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.

 

Proof Hez video Fake

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ,

Haha, That is the most stupid reason I have heard ever.

BoneZ you are not a stupid guy so why don't you just accept it that the video is FAKE?


D.Duck




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   


I see what you mean. The plane is static, no movement at all. Whoever stabilized the video would have to pick two points on the plane to stabilize to make the plane not move at all. If they choose one point on the plane to stabilize and the plane remains static, that would suggest the video is fake.

However even if they stabilized the plane to be static, there should be some movement if the wings flex and starts to crash with the building.

I always thought this video had that "Hollywood" look to it.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


ATH911,

I agree it has a "Hollywood" look to it but on the other hand what can you expect from a FAKE video.

Why do you think they showed Fake videos on 9/11?

The easy thing would have been to show a real video with a real plane if there was one, dont you think?

D.Duck



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Nice, D. Duck, Up until now I thought they made the plane move, but actually it's the background!

As for the argument that it's just an illusion that the plane is not moving is because the camera was locked onto the plane, is impossible.

How was the cameraman able to keep locked onto the center of the plane?

The camera panning doesn't slow down or speed up. It stays locked onto the plane. This is impossible!

I mean, try taking a video of a up-close passenger jet flying at such speeds and keep the center of the camera firmly locked onto the center of the plane...

Impossible!



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I find that Mr. H not turning around when the plane was coming in low behind him very odd. It's like Mr. H is setting up for the shot.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar
Nice, D. Duck, Up until now I thought they made the plane move, but actually it's the background!

Actually, if you take a look at the last few frames, the background stops moving and it's the plane that's actually moving.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
I find that Mr. H not turning around when the plane was coming in low behind him very odd. It's like Mr. H is setting up for the shot.


Yea you are spot on.

Here Hez have a screaming 767 going 560MPH just over his head and what is he doing.

He pan and zoom to get the shot, haha talk about a cool guy.

The shot is made in a computer, basta.

D.Duck



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
Sorry - what exactly am I supposed to be seeing in this gif?


I am watching a gif which is an extract of a popular video clip of a plane hitting one of the Twin Towers.

However, in this animated gif I am watching, I am seeing the plane, which has been made the central focus and has the camera's lock, crash into the Tower.


I tried so hard to stay out of this one but it only takes so long for something really stupid to be said. I am not a no-planer. I am not one who claims all footage that day is fake.

I have no idea why they would even bother using an antiquated animation technique with technology that would render that more difficult to do than to just move the plane but...

..Unfortunately, cameras do not have a lock on feature. Apparently, you did not watch the GIF though. Where is there even a little bit of movement shown on that plane? A blur? A bank? It does not rotate one degree, it does not shift in the frame one tiny bit. The plane in that GIF is not moving at all.

I do not know why anyone would bother with that, aside from the fact that they need to prove a plane hit the building without you getting to really see that plane closely. Still, there are easier techniques that would have been more convincing and yet...there it is. Please do as the OP asked and debunk the GIF. Show the plane showing some sign of movent. You go film something flying at 500+ mph and I will give you my next ten years salary if you can keep it so perfectly centered and keep it from making any kind of angled turn in any direction.

I will wait here.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Where is there even a little bit of movement shown on that plane?

Keep an eye on the red mark pointing at the tail. At the very end of the .gif in the last few frames, the background will stop moving and the plane will be the one moving. Had you watched and studied the .gif, you would've seen that and not bothered with such an arrogant post which was totally false.

I also did mention this a few posts ago in this thread, which also means that you didn't read the whole thread or just ignored the information so that you could post your disinfo.

The plane moves away from the red mark at the very end.



Originally posted by evil incarnate
You go film something flying at 500+ mph and I will give you my next ten years salary if you can keep it so perfectly centered and keep it from making any kind of angled turn in any direction.

Just to let you know, you're looking at less than one second of video in that animated .gif. So if anyone want's to take "evil incarnate" up on his offer, all you have to do is record something going really fast and then edit the video and only keep the steadiest shot and it only has to be about one second long.


That's why the no-plane garbage is disinfo, made by disinfo artists. They claim the plane doesn't move, but in fact, it does move away from the red line at the very end in the last few frames. Then the animated image itself is about one second. ONE SECOND! If the video had been several seconds or minutes long, then that would be something worth questioning.

