The Great Judicial Watch Film Hoax

Tampering with the Evidence?

A look at the Judicial Watch Film Hoax

By: Neil Ball II

As I'm sure many people have been doing, I have been staring at the frames from the new pentagon video. I am not an expert in the field of digital video editing, but I am under the impression that the answers to the questions that I shall raise are within the parameters of reason and could be easily accomplished. I do not want to make too many assumptions about the video and what is in it, but there are a big number of questions that need to be answered about what is really in these videos.

We all have to consider the idea that US government tampered with these videos. Many little things can be done in order to give them leverage with the video. Anyone who has done even minor video editing realizes how easy it is to do amazing things with video frames. I believe that it is essential for people to keep this option in mind. Perhaps the “straw man” isn't that a plane wrecked into the Pentagon, but that the video is tampered with enough to keep the political battle going until at least Bush is out of office and/or martial law is declared.

Convenient sun spots in the center of the camera shot raise big questions for me. I would inclined to believe that the sunspot would be there for at least a considerable amount of time, perhaps showing up everyday at about the same time for like a week or more. Wouldn't the sunspot be considered a weakness in the defense of the Pentagon? If so, then why didn't they remove the reflective object that causes these sunspots? I'm almost positive that they would have people monitoring the cameras all day everyday, which brings me to my next question. How easy would it be for the conspirators to place a reflective object in a direction that would interfere with the camera shot?



www.geocities.com...

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.



[edit on 21/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]

About this 'shadow'... Can you cricle it? Because all I see is a rail or seomthing thats in both shots.

Dude. Where's that shadow ? I see sh.... If you see shadow there then write what cast it.

Why is it so hard to believe that what happened on 9/11 was that terrorists took control of aircraft and crashed them into buildings? I'll be the first to admit that anything is possible, but the theory that Bush/Halliburton/Rumsfeld/(insert other public figure) was involved in a massive conspiracy to create the events of 9/11 is pretty far-fetched. Has anyone stopped to think of what kind of cooperation that would take? How many people would have to be involved? Furthermore if that were true how long could any given person invloved keep quiet about it? Just a thought.

cooperation ?? yes i do think people with money can cooperate with other people with money to make more money......

Originally posted by Tranceopticalinclined
cooperation ?? yes i do think people with money can cooperate with other people with money to make more money......

Yes, thats true to a point. But considering how many people would have to be involved, I would thing that at some point someone's concience would get to them. Perhaps that a bit naive, but lets remember that even under the Nazi regime, there were men who turned against Hitler because they couldn't stomach what was happening.

I circled the "shadow". The videos from the DoD are probably the best I've seen so far, because they don't cut out the giant black spot on the right side of the film. I would suggest finding a program that will capture the frames. There are some nice programs out there that will really pull everything possible from the frames.

The "shadow" is in the middle of that paved area (the dark grey portion in between the two lighter portions). It is all the way at the end of the frame. It runs into the end of the frame and into that giant black portion on the right side. It is the spot that is obviously darker than the rest of the paved area.



The DoD videos can be found here:
www.defenselink.mil...

[edit on 21-5-2006 by pazlenchantinrocks]

[edit on 21-5-2006 by pazlenchantinrocks]

Originally posted by Rightwingpatriot
Why is it so hard to believe that what happened on 9/11 was that terrorists took control of aircraft and crashed them into buildings? I'll be the first to admit that anything is possible, but the theory that Bush/Halliburton/Rumsfeld/(insert other public figure) was involved in a massive conspiracy to create the events of 9/11 is pretty far-fetched. Has anyone stopped to think of what kind of cooperation that would take? How many people would have to be involved? Furthermore if that were true how long could any given person invloved keep quiet about it? Just a thought.

Well, when it comes to conspiracy theories, it isn't what someone necessarily believes. The conpiracy theories arise from questions that either have no answer or that those who are answering the question aren't answering it with enough factual backing to consider it a logical answer. In my article I present a hypothesis. If my hypothesis cannot be sufficiently proven incorrect or that the evidence presented stands up to all critical analysis and cynicism, then what is to be believed? I cannot blindly accept the answers that are fed to me. Rational thought is necessary, and as such, it requires evidence and logical answers to the questions that are raised.

I looked at the frames in photoshop and the colours in the "shadow" and non-shadows are the same, so if it was a shadow the colours in the general shadow area should of the darker. However, there seems to be more of a < (arrow) shape to the shadow in the latter frame, but I looked and it seemed too perfect of a gradient to be natural.

Of course I did this all on my mom's crappy laptop, so I wouldn't take offense to anyone correcting me.

Note:

At 1 fps, that distance, that fast, that res/quality, that shadow can't be so "perfect" (Even real upclose high res shadows aren't perfect gradients, it's almost impossible)

Originally posted by Vinci
At 1 fps, that distance, that fast, that res/quality, that shadow can't be so "perfect" (Even real upclose high res shadows aren't perfect gradients, it's almost impossible)

Could frames from a camera with a hi res/quality be altered in order to give the appearance that the recorded images came from a camera with poor quality?

The only thing i see from that new 1fps video is a nose of somthing going real fast like 5 feet above the ground. then boom on the pentagon, 10 feet peek of the nose ... 1 sec later boom, blast.

How can you fly an airliner this close from the ground at high speed w/t touching the ground or pulverising everything back from his stream especialy car on the highway. I like eye witness saying AA jet was 20 feet above my head as i was driving on the highway... yeah rite.

