Flight 77's Shadow?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

The multiplex feed sends all camera views to the same screen.

Ok. So the screen we have at present contains seven panels comprising three large panels, three small panels and a small composite panel.

Is it possible to add three panels (representing the 'missing' camera angles) of any size or combination of sizes to what we already have and retain a rectangular field of view?

If not, is it your view that the FBI not only removed the 'missing' camera views but also rearranged the panels on the screen?

The dots prove nothing whether or not they were edited in.

I agree they 'prove' nothing, but if they're genuine, they raise some interesting questions.

reply to post by coughymachine


The data is invalid particularly in an investigation against the suspect in question who controlled and manipulated this data.

The notion that ONLY the critical views of the Pentagon and plane were removed implicates the controllers of this data in direct manipulation of the evidence during a deliberate cover-up of the event.

Therefore it is illogical to assume these two anomalous dots support their version of the event in any way.

ESPECIALLY in light of the incredible evidence from that station proving their story false and the dubious timing and quiet release of this data.

I will be out for the weekend and this is my last post.

You guys can ruminate over the dots all you like as I have really provided enough information already demonstrating why it is not valid evidence.

Now it's time for me to enjoy the Halloween weekend in Vegas!

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

But it's not A shadow, but rather two dots, right? What's up with that?

Is it possible that the appearance of 'two dots' is the result of the shadow being seen on the roofs of the low buildings further back? In Farmer's shot, they are catching the sunlight with different intensities.

i would agree, cause if you see the larger buildinig in the back ground you can tell CL posistion is a little off to the left, making it appear that it would be on the buildings roofs

Oh and before I go.....

Most likely spcengineer will show up in this thread since CL is referencing John Farmer's blog in this piece.

He went off on a rampage of personal attacks against me for using one of his images.

Details of this are addressed here.

Farmer defends the legitimacy of the citgo video at all costs even though he asserts that the NTSB released FDR info is fraudulent.

He has even go so far as to assert with no evidence or source whatsoever that the removed views were "offline" prior to 9/11!

But we have evidence proving otherwise first hand from the manager of the citgo station herself.

She specifically said that it was ONLINE and had a view of the Pentagon.

Farmer event went to the Citgo and didn't bother to speak with the manager or any of the employees.

But without any source whatsoever he has no problem contradicting the word of the manager of the station solely for the purpose of defending the legitimacy of this dubious government provided data.

Quite odd to say the least.

Ok...that's it.

See ya Sunday night!

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Nice find CL!

I was thinking the same thing as ipsedixit after looking at the photos & data. I can see the the shadow being cast in a different position than the plane due to the angle of the Sun. BUT-

If the two elongated shadows on the same lateral line are indeed from the wings then it seems like it's heading will take it directly over the Citgo station and not adjacent to it.

It would take the shadow on that same line so it would almost pass over the station, but the plane itself continues well south.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Another somewhat confusing detail is that the "single pump side" appears to have two pumps. You know, I think I'll just bow out of this one and leave it to the experts. I feel like John John crawling around under the oval office desk.

It means a single row of pumps. Other side has two.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This data has been PROVEN to have been manipulated.

Details here.

THIS is the meat-n-potatoes of what I'll need to address. Next post.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This data has been PROVEN to have been manipulated.

Details here.

They removed the most relevant cameras just AFTER the attack and manipulated these views from the data before it was released unannounced a nd with no press 5 years later and 1 week after we announced Robert Turcios as a witness to the north side.

Alright, so we have that cameras were removed after 9/11, and the accusation that these views were functional and recording on that morning. Sorry, I'm still hazy on the details and level of evidence. But if true, this would imply that the actual multiplexed recording was later edited to remove frames that had been recorded, right? Did they actually re-digitize the videotape and rearrange the frames ala the Brady Bunch?

We know this because the manager of the citgo TOLD US that the views were online.

Okay, that's fairly good evidence. I'm certainly not going to actively argue this at this point, let's go on the presumption that the overall video was manipulated to remove key frames.
However, what I'm wondering is, was anything manipulated within this frame?


Do you believe these dots were really there, or inserted? THAT is the question you'll need to answer.

This "analysis" from CL is yet another neutralization attempt.

The alleged "shadow" in question is 2 dots.

A shadow of a massive 757 would be continuous.

To suggest that these 2 dots come from a jet strains credulity beyond belief.

I hope your arguments get better than this. So you're attempting to neutralize my neutralization by pointing out that continuous objects leave solid shadows. In real life, yes, in low quality video, at oblique angles, with surface issues, I don't think we can presume that we'd see the whole shadow. Do you understand that the engines and fuselage would cast their own portions of shadow forward the wing edge?

I do admit this is the tricky part - how does the rest of the shadow from there back not come through?

And then you cap with an argument from incredulity. I know how you love those when others employ them.

Alright, next...


[edit on 26-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

CL... great research!
[sarcasm]No flyover evidence though! Must have been manipulated! [\sacrasm]

Danke!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Really to accept this analysis as valid means you are choosing to dismiss the unrefuted testimony from ALL known witnesses who were there in favor of accepting data that has been proven to be manipulated and was controlled and provided for by the suspect.

