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.

 

Case Closed? - You can see the Plane

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by promomagAnd Plane



You can clearly see the tail, you can almost see the Label (AA) on the tail and you can see what I would consider to be smoke behind the plane (squigly white).


Wait a minute, if that's a plane, it looks like it's flying parallel to the ground and only a few feet off of it. That's impossible. There is no way it could have clipped the tops of the light poles on the highway that was high up on an embankment a few dozen yards previous at any speed no less going the over 500 mph they said. That plane should have been captured coming down at an angle. Sorry, if that's a plane hidden behind the toll booth, it was photoshopped on there.




posted on May, 30 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Proof these pictures are EDITED....

Now if my photo analysis intelligence training is correct, that would mean the second picture that supposedly shows a 757 vertical stabilizer with AA painted on the side is an EDITED PHOTO AND IS NOT ORIGINAL.

By the way, the source link even states they are edited. And i dont trust ANY edited material.
[edit on 29-5-2006 by LAES YVAN]


If the source says it's edited...what is your point?

Second...your photo analysis intelligence traning is not correct. I don't even know what "photo analysis intelligence training" is, there is nothing intelligent about your post. You lack a basic knowledge of image formats. JPEG is a LOSSY format, which means that if you convert a picture to jpeg, it will CHANGE. These changes depend on the quality setting, and tend to blur the image (especially at sharp edges) and change the colors slightly, hence the reason the color counts are different.

I'm not gonna give my opinion on the plane, I just needed to shoot you down.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
The best way to debunk this .. look at the video again, freeze the video when you see the smoke. Then ask yourself, would a boeing fit between the smoke and the building?

I'm guessing no..



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Case Closed? - You can see the Plane


No and No !

You cannot SEE anything on those pictures, they are to vage to be able to distinguish anything on them. Therefor they cannot be used as proof that a commercial jetliner smashed into the Pentagon. teh governmetn should release the footage from all the security camera's who caught this incident.


You can clearly see the tail, you can almost see the Label (AA) on the tail


NO you can't , period !

Ask yourself why your government refused to release all the other cam's footage .
If the official version of the facts is what realy happened,then it should be no problem give out the footage taken from various non-pentagon security cams, and release it to the public, yet...they refuse this... give me one valid reason why they wouldn't take that chance, heck they'dd shut up thousands (maybe millions) of people all over the world who question the oficial version for once and for all.

Why do you think they refuse to release those files you thing Promomag ?



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
The best way to debunk this .. look at the video again, freeze the video when you see the smoke. Then ask yourself, would a boeing fit between the smoke and the building?

I'm guessing no..


When a video is so small, the blurring of the edges of the plane is a very large percentage of the total width, thus it is not possible to accurately measure.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
This enlarged pic looks like a fighter jet from the U.S. Air Force in my view. It also seems like it is too small to be a 757.

Nevertheless, the pictures are too vague to determine what type of plane it is.

Therefore, the case still remains open...



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by llfrequencyll
This enlarged pic looks like a fighter jet from the U.S. Air Force in my view.


Whether the "UFO" in the pic is a fighter, 757, or missile, it can't possibly been real. the object had to be photoshopped on there. See my above post - Post Number: 2212780



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Whether the "UFO" in the pic is a fighter, 757, or missile, it can't possibly been real. the object had to be photoshopped on there. See my above post - Post Number: 2212780



True, assuming that the plane clipped ONLY the tops of the street lights.

On the SAME side, I agree with diggs that it could have been photoshopped.
Why? Because I remember watching my local news the evening the video was released. The 5 frame per/sec security camera showed 2 frames which involved the plane. One was the explosion of the impact (full bright explosion to its completion almost). The previous frame was the NOSE of the airplane. So I cannot possibly see how one is able to catch a "# and a half" frame and thus the cabin's full body.

Nice job Diggs on bringing up this subject.


[edit on 30-5-2006 by llfrequencyll]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mach
If the source says it's edited...what is your point?

Second...your photo analysis intelligence traning is not correct. I don't even know what "photo analysis intelligence training" is, there is nothing intelligent about your post. You lack a basic knowledge of image formats. JPEG is a LOSSY format, which means that if you convert a picture to jpeg, it will CHANGE. These changes depend on the quality setting, and tend to blur the image (especially at sharp edges) and change the colors slightly, hence the reason the color counts are different.

I'm not gonna give my opinion on the plane, I just needed to shoot you down.


I was a student of an Intelligence Training Course. One subject in the course was Photo Analysis. We were trained to find patterns, digitally edited anomalies, hidden messages, and how to scale a photo to figure out the size of a given object, also how to pin point the exact location the photo was taken from, and MUCH MORE. Lack of basic knowledge of image formats??? Please quote me of anything I have said wrong about the image formats, that proves I have lack of them. YOU CAN'T. I have infanite knowledge of MANY formats. TEST ME.

B.T.W. I never said JPEG was a GOOD compression format. I simply stated the number of colors the JPEG compression format is capable of handling. GIF images only support a palette of 256 colors, where as the JPEG palette supports 16 million colors.

My whole point of the post is, WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THE COMPRESSION OF A PHOTO? The only reason would be for one to edit it. Because popular tools available in photo editors force you to increase color counts in order to use them. Also, if you convert from GIF to JPG, COLORS WILL NOT CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE EXTREMLY LARGE COLOR PALLETTE.

My overall point is, DONT TRUST A PICTURE THAT IS NOT ORIGINAL. THE SECOND PHOTO HAS BEEN EDITED.

You can't shoot me down buddy, especially when you can't read.

Also, to prove you have no clue what you are talking about... copy the FIRST photo that is already in the GIF format, and convert it to JPG. NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Because you are going from 256 colors to 16 million. Those 256 original colors are already availible in JPG format.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join