It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 30
1
share:

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by CaptainLazy

Originally posted by Flyer
Everyone knows its a fish eye lens, so it has a wider field of vision which means its even less likely to miss the plane altogether but it just happens to catch the 1st couple of feet of something and then the impact, how convenient.

Lets break it down mathematically. Lets Assume the camera is recording at 1fps, the plane is travelling at 500mph and the space from the wall to the first apearance of the planes front at the right edge is 300meters.

That means that plane would have cleared the grass and hit the building in 0.02 seconds

Check yourself:

So even if the camera was recording at 1frame per HALF second. It still would only catch one shot of the plane.

This may be of assistance to you:

[size=3.5]The 1/32 a frame difference should add to the math model you guys are working on.

[edit on 20-5-2006 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by alienanderson

I'm not even sure if a commercial jet is able to come in at such a flat trajectory at high speed. I quoted this before but I think it needs repeating and I'm not sure if the claim has been debunked anywhere else:
If that info is true then we have 100% proof that the government has cut frames and is withholding video evidence, even with a 1fps camera.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:40 PM
Err, one isn't a zoomed view of the other, if nothing else the lens flare shows that.
I imagine it was placed on the structure in the middle, I guess it's houses an intercom maybe?
As for the 'cropping' it doesn't look unlike the views you get from some types of security cameras. The camera itself is inside an enclosure and don't forget the fish eye effect.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:42 PM

Originally posted by commonsense4u
This is unbelieveable! Now it all makes sense to me from those infrared photos. The squeally white thing accompanied by the dark blue thingy up top. That plowed directly into the pentagon. Now I get it. Thanks person posting for IgnoranceIsntBlisss, I now see the entire picture.

I'm still waiting to see an explanation of what those anomalies are...

i24.photobucket.com...
/911/Pentagon/jet400percentnormalsatco mparison.jpg
i24.photobucket.com...

i24.photobucket.com...
i24.photobucket.com...
i24.photobucket.com...
i24.photobucket.com...
i24.photobucket.com...

[Edit: resized top image, shortened URL]

[edit on 5/20/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:42 PM

Originally posted by SMR
Here is a little animation of the zooming showing proof it is and that a large area is being left out...cropped.I scaled your image over one I had to match up the building.I then drew a reference line that lines up showing that it is zoomed in and you can see this because the yellow box is gone, yet the building reference is the same.

I may be wrong, but I think that is because the released footage comes from two different cameras, one showing the yellow box, and the other mounted on the yellow box.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:48 PM
There is no camera on the yellow box.It would have to be inside otherwise we would see it on the first video as you can see the yellow box.

AgentSmith,
The first video released is cropped.Your 'fish eye' is not a complete 'eye' as you can see in the image.It is missing parts on all sides.A major chunk from the right which could possible show the object much better.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:51 PM

Originally posted by g210

byway that slwoly disapearing smoke trail over several frames of ignoranceisnotbliss work is interessting. It is very visible in the original video also when you pay attention to it. I wondered if it could have benn caused from the low fly of the aircraft .causing a dust ground cloud..but it was gras a lawn what I could see...so I dont think so. speaks against a 757 once again.

My question is since there was approx 1.5-2 seconds between the plasne hitting the light poles and then hitting the Pentagon, would there even be enough time/space for smoke to begin billowing off the plane to that extent?

i24.photobucket.com...
i24.photobucket.com...

And also does that mean that the 'tip' shown in the new camera is actually smoke and the anomlie is the plane, or what gives?

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by SMR
There is no camera on the yellow box.It would have to be inside otherwise we would see it on the first video as you can see the yellow box.

Uh? How can you see whats on the side facing away from the camera?

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by SMR
There is no camera on the yellow box.It would have to be inside otherwise we would see it on the first video as you can see the yellow box.

The camera is in the yellow box on to the right and aiming (it's center') almost at the same building point. That means it's view is also a little turned compared to the original one.

You can figure it out if you check about how the police car pases throgh the picture o fthe cameras. The police car made it possible for me to determine exactly where the plane has to be in the old view.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
And also does that mean that the 'tip' shown in the new camera is actually smoke and the anomlie is the plane, or what gives?

That's exactly the point that turned me sick. The gov promised unedited videos, yet this as well as the old (the triangle! above the yellow box') is obvious an edited video. That means you can investigate what you want you can not valid conclude anything out of this because the video itself is in question.
How nice of the gov.

To your question, I asume that that the thing in the new camera is faked and the truth thing is or more was where it is edited. Same for the other camera the old one, but the white trail ther fits to a the slowly disapearing smoke trail you worked out (thats a good discovery!) so I asume in this camera it is indeed the smoke trail of the object thatw as cuttet out. Why did they left it? maybe because frames of this were leaked.

But you see its all maybe and asumption now..no one can know anything for sure anymore with this videos. It is disgusting.

For me the case is closed, the giv faked and lied and should be forced to revale all the 80? or how many where their other viedos unedited....but who will force them to do somethign against their will?

I only still a little interested how it would looks like when it was not edited.I think the sizeof the white thing isnt that bad and would fit to a 757 when the trail is still outside the camear. The body itself however is a little distorted and varing in the the hight violating the size partly instead smooth and also is wrong color (overblended by sun maybe.. maybe not (fuseledge is round)).

[edit on 20-5-2006 by g210]

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:39 PM

Originally posted by SMRAgentSmith,
The first video released is cropped.Your 'fish eye' is not a complete 'eye' as you can see in the image.It is missing parts on all sides.A major chunk from the right which could possible show the object much better.

I'm sorry... but are you seriously suggesting that the cameras record a circle?

If so I think you need to research it some more.

en.wikipedia.org...