Get some real evidence....



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I also did mention this a few posts ago in this thread, which also means that you didn't read the whole thread or just ignored the information so that you could post your disinfo.


Yes, I was ignoring you because that is addressed in the OP. It clearly states that at the end, there is a quick pan.

Aside from that, you are just plain wrong and I can prove that pretty easily.


The plane moves away from the red mark at the very end.


At the very end, the plane is inside the building and cannot be tracked back to that red line anymore. What gif did you look at?

The plane does not rotate or blur. There is no actual motion being shown there. The angle changes 0 degrees and there is not one bit of blur to seen. Anyway, it is inside the building at the very end so I have no idea what you are talking about.

That little bit of tail movement to the right? Been addressed and will be again, just for you!


Originally posted by evil incarnate
You go film something flying at 500+ mph and I will give you my next ten years salary if you can keep it so perfectly centered and keep it from making any kind of angled turn in any direction.

Just to let you know, you're looking at less than one second of video in that animated .gif. So if anyone want's to take "evil incarnate" up on his offer, all you have to do is record something going really fast and then edit the video and only keep the steadiest shot and it only has to be about one second long.

They have to be able to keep it centered and have no motion blur, not just film a fast thing. Pay attention.



That's why the no-plane garbage is disinfo, made by disinfo artists. They claim the plane doesn't move, but in fact, it does move away from the red line at the very end in the last few frames. Then the animated image itself is about one second. ONE SECOND! If the video had been several seconds or minutes long, then that would be something worth questioning.

Get some real evidence....


Uh huh and....I already stated that I was not a no-planer so you are just whipping that out because you have nowhere else to go. I never once claimed that there was no plane. I merely claimed that that clip most certainly appears to be fake. It only takes ONE FRAME to show something moving fast. You do not seem to have any understanding of how motion pictures work, so put away this no-plane disinfo crap. Please take me up on my offer. You ask others to do it for you. Why? Because you already know that you could not and just want to make some crazy argument? You are hardly even trying.

Look at the Gif again. Read the what the OP says about it. It is already stated that at the end of the clip, the camera starts to pan. It is acknowledged that the plane is ot perfectly centered when there is just the tail left. Unfortunately, that does nothing to take away from what I have said. That type of pan would be the easiest part of this to recreate. Please keep up. The plane does not rotate and has no motion blur on it. The camera 'stops' moving at the end, which is just as easily, the camera being still the whole time, then a digital pan to the left when the building is centered.

Please, please take me up on my offer. Do not hide behind other posters, just prove me wrong.



[edit on 29-7-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Yes, I was ignoring you because that is addressed in the OP. It clearly states that at the end, there is a quick pan.

Nowhere in the OP does it say there's any kind of pan. Either you commented in the wrong thread, or you're just flat-out being dishonest.



Originally posted by evil incarnate
At the very end, the plane is inside the building and cannot be tracked back to that red line anymore.

Wrong:



The plane is clearly moving away from the red line.



Originally posted by evil incarnate
The plane does not rotate or blur.

There is no blurring with digital cameras. Motion blur is relative to the shutter speed of a camera. You have to manually turn the shutter speed down to cause motion blur on a digital camera. That is photography 101. Maybe learn how cameras work before making assumptions?

And maybe obtain a video longer than one second before making assumptions also. It would make you look less foolish.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There is no blurring with digital cameras. Motion blur is relative to the shutter speed of a camera. You have to manually turn the shutter speed down to cause motion blur on a digital camera. That is photography 101. Maybe learn how cameras work before making assumptions?

And maybe obtain a video longer than one second before making assumptions also. It would make you look less foolish.





LOL, you are too cute. There is no blur with digital? You better tell your 101 teacher to go back to the books because that is just plane incorrect.

You also addressed half of my statement about it being inside the building. I also say in that same post that the tail appears to move away at the last second but I also stated that it appears to be a digital pan. Keep up.

Anyway, none of the rest of what you said even matters because you apparently do not know how digital cameras work. You are apparently confusing digital with high speed. There is high speed analog as well.

You are going to need to give me your teacher's number so I can make sure no other students walk away from that glass as ill informed and ignorant as you.


Yes, blur does have to do with shutter speed. Digital does not mean high speed.

