. The others not from the media, (Carmen Taylor, Hezarkhani, Evan Fairbanks and Pavel Hlava) have produced videos that defy physics.

Just my 2 cents. salute.gif

This post has been edited by Quest: Nov 18 2008, 08:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
acebaker
post Nov 15 2008, 09:08 PM
Post #59





Group: Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 15 2008, 08:11 PM) *
I'd also like to know what type of experience you have with CGI, Alpha channels and chroma keying as i have a bit of experience myself.. wink.gif


I have a 20 year background in video compositing, having produced music videos in the 1980's using blue-screen backdrop at my local public access studio, and keying the players into computer drawn scenes. I've done music for a number of films that featured various types of FX shots, seeing unfinished scenes with and without FX.

More recently, and more importantly, I own and use Adobe After Effects and Final Cut Studio Pro, with Motion. I have recreated both the Chopper 5 composite, and the CNN Ghostplane composite, and written a detailed theory of how they were done. Reading and watching these should answer any questions you have about the technicalities of the 9/11 composites, and in the process answer any questions you have about my expertise.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/theor...composites.html

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/07/theor...1-airplane.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 15 2008, 09:17 PM
Post #60



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Thanks Ace...

So we both agree videos can be faked based on experience...

And now what of the witness lists? Contacted any? Interviewed any with conflicting statements? Broken down every single one who claims an impact? Talked to any who claims to have seen the plane(s) along the path?

Let me know if you need a few... i know a few pilots who watched it happen from JFK and EWR. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Closed 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: 11th December 2017 - 09:41 PM