Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 32
1
<< 29  30  31   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
g210, did you create your avatar in photoshop? if so how(if its simple)?


No, original I found it on a webpage but edited it a little (underlying a fainth pic to break the satturated colors).
Have to check where from if you want to know. Is computer generated if I dont err.


Originally posted by AdamJ
btw is this video and original 2003 image frames from the same camera then, i


Not sure about how you mean the question. This are 2 cameras. And they run pretty much timesynch. You can figure this out with the police car passing both cameras and the explosion clouds.
Don't know if it was just a coincidence or if the pentagon runs their parking cameras timesynch. But that's a luck at least for me. Useing this I could figure out that the 'nose -tip' you see in the one must be just behind the yellow box in the other. You can map this two camera views. I did descripe it how I figured that out somewhere in this thread. check for: Close to debunk ...

I stopped care for it when I discovered the really strange anomalies before the 'smoke trails'. Indicates for me that the pics most probabily are somehow edited. That makes them useless and the gov a lieing one.

However I just made a new picture that shows how it would looks given that we indeed saw the nose in the new camera and with a size estimation useing the camera view openings:



That shouldnt be so far from the real thing. It might be still a very little bit too large. It's a rough first estimation you see.

What is not considered with this pic is the shutter speed of the camera.
The plane would look a little distorted in its flying direction because it's speed of 500mph. But only in that direction.
And in no way it would be completly unidentifyable like the 'shutter speed is too slow' caller would like to have it.
I could try to estimate/calculate the shutter speed useing the flying debries and the police car when traveling in the back after the cras (what the heck had it lost there driveing over the debries??). But I haven't the time at the moment.

I think I should bring everything together and create a comprehensible/tracable side of all this. At the moment I more do the work to satisfy my own curiousity.

edit to add:
oh byway..do you see the shadow direction of the yellow boxes? Pointed toward the camera. That means the plane will not look bright white from sun reflection but rather dark. Another missmatch in the original viedeos when this should should show the 757.

edit: fixed the quote tags

[edit on 27-5-2006 by g210]
[edit on 27-5-2006 by g210]


[edit on 27-5-2006 by g210]




posted on May, 27 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
g210, did you create your avatar in photoshop? if so how(if its simple)?


found the side: imagesavant.com...
Worth to see. Has great generated pics. (check their info page)



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by g210

Originally posted by AdamJ
g210, did you create your avatar in photoshop? if so how(if its simple)?


found the side: imagesavant.com...
Worth to see. Has great generated pics. (check their info page)


wow, nice site



Yea, the original 2002 frames appeared to have been messed with, for some reason someone had timestamped it sep 12th. so i thought it was all a joke and as such have never bothered to check this new video properly once i saw it looked the same rubbish.
I dont believe the plane would ever look like that white squiggle, but seeing as they have 80+ other videos we should get to see them soon.
(however they have already admitted none of them show flight 77 whatever that is supposed to mean)



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Made a new picture.
Had to correct the impact angle.
(measured the 55 degree impact angle from the wrong end (from nominal vect and not wall base) in my other pic)

The size of the plane should fit with what it should have been to my actual best knowledge.

This time I directly extracted the frame of the fl77-2_11094237.WMV video because I detected that ignoranceisnotbliss's pics are distroted in X/Y.


(Note: The pic size is 2 times the original size of 320x240)

Now due the angle correction the plane is a little longer and i artificial placed it a little to the left of the 'should be' position to show its tail. The illumination of the plane should match the expected real illumination. sun 10'o clock, + right course
(Modell used: Project Opensky Boeing 757-200 AA www.projectopensky.com File: posky_757-200_american.zip with real color repaint fcjaa757.zip)

Still no good match with the thing seen on the video. Well not surprising to me.

Next when I have time for I will check If I am able to work the plane the way to simulate slow camera shutter speed, so you can get an idea how it would look like then.
Also I still have to check if I can calculate bounderies for the shutter speed.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
If you blur it then it doesn't look that different.
You should also understand how compression works, it approximates (or at least JEPGS do) the pixels so you will get bleed over and blurring. It's like trying to use a photo of the Earth from space to navigate country roads.

Here is the image at your size with facet and blur to simulate the compression losses:



Here it is at the original size:




Because of the limitations GIF posed to photographers, the Joint Photo Experts Group commissioned a standard that came to be known as JPEG. JPEG uses variable lossy compression, which trades quality for file size by approximating the original pixels with an algorithm. The more compression applied, the less original data available for the image, a fact which makes the image appear blurry. This blurriness is another artifact because the approximations won't always be correct, especially at high compression ratios.
[..........]
JPEG compression breaks an image into a grid and then uses a mathematical algorithm to approximate the content of the grid. The more compression that is applied, the more noticeable the grid and the approximations become. To help alleviate the problem, smoothing can be applied to blur these artifacts. Smoothing is a compromise, however, as it does not improve image detail and can make images appear blurry or out of focus.
www.samspublishing.com...