I guess there must be more to it than I thought. All I did to begin with was offer my opinion as to how it appeared, even after stating I believe a plane WAS flown into that building, just not in that shot. Here you are, getting all wadded up, arguing, being rude, saying stupid things.

If I am so wrong, why are you trying so hard to make me appear wrong? Imagine what you could accomplish if you put that effort towards say....anything else.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Yes, blur does have to do with shutter speed. Digital does not mean high speed.

Most digital cameras have high shutter speeds and thus most have manual settings to slow the shutter speed. My phone's tiny 3.2MP camera has a high shutter speed because there's no motion blur when recording videos, and I have settings to manually change anything I need. It must be either the ancient digital cameras that have slow shutter speeds, or the cheapo disposable ones.

Either way, your disinfo and the no-plane disinfo are debunked. Take your lickings and move along.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Yes, blur does have to do with shutter speed. Digital does not mean high speed.

Most digital cameras have high shutter speeds and thus most have manual settings to slow the shutter speed.


Most, but not all right? Hmmm, seems you are not so sure of yourself anymore are you. Last time it was all, now it is most, how long until it is few?


My phone's tiny 3.2MP camera has a high shutter speed because there's no motion blur when recording videos, and I have settings to manually change anything I need.


Yay for you and your phone. I guarantee you there is still motion blur on your phone. In fact, I am willing to bet that it would be quite easy to record video on your phone at any setting you want and still get motion blur.


It must be either the ancient digital cameras that have slow shutter speeds, or the cheapo disposable ones.

Either way, your disinfo and the no-plane disinfo are debunked. Take your lickings and move along.





Because you say so? Who are you? I sure was put in my place huh. All my work at Eastman Kodak means nothing but your anonymous attempt to just say things should be taken as gospel? You do not even try to prove yourself, you just repeat yourself. You are still wrong. You obviously do not know how cameras work or else you would not need to contradict yourself to try and make your new point. It is also obvious from the fact that, you are wrong.I am very sorry that you suffer from this condition.

How many times did I say that I do believe planes hit those buildings? Yet, you still claim I am here trying to say there were no planes? I guess that explains it. You must have read about cameras as carefully as you read what you are responding to here. Sad, really. Very very sad. Either you do not know what motion blur is or you just decided to believe some fast talking salesperson without looking for yourself to see if they were telling the truth.

Digital does not equal high speed. You are confused. Sorry. If it did, you would not be stepping down from all to most. I am certain ti will not be all that long before most turns to some and some turns into few.

p.s. You do not get to lick me without asking nicely and at least bringing me flowers first.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
The reason why the plane doesn't move is because the video camera was turning and the plane stayed in the same spot. The building "swallowed" it because the jet is metal and is able to cut thru the outside of the building



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
It would appear that some people on this board need a lesson in video editing and video stabilization.

Here is the original video, thanks to CNN and Youtube user Smileycoyote (sorry, youtube and ATS are fighting with me right now, it won't let me embed it).

As you can see, the camera isn't steady on the plane.

Here is the same video, stabilized (this person believes it was a hologram, but that's neither here nor there).

There is a technique to doing this. In simple terms, you center each frame on a moving subject, then crop it to make everything even. This makes the moving subject the center of attention, and gives the appearance that it is standing still while the background is moving.

No conspiracy here, folks.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by anonymouse876
 


Please make a gif from Hez FAKE video enter the tower and show me that the "plane" is moving because in real life planes move not buildings.

I am waiting,lol.


D.Duck



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Reply to post by D.Duck
 


Duck, I think you fail to understand a few things...

First, when someone stabilizes a video, the entire point is to give the appearence that an object is stationary and the background is moving. A simple technique that can be used for all sorts of videos.

Second, a GIF file is simply a collection of frames, played at a certian speed, to give the appearence of a moving image. Very simple to make.

Lastly, neither a stabilized video or a .GIF file can be undone.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by anonymouse876
 


haha, if you think Hez video real then show me that the plane moves when it enters the tower and I dont care how you do it, just do it.

Just make a gif from Hez video and slow it down and show me.

It would not be to much of a problem to you cos you understand and know stuff and I dont, so please go ahead and do it, I am still waiting,lol.

D.Duck



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   


here is the original.

Nope, building is not moving. The plane is. Case closed.

[edit on 7/31/2009 by GenRadek]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join