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.

 

New analysis of the 9/11 Pentagon videos

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Hi,

Just letting you know I have put online an analysis of the Pentagon videos in which I demonstrate that the videos have serious problems of missing frame(s) and synchronization which directly affect the views of the aeroplane. Thanks for reading and pointing out any flaw you can find.

An analysis of the 9/11 Pentagon videos released by the U.S. Department of Defence on May 16, 2006




posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Bump.

240 views. Any comment ?



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
hey, i'll comment.

nice work! purposely altered video. you've proven it. 'they' are LYING.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zebra777
Bump.

240 views. Any comment ?


I read your analysis but I wasn't sure what assumptions you were forced to make to conclude that frames were missing. I also got the impression from reading your page that the margin for error in your analysis seemed within a window that could have explained why it appeared frames were missing.

Is there a way to clear up my understanding, and summarize more clearly why the photos you've shown prove that frames are missing?

Thanks!



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by Zebra777
Bump.

240 views. Any comment ?


I read your analysis but I wasn't sure what assumptions you were forced to make to conclude that frames were missing. I also got the impression from reading your page that the margin for error in your analysis seemed within a window that could have explained why it appeared frames were missing.

Is there a way to clear up my understanding, and summarize more clearly why the photos you've shown prove that frames are missing?

Thanks!


he synced the two videos using events visible on both. then he matched them in two columns. extra, or alternatively, missing frames are evident in this side by side timeline comparison.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Thanks for the explanation. I'm just not sure what the video sources were. If they were taken from the internet, then maybe video compression had something to do with why frames appear missing. It would seem to me that in order to know for sure if frames were intentionally removed, one would need the original tapes.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something?



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Looks pretty good to me man, but Im no expert.
The question I have is where exactly is the first camera located?

Is it in the column on the right?



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Zebra777

I have to say, that was impressive. I have go over it again to see if I missed anything, I would ask the same question Nick asked as well. But I applaud the work you put into it.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Hey Zebra. Looked over your page - clearly a lot of work, and the stills are invaluable. I loved the 2002 stills, all five of em, and hated that no one bothered with these new vids to make stills. Was starting to wonder how to do it myself... So thanks, your effort is appreciated at least on that point.

As for your sequencing: I still have questions - like if the camera offset is really not enough to account for the white blur (which clearly IS the plane) being in two diff. spots at 0736 and 2591 - maybe I'm missing something, but there is an offset of it looks like well under 0.5 sec and I'd guess by analyzing diff, about 0.1-0.2 s. anyway, jury's still out etc...

Main Q for you: you believe "those movies have been deliberately and malevolently alterated as to hide something," which I can't rule out, but also that it was a guided robo-757? Do I take it then you find the damage consistent with a 757? If so I agree, but with the right paint it would also look just like the official story, so what would they be hiding? That stumps me I guess

Anyway, good work on laying all that out for us to see.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zebra777
Thanks for reading and pointing out any flaw you can find.


I was hesitating but then I saw that line. Well, it's in my jurisdiction.
My analysis I'm pretty sure there are no missing or disordered frames.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Well I must congratulate both Caustic Logic and Zebra777 for a job well done.

Both of those analysis took a lot of work, but I am on the fence so to speak, as to which one more accurately portrays exactly what happened and how.

Am reviewing both of those again....



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
One question I do have, is where exactly are the two cameras located?
The reason I ask, is that when the car passes in front of them, it appears to shift out of synch around that point, unless I am wrong about where the closer camera is...

Zebra777's link: homepage.ntlworld.com...


At the picture pair marked 0128 and 1952, respectively it appears the camera in video 1 (1952) is in the yellow box on the right side.


But by the time we get to 0288 and 2112, it does not appear to be in that location, if these two videos are in synch with each other.

So I really don't think there are any frames missing. I think that somehow the synchronization is flawed. Either from the cameras themselves, or during the conversion to still images. I am more inclined to believe that the sychronization flaw was somehow introduced during the conversion process.

I'm no expert, this is only my opinion based on observation of the relative position of the car in the frames of both videos presented by Zebra777.









[edit on 2/17/2007 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Okay, I was never sure myself - and still not. I'd thought it was the one on the right, seeing a traffic-light on top of the left box - a "go" or "halt" thing along with the raisable bar. - positionally also, I note a faded white strip right in front of the car and a manhole cover in the sidewalk for ref. But looking closer at the cop's pull-up, it seems to be on the left, perhaps it IS that "traffic light." It seems set to the left but angled right to have the same exact field of view as the other.

Other factors: the first few frames on the left "jump frames" - note the increments arent 32 like normal, but 64 (00-64-128), so there may be some sync problems at the beginning. As for looking off as the car passes, I take this as the questioning that that it's still visible at all - but these cameras had wide, 90 degree field of view, so I think it's all seen from the left side but pointed right makes sense.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Well if you take into account a center for line of sight, something just does'nt add up.

In the first couple of frames, if you comapre the right side frames to the left, you can easily ascertain the approximate center of field of view.

Further down, it does'nt appear to match up.

then miraculously at the end, in the plumes, everything matches up again.

I am no expert at any kind of analysis, but just looking at the frame by frame play out, it is apparent that something is amiss.

But I'm not quite sure exactly what it is.

Hopefully Zebra777 can help answer some of these questions.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Well if you take into account a center for line of sight, something just does'nt add up.

In the first couple of frames, if you comapre the right side frames to the left, you can easily ascertain the approximate center of field of view.

Further down, it does'nt appear to match up.

then miraculously at the end, in the plumes, everything matches up again.