This is the method in JPEG encoding largely responsible for the artifact known as "color bleeding", where along sharp edges the color on one side can "bleed" onto the other side. This is because the chrominance channels, which express the color of pixels, have had each block of 4 pixels averaged into a single color, and some of these blocks cross the sharp edge.
blogs.msdn.com...


Hence why the tail may appear smaller and oddly shaped, as it occupies a space of only a few pixels, any bleed over is significant.

[edit on 28-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Ah thanks looks interesting. But honestly still far from that white smoke thing. At least as I see it.

For the picture processing as I did it you should not make use of blure, except if you want to 'simulating' the bad camera or video format quality with this somehow.

Here is how I processed the pic so you see why:
----------------------------------------------
I took the frames directly out of the
fl77-2_11094237.WMV
video using ASUSDVD XP player, the snap shot function (C) icon photo camera and pasted this into MS paint and saved it as bmp.

The plane is a print screen from MS flightsimulator 2004 also pasted into MS paint and saved as bmp.

I incresed the size of the video frame pic factor 2 in MS paint
(I know it does interpolate pixel which I usually dont like but I am limited with the tools at the moment. (my other computer power supply burned down))

Then I merged plane and picture in bmp format and saved it as bmp. So no loose through jpg and gif in the original. Unly for the uploading i created a jpg.
If you would like to have the bmp I can upload it.

What I wanna do next is the shutter speed. For this I will write a short program so I know what it does. Just need a little time for it.

But tell me what do think about my latest 'realistic' pic. It should come close to how it should have been, do you think also?

edit to add bmp pic link:
img68.imageshack.us...
(rename it to .bmp somehow imagehack always changes .bmp into .png endings dont know why)




[edit on 28-5-2006 by g210]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
can you fly that thing 400mph minimum at 20 feet above the ground on the flight sim?
Bet you cant, even at 50ft

[edit on 28-5-2006 by AdamJ]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Huh that white things not the plane, otherwise why is the tail visible behind the box? Not even a 'Global Hawk' or missile would do that.
The media's probably confused as usual or else their on a mission to spread more disinformation, it would not surprise me in the slightest if there are more ideas poked into the mix like that to further split up anyone investigating..
I find it hard to believe that white squiggle is supposed to be anything other than smoke, either the engine was damaged when the aircraft struck the light poles, it was damaged due to the stress on the aircraft or there was an attempt to shoot it down which failed.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Smith what you are claiming is the tail is a building in the background...
You can still see your tail after the impact....



Also what in a jet engine is going to produce white smoke? Pls explain.

[edit on 29/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
That pic you're posting appears to be two superimposed frames, watched the video several times in a row ATM and the smoke trail in the right part of pic and alleged A/C tail (or building if you like) appear just on a single frame - just befre the explosion.

EDIT: Picture name "composite" also suggests it is a composition of two pics.

[edit on 29-5-2006 by tuccy]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
can you fly that thing 400mph minimum at 20 feet above the ground on the flight sim?
Bet you cant, even at 50ft

[edit on 28-5-2006 by AdamJ]


When it comes to action, I am a kick ass pilot on the MS FlightSimulator with my favourite Modell the A320 (from project airbus) and I dont think I overdo in this. I flow many hours on the PC-FlightSimulator since the beginning of the FlightSimulator serie and started before ever MS took over that produkt. I can and did it very often land that plane in very rough condition and on very small rwy's with handicaps in front where for sure no real A320 pilot would ever land on obvious reason. Not real pilot would unecessary risk the life of his pasanger.
But with a simulator you can do such risk free and I enjoy a challange.

The 757 is somewhat simulare. The handling was even better judge on my first impression thought I am not sure how real the physic parameters of that modell is. I can tell you I set this american B757-200 Modell into the ground before the pentagon as I tried it the first time when I created that pics. It would require some training to do it. (*)

An unexperienced pilot can not fly that plane into the pentagon at 500+ speed 10ft above the ground. No way. And real pilots will confirm this to you I am very sure about. Also a real pilot will have it's trouble when they do not explicit train this. (you know it's not a daily business for them to fly their plane 10ft above ground with 500mph+ in a city)
Real experts on that plane I guess could do it in the first attempt. But the main problem is you need a good way free airspace in front of the building in order to fly 10ft above the ground and there isnt so much free space there.
I also dont think a pilot would do this 10ft flat fly in a city because the risk to hit something else before your 'target' in the way in is much too big.