One thing I found outrageous were the comments of the Judicial Watch spokesman on television. When the tape was originally aired he said, "Any reasonable person when they watch this video will see a plane hit the Pentagon. Ony unbalanced or crazy people will see a missle or something else".

Seriously? I think it's fair to say that no matter which side of this argument you lean toward, no one can look at the video and say with any amount of certainty what that white blur is.

Originally posted by jtma508


Seriously? I think it's fair to say that no matter which side of this argument you lean toward, no one can look at the video and say with any amount of certainty what that white blur is.

If we can find some absolutes, things that we can identify in the photo that will give us some perspective of what the thing actually is, then we can work on determining what this object is.

Even if that can't happen, I have a feeling that this type of video can be easily recreated (perhaps besides the object moving faster than 700km/h). This carries enormous weight in discrediting the source if the source is guilty of tampering with the evidence.

Hi im new to this forum and ide like to add my personal observations of the pentagon video Video 1. On the video with the glares (video 1) did anyone else notice theres 2 glares? Also that at 01:27 of the film the one in the middle dissapears and the other doesnt? You can see the ground around the area where what ever is causing the glare should be. Wheres the object causing the glare? Should there be like a silver mailbox, lamppost or something of the sort causing the glare? Next thing i observed was a white triangular object that almost looks symetrical on the right edge of the screen just above the center at 01:26 of video 1. From its size shape and color it doesnt look to me to be flight 77. Look at the tip of the object it forms a almost perfect point where as the front tip of a Boeing 757 is very blunt. Look at the symetry of the object its almost if you could draw a straight line right through the middle and get 2 even pieces. Look up a picture of a boeing 757 or if you can just go to you local airport look at the plane from the side and draw a line through the middle and see if you get 2 even pieces. Look at the tip of the object and notice that the angle from the fusalodge to the tip of the nose is very similar if not the same as the one that goes from the bottom of the fusalodge to the tip of the nose. Shouldnt the object be around 1/5 the size of the pentagon? Look at the color where is the red and blue paint? Next thing i observed was the jetstream that is visible in Video 1 from frame 01:27 till 01:30. If you cant find it follow the path of where the object in frame 01:26 goes from that frame to 01:27. Now i dont know much about jetstreams but i have watched planes take off and land and ive never seen a jetstream. Im suggesting that jetstreams are only visible at high altitudes. If thats so how can what im viewing on video 1 be the jetstream of a commercial jet? If not what is it from? Personaly the more i watch this video the more i think it was touched up by the govt. And i also think that whoever they got to do it didnt do a very good job. And with computers now a days something like that would be very easy suggesting the person they had do the touch up did a poor job on pupose maybe to help expose the truth. I dont know im just a under edumacated stoner but it is some food for thought

Originally posted by Michael420
Personaly the more i watch this video the more i think it was touched up by the govt. And i also think that whoever they got to do it didnt do a very good job. And with computers now a days something like that would be very easy suggesting the person they had do the touch up did a poor job on pupose maybe to help expose the truth. I dont know im just a under edumacated stoner but it is some food for thought

Well, if it was edited, could it be poorly edited because "not enough" editing is easier to shrug off as authentic?

Originally posted by pazlenchantinrocks

Originally posted by Vinci
At 1 fps, that distance, that fast, that res/quality, that shadow can't be so "perfect" (Even real upclose high res shadows aren't perfect gradients, it's almost impossible)

Could frames from a camera with a hi res/quality be altered in order to give the appearance that the recorded images came from a camera with poor quality?

Easily, it would explain the impossibly color defects during the explosion.
Someone laughed at me when I said that, and they noted that it was a plane going 500mph hitting a building. By the way, who said it was 500mph? How do we know that? Does some random guy on the freeway have the ability to tell the difference between 200mph and 500mph? Anyway.

To have a blast that so severely shakes the lense, (but not the camera itself), causes extreme color/hue defects, you'd see something in the picture move. Maybe the disgusting crap on the lense? or the 3 pound cones? Another thing I've been told about the color defects, that they're just light. Notice the shadows of the cones/otherthings remain the same (practicallly).

Correct me if you can

Wow he realy said only unbalance ppl will see somthing else than an airplane. If i were rich i would sue him for such allegation.
The video could have been edit into a poor quality one, it could have been doctored too but theres 2 things that just dont add up, 1 st no human can fly an airliner that close of the ground w/t touching the ground and 2, remember the pentagon b4 the wall colapse, only a 8 feet window is broken.

For those who see the AA logo on the video ill say politly, you need a better cpu cause the one u got is halucinating.

Yes, EagleEye, he really did. When I heard it I couldn't believe it. He was SO adamant and dismissive. At first I thought maybe I hadn't seen the real video and had mistaken the old one for the new release. But no, apparently we;re supposed to look at the now-famous white blur and see a 757. Something must be wrong with me. It could be a flying cow for all I can see.

I got a good idea someone go down to thier local air port and film a boeing 757 landing. Make sure the camera is positioned so that it captures the same angle and is at the same distance from the plane as the pentagon video. Now i know it wont be going as fast but it would give us a idea of what a boeing 757 would look if it were being filmed from whatever distance it was filmed at from whatever angle. Im not sure if the distance and the angle of the camera have been determined already. It shouldnt be that hard to figure out if you know a lil science. Anyone up for the challenge? Has someone already done this? If so where can i find the video?

Perhaps one should first try to recreate the rest of the scene instead of getting arrested for filming planes at the airport.