I am no expert at any kind of analysis, but just looking at the frame by frame play out, it is apparent that something is amiss.

But I'm not quite sure exactly what it is.

Hopefully Zebra777 can help answer some of these questions.


Unfortunately from this I have no idea at all what you mean. Sorry, I can be quite dense. Center of field of view becomes less ascertainable but then lines back up?

And Zebra777, I just wanted to say sorry for putting you on my frustrating fraudster's list. You don't belong there, it's some pretty rough company to be lumped in with. But any comment on these observations? I'm also genuinely curious about the robo-757 theory. Groom Lake? Am I gonna have to google search it?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Well if you take into account a center for line of sight, something just does'nt add up.

In the first couple of frames, if you comapre the right side frames to the left, you can easily ascertain the approximate center of field of view.

Further down, it does'nt appear to match up.

then miraculously at the end, in the plumes, everything matches up again.

I am no expert at any kind of analysis, but just looking at the frame by frame play out, it is apparent that something is amiss.

But I'm not quite sure exactly what it is.

Hopefully Zebra777 can help answer some of these questions.


Unfortunately from this I have no idea at all what you mean. Sorry, I can be quite dense. Center of field of view becomes less ascertainable but then lines back up?

And Zebra777, I just wanted to say sorry for putting you on my frustrating fraudster's list. You don't belong there, it's some pretty rough company to be lumped in with. But any comment on these observations? I'm also genuinely curious about the robo-757 theory. Groom Lake? Am I gonna have to google search it?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Unfortunately from this I have no idea at all what you mean. Sorry, I can be quite dense. Center of field of view becomes less ascertainable but then lines back up?

After rereading this thread, and looking at the pics again in Zebra777's link, it appears I was in error thinking that the pictures on the right side and left side were in synch from the beginning, to the end.

Also to my chagrin, I had not paid attention to where you pointed this discrepancy out here:



Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Other factors: the first few frames on the left "jump frames" - note the increments arent 32 like normal, but 64 (00-64-128), so there may be some sync problems at the beginning. As for looking off as the car passes, I take this as the questioning that that it's still visible at all - but these cameras had wide, 90 degree field of view, so I think it's all seen from the left side but pointed right makes sense.



I must have needed more sleep that day.



[edit on 2/20/2007 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Know whatcha mean. That's me today. I just realized I never compared all of the frame offset rates to see how they line up, I may be missing part of Zs argument. or not. I wanna check that out now but I'm too tired. Long weekend. Take care.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   
So we can see if cam 1 is on the box on the left but pointed somewhat to the right, it looks to me like the frames are basically in synch, with cam 2 lagging ever-so slightly. Later on, from the explosion onwards, they also seem to match up. Presuming Zebra took the frames straight from the video in their actual sequence, the frames should all correspond with the same frame offset. If there are any asymetries in missing frames, this would mean the video actually is missing frames.
Initial offset: cam 2: 0000 -cam 1: 1888. 1888, at 32 mpeg frames/sec, represents 59 seconds, meaning that video had an extra minute that was cut off the beginning so they'd line up. After cam 2's two early long frames, the offset settles at 1824, somehow shifting slightly to 1823 as the frames tick by in sync.
So to the explosion, where they again seem in sync. 0768 – 2623. Offset: 1855. Oops! They're out of sync! That 32 frames, one second, one real frame, off. How did that happen?

"2) Frame missing from the movie supplied by the United States Department of Defence – 1) 2559
2) Frame possibly missing from the movie or Frame below totally
out of synchronization – 1) 2591
2) 0736 – 1) Frame possibly missing from the movie or Frame on the left totally out of synchronization."

So he has two frames missing from cam one's record, and one missing from cam 2's. This inserts the asymmetry that throws the offset off. If he'd just had one frame missing from each, they'd still line up as they had. So he seems to be screwing up his own argument? I'm not sure. I'm still too tired to decide.

And again, why he suspects missing frames at all, as far as I can see, is that miniscule positional difference that if true would give the plane a speed of 72 mph and necessitate three more missing frames from each camera.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Hi guys, sorry for the very late answer and thanks for the kind words.

I have just been reading an analysis of my analysis by one of you here :

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

And I have an answer to what's written in the last paragraph as I find it very confusing so let me clarify.


Zebra's identification of the plane is off, in my opinion. In cam 2, he sees nosecone, right wing and right engine. At almost no angle but near-head on would we be ale to see even the tip of the right wing out ahead of the nosecone.


Actually it is Cam 1 I interpret like that.


They are set too far back for that. and in cam 2, he's been tricked by the dark tailfin, seeing the same white that was just plane now as smoke behind it, and seeing the plane itself suddenly black.


Well there is a black thingy above the pilar that is present only in this frame, so this is necessarily a part of the flying object and it can only be a tail. We agree with that I think.

What is white to the right of the tail is necessarily a trail of condensed water vapour (which can be seen dissipating in the frame that follows and has nearly completely disappeared in the next one). It cannot be the body of the aeroplane as it is irregular in shape and is behind the tail.

As for the change of color, it is all down to illumination. In the frame from Cam 1 there is clearly an an incoming object of cylindrical shape on the extreme right which appears white on top and black underneath (as the sunlight comes from above).

And in the frame from cam 2, the tail appears black because the sun rays do not strike directly on the part it presents to the view.

A cylindrical object illuminated from above will always show as white on top and black underneath whatever the angle whereas a 2D surface (the tail) will appear as either white or black depending on whether the sun ray strike directly at it or not, not in this case.

I'll try to answer the questions from this thread a bit later on if there is still some interest.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join