The safer approach would be with a small downward angle aimed to the middle of the side of the building (if you really want to hit the side) in my opinion because of the lack of the free airspace in front. (next to the light pool on the bridghe crossroad (hightened!) there are buildings (I see a white one on google earth) some few 100 metters in front where the left wing would scratch and some small houses and trees before this and like you know with 500mph you have no time to correct your flight lvl or course or anything that short before the impact. So flyng 10ft above the ground flat in I honestly see no way you can do it with the real condition. And the pentagon was even hit with engines hardly any 3 or 4 feet above the law judge from the impact hole.

So the official theorie as they tell the story with that unexperienced terrorist hardly passing flight school and the 10ft (if not lower) flat in and all this is hardly possible or realistic.

Unfortunatly 'hardly possible' or 'hardly realistic'is no valid proof of anything. :/

*) The pics I made are not made in flight but in position mode. But of course I couldnt resist to give it a try and fly this. But you should note that I dont have the right detailed scenary for it. More I had to go with the standard FS2004 scenery with random houses and trees and where the pentagon is not really accurate. So I couldnt really simulate close to the real thing.
Byway If anyone knows where I can get an accurate pentagon sceneary that works without the UTUS(ultma terrain for the us) let me know, then I would like to give it a second try.


[edit on 29-5-2006 by g210]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Huh that white things not the plane, otherwise why is the tail visible behind the box? Not even a 'Global Hawk' or missile would do that.

I find it hard to believe that white squiggle is supposed to be anything other than smoke, either the engine was damaged when the aircraft struck the light poles, it was damaged due to the stress on the aircraft or there was an attempt to shoot it down which failed.


See the thing is this:
Is the new released video shows the nose of the plane I can prove you that the plane in the other video must be where the white trail is. Check in this thread my 'Close to a complet debunk..' post. I know I need to work this up so you dont have to do the whole proccess self again to see it. But later in time.
But that's the reason why I do this images. To complete the thing by showing that the white smoke is not a 757 and therefore there is no 757 at least on that video.

To your argument. See,
If the thing behind the yellow box is the tail then as you self simple can see in my latest pics and was also shown already by others like someone in this thread said, the plane simple does not fit completlly behind the yellow box. It would stick out on the other side. But there is no trace of a plane nose there also not the slightest trace..check my difference pic!

So very simple eighter the white smoke trail IS the 757 or the 757 is NONEXISTEND in this video. You may decide self.

What else it can be then (smaller bird missle or a doctered out 757) I dont want to speculate.
Let me repeat:

ALL is needed is to prove that there was no 757 hitting the pentagon to proof the gov story wrong. Nothing more than that. The video are from the gov from my understanding. So if the 757 is not there in this video it was eighter not there in reality or the gov edited the videos (cutted it out) and LIED to all of us. (they said: unedited!)

Eighter way no 757 or edited videos it's a killer for the gov. A real one.
The other is the wtc7 free fall.
I wish it were different but the thing tighten around that it was indeed an inside job. And I am sorry to say but I think you know this also very well. It is more than obvious. It's just a matter of time, proof and the right one makeing use of them. I hope this will happen in time.
I personel have no doubt that it was an inside job.
However I try to do my 'analysis' of the things as objective as possible and I welcome the inputs from the 'official story attached' people. Only this way you can get somethign usefully at the end that would hold as proof.




[edit on 29-5-2006 by g210]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by g210
So flyng 10ft above the ground flat in I honestly see no way you can do it with the real condition. And the pentagon was even hit with engines hardly any 3 or 4 feet above the law judge from the impact hole.

So the official theorie as they tell the story with that unexperienced terrorist hardly passing flight school and the 10ft (if not lower) flat in and all this is hardly possible or realistic.

Unfortunatly 'hardly possible' or 'hardly realistic'is no valid proof of anything. :/
[edit on 29-5-2006 by g210]


yea the word you are looking for there is impossible.

The vid shows the plane coming in pretty flat, very low and fast.
all i can say is id like to see it!



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
80+% of the "plane" was supposedly vaporised.

And yet they managed to identify dna of all passengers and crew.

mmmhmm. Thats all any of you should need to understand that the whole story stinks like a bag of rotten skunk sacks.





top topics
 
1
<< 29  30  31   >>

log in

join