If you question the veracity of 9/11 AT ALL there would be zero logic in accepting such an illogical investigative approach.

Oh really? Of course everyone is aware of what we have to reject to accept those witness testimonies. Now there's one more thing added to that list. Suck it up and just believe harder.

So the shadow was inserted, right?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Here's a photo I found that helps clarify what we might expect to see: Note the 'missing' nosecone, and that the foremost portion of the shadow is made of two separate segments - an engine and the fuselage.

brightness and contrast adjustment of the Citgo shadow:

You have got to be kidding.

Missing nosecone?

Two separate segments?

What are you looking at?

In your example image I see a continuous shadow in the shape of a jet with the "foremost" part being the fuselage which is not visible AT ALL in the citgo video.

The notion that the mound would make the entire fuselage shadow AND the wings completely disappear make zero sense.

Are the dots supposed to be the engines or the wings?

Unless you are asserting that two orbs flew on the south side and knocked the poles down and hit the Pentagon you really do not have a valid point because those two dots in this proven manipulated data are clearly NOT from a jet.

Yes, this is the point where it sticks a bit. It's two shadows! But as I mentioned in the last post, we woulld see two segments on the leading edge, then a continuous wingspan shadow, then a single segment of tail section behind that. I guess the median is responsible for only seeing the firts portion.

At first I thought the dots were from the engines but couldn't see why the fuselage could be invisible. When I put in a 757 to scale and oriented right, it became clear the dots are too close to be the engines anyway and too angled from each other, and it became clear that if this were a 757 shadow, we're seeing engine and fuselage, and small bits of the other parts around them - tip of wing faring between the big dots, and possibly the edge of left wing off to the right.

Sure it doesn't prove a 757, but a 757 does fit.

So if this is not part of a 757's shadow, is it something else that really happened, or was it inserted?

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Craig

Can I qualify what you mean by 'manipulated'?

Are you claiming that the Citgo video should contain another three panels, representing the three 'omitted' angles, or that the video content has been manipulated?

That's the question that needs answered. I'm going through one post at a time, so sorry if I missed the part where Craig clarifies this.

Originally posted by coughymachine
Is it possible that the appearance of 'two dots' is the result of the shadow being seen on the roofs of the low buildings further back? In Farmer's shot, they are catching the sunlight with different intensities.

Good thought, but no, this is the road. Here is a comparison (using lower res frames) of a car passing north vs. the shadow.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by coughymachine

 

The multiplex feed sends all camera views to the same screen.

No data controlled and provided for by the suspect is valid evidence in defense of the suspect but the notion that this data has been proven to be manipulated it becomes doubly invalid.

The dots prove nothing whether or not they were edited in.

Okay, there we go. True, it PROVES nothing, but you're the proof guy whereas I'm the evidence guy. There is a big distinction - if it's edited in, we have proof of official deception and a strong case that they did this beause the plane was NOT on the south path. If the shadow is real, it is strong evidence for a south path, as it fits for size, possibly orientation, and gives the right altitude and speed. It matches the FDR and the damage path.

So the shadow was inserted right?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by coughymachine

 

The data is invalid particularly in an investigation against the suspect in question who controlled and manipulated this data.

The notion that ONLY the critical views of the Pentagon and plane were removed implicates the controllers of this data in direct manipulation of the evidence during a deliberate cover-up of the event.

Well it would seem they missed one critical view, Craig. Tell me, if they can insert this shadow, why bother removing views at all? Would they even need to alter, say, a view pointed right at the Pgon capturing the aparent impact that fooled all eyewitnesses? You think this crappy camera view would prove a flyover any better than the real deal did? So why remove these but leave in th one where the shadow would have to be inserted?

Now it's time for me to enjoy the Halloween weekend in Vegas!

Uh-oh, now he might acuse me of knowing that and dropping this bomb when he's not here to defend as I attempt to neutralize their info.

Tell ya what then, let's keep the insertion issue open-ended for now and just look at what the video as we have it shows. If the shadow is edited in, what were they trying to make appear? Why is it two dots? Did they just do it wrong? Like the foundation, and the pole placement, and Lloyd, and etc.?


edit to add second quote and responses

[edit on 26-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 26-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by S.O.Blilbobby
here we go again with these damn conspiracy's. just let it go..... its already over with.

So, we really shouldn't have worried about Jeffery Dahmer or John Wayne Gayce? I mean, the murders and cannabalism had already occured. They were done with. We should have just "let it go"?

You're right.

OK GUY! Let's wrap it up and go home. They got away with it. Nothing we can do now.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Yes the shadow would put the plane parallel with the highway. The trajectory of the "plane" was perpendicular to the highway.

Originally posted by thatblissguy
reply to post by Caustic Logic

 

Yes the shadow would put the plane parallel with the highway. The trajectory of the "plane" was perpendicular to the highway.

?? I'm missing something here. The plane and shadow would not move in different directions from each other, so what do you mean? A plane at that spot but headed a different way?


This is how I've placed the shadow relative to the plane. The street here is South Joyce, and the plane and shadow, I think, are both perpendicular. Admittedly the shadow is really not clear in itself which direction it's oriented, but it seems to fit the official heading pretty well.

