Flight 77's Shadow?, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 28-10-2007 @ 11:42 PM by Swampfox46_1999

And your last post proves just how clueless you truly are.

reply posted on 28-10-2007 @ 11:42 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

btw swampfox....

We have spoken with other enlisted people who were actually there who have questions just like we do.

This letter came to us from a hero first responder who saved more than one life on that day during the rescue efforts:

We do not slander anyone.

We are seeking justice and reporting facts/evidence.

We loath "theories" as much as you do.

reply posted on 28-10-2007 @ 11:48 PM by Swampfox46_1999

And I have a dozen letters from friends who were there that day and saw what hit their office

reply posted on 28-10-2007 @ 11:53 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And I have a dozen letters from friends who were there that day and saw what hit their office

Prove it.

I did.

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 12:21 AM by Caustic Logic

reply to post by Slick Tic

Originally posted by Slick Tic
Oh this is silly and an excercise in desperate futility.

Indeed, not-so-slick CIT. Aldo, you were banned. Why would this 'tape ditortion' happen right when the plne should pass overhead and reveal the right size/speed/altitude combo for the official plane?

Please - forgery or reality? Enough disingenuity.

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 12:39 AM by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by coughymachine
(wrong post removed )

Yes, there is a divider between lanes, and it might be responsible, in a sense, for the shadow's appearance. That's part of why I placed it where I did - up against the curving part of it (also 'cause that's the portion of screen it occupied). It's low level, but lighter in color and could be responsible for only seeing the forward 'prongs' of the shadow.

This has been good, some support and some people offering other thoughts to counter me here. Keep it coming, maybe there's something that'll stick in the gears and bring my rising certainy crashing down. And speaking of which, Craig is back from Vegas, hopefully not too much poorer, and so...

[edit on 29-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 29-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 12:53 AM by Caustic Logic

Craig, I hear you've studied African rhythms. Are you also schooled in tap-dancing?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
let's go on the presumption that the overall video was manipulated to remove key frames.

Ok good. Smart thinking and finally a logical, scientific way to approach the discussion. We must only discuss this in full context of the fact that this is invalid evidence that further implicates the suspect in question.

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.

Huh?

Man that was a quick reversal!

If you go on the "presumption that the overall video was manipulated to remove key frames" then the evidence has been rendered invalid and further implicates the suspect.

Therefore to suggest that I "need" to answer a question regarding all the ways this invalid evidence was manipulated even though that is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to answer this question anyway simply makes no sense.

Alright, if these are the terms than never mind my momentary concesiion for the sake of argument. It may or ay not have been more broadly re-arranged. This is not proven.

I'm just trying to get you to admit this shadow has to be another point of fakery for your 'proven' construct to have been true. It won't prove anything either way if you decide to embrace this, but I find your unwillingness to engage the question directly a bit perplexing. You insist on using an extension of arguments made by others to keep from even looking at what the video shows (ignoring evidence) and seem unwilling to go out on your own limb, recognize this as a point for the official story, and call it fake. C'mon! North path proven - video shows a south path? Why aren't you all over this as another OBVIOUS perpetrator lie?

All I'm hearing is tap-tap-t-tap-tap.

It would be counter-productive and quite silly to focus in on inconclusive anomalous dots in invalid data that only implicate the suspect.

Especially when your contention is that these dots in this invalid data support the suspect's story.

Alright, getting there...

Legitimate investigators are always looking at the full puzzle when they try to fit the pieces.

They don't take pieces from a completely different puzzle and then cut them up and try to force them into the picture.

Couldn't agree more.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 01:42 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by Caustic Logic

Just like you will never have evidence or proof that it is a shadow of a 757 I will never have evidence to prove it was added so why are we sitting here making this a focus of conversation as if it is even remotely relevant to 9/11 justice since the evidence is invalid anyway?

It is impossible for us to prove what was manipulated in that video.

This only serves to deflect from the real issue and that is EVIDENCE TAMPERING which is a federal offense and directly implicates the suspect in a cover-up.

But I do know they manipulated out those relevant views AS WELL AS manipulated out Robert Turcios since his story is backed up by his manager and all the other witnesses who were at the station so I have no doubt they would throw in a few flashes and shadows to add confusion.

No need to tap. The facts are what they are.

This is 100% invalid evidence in support of the official story and all of the witnesses are 100% valid evidence that prove the official story a lie.

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 01:45 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by Caustic Logic

Oh and about this that you said:

Alright, if these are the terms than never mind my momentary concesiion for the sake of argument. It may or ay not have been more broadly re-arranged. This is not proven.

Yes it is proven. Talk to the manager.

