It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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:
www.machinehead-software.co.uk...
So even if the camera was recording at 1frame per HALF second. It still would only catch one shot of the plane.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Uh? How can you see whats on the side facing away from the camera?
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.
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...
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.
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...
Are you blind? Are you suggestion that the 'eye' gets cut off at the sides?
To answer your question, yes I am suggesting that.
Originally posted by SMR
To answer your question, yes I am suggesting that.
Originally posted by SMR
I think you know what was meant by ON the box AgentSmith
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.
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
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.
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.