This is the final trajectory from there to impact, including light pole damage flanking route 27. The shadow would continue along to the northwest of the plane, getting closer as the plane descended and would cross 27 neither perpendicular nor parallel but at about 45 degrees.

So what's the problem here? Seriously, if you're still seeing a problem maybe I'm missing something.


[edit on 27-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

reply to post by Caustic Logic

I said I was going to bow out of this discussion because I haven't really gone into it as you have, CL, or Craig has or probably a lot of the other posters, but I took another look at the video and I think I know what the shadows are. I think they are shadows formed by vehicles passing in the street.

The Citgo station surveillance cameras seem to be set on some kind of time lapse mode and I don't think that the shadows of the passing plane would be visible for more than one frame. Shadow patterns of vehicles passing might repeat though, even if it were not the same vehicles in the frame each time. Just my two cents worth.



[edit on 27-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

I believe i have solution to the "dots" and the two second delay of the shadow. I have presented in 911 category with a video from the compilation of all known videos. My thread out in ATS is a thread that starts with .83 seconds of ?.. i forgot the exact title of the thread but it does open with .83 seconds in it.

The very first start of the video i have in that thread can be broke down in frames and there is a lot of interesting frames for example, the very start of the video is shown a second or two of the first clip on this video.

frame by frame it reveals a UFO with an attack on the first tower. please tell me why the firemen didn't hear the airliner in the sky before the first "plane" hit?

break.com...

I believe the dots could be either one or possibly two UFo's . not sure why there is two dots if it only takes one saucer. or could one ufo cast two shadows? take the wool from my eyes...

Do i really need help?

Uh, they DID hear the first plane go overhead. That would be why they all looked up and watched it fly into the building. I suggest you watch the Naudet Brothers video. You clearly hear the plane fly overhead, the camera pans up, all the firefighters around them look up, and you see the plane fly into the tower.


www.youtube.com...

That sure sounds like a plane to me and it sure looks like they're reacting to it going overhead. Why else would they have looked up if they didn't hear something to make them see what was going on?



[edit on 10/27/2007 by Zaphod58]

...dark patch suggestions?

Keeping it simple with raw materials,
Here are the beginnings of a 'single-engine' Cessna attack run…



(Bottom capture) at about 4:17/5:20 on YouTube player,
Google search “Judicial Watch September 11 Pentagon CITGO Video”

Thanks for bringing that video clip of the first attack to my attention. I lost quality with the transferring of video, but i feel that no way that was an airliner they were hearing or even looking at. if that was a large airliner that what the video would represent. but none the less things happen and people have opinions. I feel i am always on the edge just by mentioning flying saucers. thanks again.. however clever people are to pick up on this new "evidence" of some other story other than the spoon feed stories of the box cutting hijackers. i commend people for their integrity.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by Caustic Logic

 

I said I was going to bow out of this discussion because I haven't really gone into it as you have, CL, or Craig has or probably a lot of the other posters, but I took another look at the video and I think I know what the shadows are. I think they are shadows formed by vehicles passing in the street.

The Citgo station surveillance cameras seem to be set on some kind of time lapse mode and I don't think that the shadows of the passing plane would be visible for more than one frame. Shadow patterns of vehicles passing might repeat though, even if it were not the same vehicles in the frame each time. Just my two cents worth.

Not to be harsh on your offering, you've seen little of the video, but please see above where I posted a graphic showing six frames. The frame rate varies, at 3 fps when 'action' mode is off, and some faster speed whenn it's on. The shadow is seen for only one frame, no action, so it had passed off camera in less than .333 seconds. (It holds for ten video frames in iMovie, which is based on 30 fps).

However car shadows were not crossing the road, but rather running down its length. And going much slower. The vehicles I tracked took about 2 seconds from entering view clearly to passing off to the right. If we take that as, say, 40 mph, and say 60 frames in iMovie (I didn't count carefully but it's a bit higher) then the two cars casting the shadows would both have to be going about 240 mph to disappear within one frame.

So no, that's not it.

where exactly is this guy going with these stupid shadows anyways. is this going to explian why some of the people were killed or is it just throwing another story out there for someone to grab hold of and take the story to a whole other level. so what there are shadows at a damn gas station. for every new story to come up with there will always be another skeptic to prove you wrong. sometimes the story is as simple as it came. but some would rather look for bull$hit to make up cuz they overlook the simple little facts presented at the time of the event.

Originally posted by I-on-beam

I believe the dots could be either one or possibly two UFo's . not sure why there is two dots if it only takes one saucer. or could one ufo cast two shadows? take the wool from my eyes...

Do i really need help?

That's up to you. mate. UFO... well, it does seem to be airborne, and as yet unidentified...

Since the sizes seem to line up with a 757 fuselage and left engine, or something on that scale, we'd be looking at UFOs about 14-by-25 feet, and 10-by-10 feet or so. I don't know of any eyewitness reports citing two small objects like this moving in tandem, but there are many reports of a 757 not only in the area, but impacting the building. And since, as I noted, the sizes fit with two of the three forward 'prongs' of such a plane, it's seeming a likely candidate.