Obviously she would know.

Why do you refuse the evidence and insist on theorizing and debating irrelevant details out of context?

This isn't the "9/11 Truth Board Game".

Plus it doesn't even have to be proven.

No legitimate investigator would accept data that was controlled by the suspect as evidence of the suspect's innocence.

That would make no sense at all.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 02:35 AM by coughymachine

reply to post by Caustic Logic

I was more interested in the fact that the carriageway dividers stood proud from the road's surface than the fact they curved.

Take a look at this graphic. I know it's kind of crude and the plane's shape is wrong, but it serves to demonstrate how those shadows could appear as they did (i.e. two dots rather than a larger connected 'mass'. Of course, it only works if the camera is set broadly eye level with the dividers and too low to see the road's surface - maybe you know?

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 02:40 AM by coughymachine

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

But luckily we don't need to because we have already proven the data has been manipulated which only further implicates the suspect.

All we know is that the views from three cameras, which were said to be 'live' on 9/11/2001, are not included in the Citgo video.

We don't know whether those three frames were originally part of one composite screen, together with the frames that were released, or whether they were displayed seperately.

What we appear to have is possible evidence that material has not been disclosed. That's different from having possible evidence that what we have has been manipulated.

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 03:23 AM by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by Caustic Logic

I was more interested in the fact that the carriageway dividers stood proud from the road's surface than the fact they curved.

Take a look at this graphic. I know it's kind of crude and the plane's shape is wrong, but it serves to demonstrate how those shadows could appear as they did (i.e. two dots rather than a larger connected 'mass'. Of course, it only works if the camera is set broadly eye level with the dividers and too low to see the road's surface - maybe you know?

Great stuff! I like these graphics you're able to do, I had just been wishing I could. This helps show the problem with the median - the shadow would fall on it too. I thinks it's a low, flat, wide divider, but perhaps just high enough, bright enoufg, and far enough to the edge of the distorting fisheye lens that the shadow across it gets washed out.

Reasons I think this graphic can't explain it:
1) From what I'm seeing the dots seem to be on the road surface - compare their location to passing cars - several seen going north of the side facing the camera, none going south on the other half, so I think we're seeing two lanees n-bound and the median, and not the southdound lanes on the other side.
2) As evidence that it's wide and low, here is a satellite phto from 9/12 showing a mass of busses at the Citgo and even app. parked on the median.

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 03:42 AM by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Caustic Logic

Oh and about this that you said:

Alright, if these are the terms than never mind my momentary concesiion for the sake of argument. It may or ay not have been more broadly re-arranged. This is not proven.

Yes it is proven. Talk to the manager.

Obviously she would know.

Not to get too OT, but man she sure knows a lot for someone who hasn't yet put it all together. Or do you think she suspects? She knew one of her employees saw the plane fly north of the station - that the FBI had removed franes and actual cameras for some reason - that you guys are investigating just such a scenario and agrees to help you out by being an open book. That's a profile in courage right there.

And density?

I don't know all the details of what she said and when, and I don't mean to sound paranoid and doubt your source, I just can't help it when I hear it put in full CIT context.

Why do you refuse the evidence and insist on theorizing and debating irrelevant details out of context?

No legitimate investigator would accept data that was controlled by the suspect as evidence of the suspect's innocence.

That would make no sense at all.

I'm the one that's presented evidence here. Please see the OP. You've thoroughly explained why you feel no need to directly address this evidence. Thank you, it's on the record. I chose not to get dragged into a whole new discussion on the evidence for your explanation of why it's fine to ignore my evidence.

Back to work analyzing the pixels that don't prove anything.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 04:25 AM by coughymachine

reply to post by Caustic Logic

...so I think we're seeing two lanees n-bound and the median...

If we can see the road surface, then my graphic doesn't explain it. If, however, we only see the cars, but not the road surface - and assuming the median is raised enough - then the graphic could explain why the shadow appears as two dots.

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 04:56 AM by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by Caustic Logic

...so I think we're seeing two lanees n-bound and the median...

If we can see the road surface, then my graphic doesn't explain it. If, however, we only see the cars, but not the road surface - and assuming the median is raised enough - then the graphic could explain why the shadow appears as two dots.

Yeah, I might wonder how much of the road is visible comp. to foreground sidewalk and grassy ledge. I'm done with deeper analysis for tonight, but the shadows aren't straight up like ones on a mini-wall would be. They seem more stretched across the horizontal to me. What do you say? Also, at least the left spot seems to run up the edge of the road and possibly even onto the grass if not the parking lot

road edge here = line between gray and white. The median does not run diagonally across it like that. the road surface does.