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 03:06 PM

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Uh? How can you see whats on the side facing away from the camera?

It was being suggested the camera was ON the yellow box.I made the suggestion you cant see it ON the box.Learn to read please.

Originally posted by g210
The camera is in the yellow box on to the right and aiming (it's center') almost at the same building point. That means it's view is also a little turned compared to the original one.
You can figure it out if you check about how the police car pases throgh the picture o fthe cameras. The police car made it possible for me to determine exactly where the plane has to be in the old view.

As I suggested, it would have to be INSIDE.Thanks for clearification.
This would also allow us to see a wider range no?

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
I'm sorry... but are you seriously suggesting that the cameras record a circle?

If so I think you need to research it some more.

en.wikipedia.org...

Are you blind? Are you suggestion that the 'eye' gets cut off at the sides?
To answer your question, yes I am suggesting that.

[edit on 20-5-2006 by SMR]

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 03:38 PM

Originally posted by SMR
It was being suggested the camera was ON the yellow box.I made the suggestion you cant see it ON the box.Learn to read please.

Indeed, the dictionary being something worth reading sometimes:

on ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n, ôn)
prep.

1. Used to indicate position above and supported by or in contact with: The vase is on the table. We rested on our hands and knees.
2. Used to indicate contact with or extent over (a surface) regardless of position: a picture on the wall; a rash on my back.
dictionary.reference.com...

Feel free to read the further 12 prepositions, 8 adverbs and 5 adjectives.

Are you blind? Are you suggestion that the 'eye' gets cut off at the sides?
To answer your question, yes I am suggesting that.

It depends on it's enclosure and lens.

[edit on 20-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by SMR

To answer your question, yes I am suggesting that.

So then the security guards sit there with a few circular screens then do they?

Those examples you gave are extreme examples of fisheye lenses used in still photography not an everyday gate cam. I find it far more likely that a security camera would be using a rectangular viewing aspect.

I;m not saying you dont get video cameras that give full fisheye effects, I'm saying you don't get fisheye like that on a security camera. You can even see the effect is quiet mild on the frames when compared to something like:

[edit on 20-5-2006 by CaptainLazy]

[edit on 20-5-2006 by CaptainLazy]

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 05:16 PM
I think you know what was meant by ON the box AgentSmith

As for different lens', well I gues then they just happen to have the one that cut off the sides then

Anyone have any info on what camera is used? Name and model? Hell, I'll go and by one just to set up a mock and see. Do we know if either ( either being used because some suggest there are 2 cameras ) are enclosed FOR SURE?
The only way to get full proof on the camera(s) is to mock the entire thing.I am willing to do that if I have correct info.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 05:26 PM

Originally posted by SMR
I think you know what was meant by ON the box AgentSmith

Yes you're right I do

It was you that got confused, remember? That's why I had to point out the definition to you.

The only way to get full proof on the camera(s) is to mock the entire thing.I am willing to do that if I have correct info.

Crack on, some of us have seen and used CCTV, hidden cameras, etc so we already know the facts, but if you need to experience it yourself to understand that's all part of learning. Good on you for being productive and doing something about it, it's more than some people will do these days, sadly

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 05:26 PM
This pretty much shows the different degrees of distortions in fisheye.

Seeing as we don't know what the pentagon used, I guess its up to opinion what looks more like that of in the frames, and what is more likely for security guards to be using.

[edit on 20-5-2006 by CaptainLazy]

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 05:40 PM

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by SMR
I think you know what was meant by ON the box AgentSmith

Yes you're right I do

It was you that got confused, remember? That's why I had to point out the definition to you.

The only way to get full proof on the camera(s) is to mock the entire thing.I am willing to do that if I have correct info.

Crack on, some of us have seen and used CCTV, hidden cameras, etc so we already know the facts, but if you need to experience it yourself to understand that's all part of learning. Good on you for being productive and doing something about it, it's more than some people will do these days, sadly

Lets clear something up here.I was not confused about anything.The use of the word ON was interpreted as ON TOP.If it was meant to mean IN SIDE then perhaps the person who first thought of this should have used that instead.

Originally posted by alienanderson
I may be wrong, but I think that is because the released footage comes from two different cameras, one showing the yellow box, and the other mounted on the yellow box.

Again, perhaps interpreted wrong, but the use of the word was loose.

Lets me get this straight.It is being said that some have used these cameras, but then is being said there are many types so we dont know for sure what one is used at the Pentagon.
So at one point, no need to do a mock up because some have used CCTV and it is what it is.Then we see someone suggest there are different lens' so we dont really know.

It is no wonder peole get lost in all this and cant follow because of all the backwards talk.Classic mis-info if I ever saw it.

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 03:53 AM

Originally posted by SMR
[Lets clear something up here.I was not confused about anything.The use of the word ON was interpreted as ON TOP.If it was meant to mean IN SIDE then perhaps the person who first thought of this should have used that instead.

Just to confirm my previous post - I did not mean inside the box, I meant on it.

On the side, facing the Pentagon. It could be inside, but I assumed the side.

Either way, the footage released comes from two different cameras, and as for my two cents on the fisheye lens - as far as I know all lenses produce a circular image being as they are circular; therefore, all pictures that you see (photos, TV, film etc) are the result of cropping the top, bottom and sides of the image by the medium capturing the image - i.e. the film (or CCD sensor in the case of digital photography)

I have no experience of working with CCTV footage, but I cannot imagine why they would install a non-standard item with a circular output, when rectangular output is the norm for cameras

[edit on 21/5/2006 by alienanderson]

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 09:21 AM
yes it certainly looks cropped but there is no way to know, is there.
its not the first time things have been cropped or zoomed or messed with. wont be the last either

new topics

1