posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:06 PM
motion blur should affect both side of the plane equally. wings and tailfins winking in and out of existance is not motion blur. at least i've
never seen motion blur affect only particular parts of a moving object.
i really don't think the lense curvature of the original camera would make THAT much difference, because the image of the plane is fairly centered,
and distant. unless it was a fisheye lens or something, the distortions would be minimal. certainly negligible.
assuming it's a typical video camera, the lens would have been designed to capture anything you point it at with a fair degree of accuracy. we are
very sensitive to visual distortions, and wouldn't buy video cameras that make everything look like it's from a fun house of mirrors. the
distortion of the original could actually be determined by comparing changes in the planes image frame by frame.
much easier to just say loudly, "THAT'S WRONG. HE'S STUPID".
i'd LOVE to see someone here do something anywhere NEAR as thourough.
like, prove the veracity of your, 'it might be a funky lens' 'debunking' excuse, by doing frame by frame geometrical analysis.
or show me pictures of other planes in motion where only ONE wing is not just blurred, but completely missing, while the other wings are fairly
the how you could fake something like that is two projectors(on other nearby aircraft) locked onto a homing device which is on the missile(missile in
the generic sense, not 'rocket', although, as we know, there may have been a stinger or something, too). presumably the holographic screen
apparatus would be part of the construction of the attack plane/missile.
did you know holographic televisions are not too far off in the future. holograms are not nutty sci-fi. they've been around for years, if not
decades. the military's secret high tech is always like ten or twenty years ahead of everyone else. like radar invisibility or GPS. in twenty
years we might be able to smash holographic cars into our neighbor's house for laughs.