Plus the fact that it's obviously flat and low - it doesn't show at all in Farmer's site photos. I'll have to post a clear shot, but if it's there it's darn low, right?

ETA: Being more open-minded, I can see perhaps a more complex scenario involving the median edge at depth, with only the nosecone area showing on the horizontal (sidewalk), but meh... I could see too many things now, it's late.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 06:05 AM by coughymachine

reply to post by Caustic Logic

I agree - if we are looking at the shadow of a commercial plane, it's not being cast upon the median.

Next....

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 08:19 AM by jprophet420

reply to post by Caustic Logic

well the real problem here is that the government has video of what hit the pentagon and wont release it. that in itself is not the real problem, where it gets tricky is that they denied the FOIA citing 'ongoing trial'. when the trial was over only one of the tapes was released.

That certainly does not prove inside job, but it is a cover up. I realize people will deny this, but then:

cover: hide from view or knowledge; "The President covered the fact that he bugged the offices in the White House"

by definition thats what happened.

source

with one home video(i.e. much higher quality than what we have to go on now) and pictures, it should be easily ascertained what happened.

ask yourself why? if you believe there is a legitimate reason to lie and with-hold information, I would like to hear it.

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 09:03 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Caustic Logic

Oh and about this that you said:

Alright, if these are the terms than never mind my momentary concesiion for the sake of argument. It may or ay not have been more broadly re-arranged. This is not proven.

Yes it is proven. Talk to the manager.

Obviously she would know.

Not to get too OT, but man she sure knows a lot for someone who hasn't yet put it all together. Or do you think she suspects? She knew one of her employees saw the plane fly north of the station - that the FBI had removed franes and actual cameras for some reason - that you guys are investigating just such a scenario and agrees to help you out by being an open book. That's a profile in courage right there.

And density?

I don't know all the details of what she said and when, and I don't mean to sound paranoid and doubt your source, I just can't help it when I hear it put in full CIT context.

Full CIT context?

Nice ambiguous dig based on nothing but Russell Pickering is the one who reported what she said.

Not CIT.

We just happened to be there too.

I guess some people care about confusion more than facts, truth, and justice.

Such a travesty and a shame.

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 05:48 PM by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
reply to post by Slick Tic

Originally posted by Slick Tic
Oh this is silly and an excercise in desperate futility.

Indeed, not-so-slick CIT. Aldo, you were banned.

Sorry to have leapt to a conclusion here - in fact I doubt Aldo would be dumb enough to do this so blatantly. Perhaps it's a JREFER-type using a tactic earlier used by Aldo, and language/graphics like what he'd offer to 'frame him' for circumventing his ban to help support Craig's case. What is the rule on that anyway?

reply posted on 29-10-2007 @ 06:09 PM by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Just like you will never have evidence or proof that it is a shadow of a 757 I will never have evidence to prove it was added so why are we sitting here making this a focus of conversation as if it is even remotely relevant to 9/11 justice since the evidence is invalid anyway?

This is the crux of it. I don't want to argue about whether the video is manipulated (in the inserted shadow sense).
1)Your case for video manipulation is compelling but not proven
2) even if the overall screen was re-arranged and views removed, this is not proof anything was altered within the camera views.
3) Neither would the overall screen left as-is proof that nothing was altered within the camera views present.
4) All alteration questions must therefore be kept open, and the evidence looked at in its proper ambiguous context, not dismissed. It's either
a) evidence of the plane
b) evidence of fakery to that effect, or
c) something else.

So far a has not been disproven, neither has b, and c has not been argued effectively yet.

It is impossible for us to prove what was manipulated in that video.

This only serves to deflect from the real issue and that is EVIDENCE TAMPERING which is a federal offense and directly implicates the suspect in a cover-up.

The real issue in this thread is that, considering as you say we can't prove what was (and wasn't) altered, or I'd add that ANYTHING was altered, we must look at what's there and see what that evidence lines up with. In this case, the 'official story.' Your 'real issue' serves here only to clarify this ambiguity - which is fair. It's not cause to ignore the evidence entirely.

But I do know they manipulated out those relevant views AS WELL AS manipulated out Robert Turcios since his story is backed up by his manager and all the other witnesses who were at the station so I have no doubt they would throw in a few flashes and shadows to add confusion.

Out? I thought he was just at the wrong pump from where he did the interview?
And again, why remove views that would only show what the witnesses saw? They were fooled, why not a crappy camera?
And is it proven the cameras in question were pointed towards an area that would've caught anything? I'd like to see some analysis on the probable views for each removed camera. I can find it but if you have one good link that'd be great.