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.

 

Pentagon 5 Frame Anomaly Solved?, maybe.

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+18 more 
posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Having picked up on the blatantly obvious seconds discrepancy relating to frame two, and being pretty gullible to the F.B.I.`s description of a Philips LTC 1261 CCTV camera and it`s perspective FPS being set to 1 FPS, I done yet more trawling until I found a very easy to understand explanation, when the camera is set for 1 fps it does this...




As mentioned, the recording system records the pictures that arrive from the video camera. However, in order to record for suitably long periods, the system does not record all the 29.97 NTSC frames per second (each composed of two fields): it records a single frame per second. This is known as time-lapse recording. But which single frame does it record, among the 30 acquired by the camera every second? That depends on how the system is set up, but undoubtedly whenever the second ends, the corresponding frame is recorded.


So basically it is down to the user on how many FPS the camera will record, if it is set to 1 FPS it records obviously at the end of every second, which brings us to this once again.......



Which no matter what way you look at it, can only mean one thing, and that is - that camera`s FPS was not set for 1 FPS, we have 2 frames in the 19 seconds threshold which again means....

1). The F.B.I. have blatantly lied yet again, by stating incorrect FPS settings, there must be a damn good reason for this, clearly visible editing and falsifying evidence, I doubt it was engineered to make it look like something had occurred, when there is no evidence of it occurring ie:- no plane visible, more of a case to disguise something that did occur.

2). More FPS = a lot more chance of capturing the plane.

3). Obviously a lot more captured frames that have been omitted.

A graph explaining FPS and relative settings regarding capturing the plane.......



An absolute 5 frames minimum missing, editing, lying, and no plane visible, but more importantly what did 17:37:20: and 17:37:20:50 show (if it was set to 2 FPS).




posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Yeah, how could people who dont believe just ignore evidence like this. I mean come on you think that the most secure building in the world only has cameras that capture video of that quality? Come on give me a break.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
That is very interesting. I have not looked at those frames as closely as just now and I would venture the second #19 is a doctored image. It has that blue color on the ground and more importantly the smudges in the top left corner have moved. Wait a second, why is the top left corner dark? Like in a shadow. Sombody selected the cleanest photo from the missing set and renumbered it wrong. Simple as that.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Absum!
That is very interesting. I have not looked at those frames as closely as just now and I would venture the second #19 is a doctored image. It has that blue color on the ground and more importantly the smudges in the top left corner have moved. Wait a second, why is the top left corner dark? Like in a shadow. Sombody selected the cleanest photo from the missing set and renumbered it wrong. Simple as that.


When looking at frame 2 think of a circular shaped item sitting on the frame, the two brown embellishments are outside of the diameter, also notice frame two has been cropped down the right hand side and the frame has been moved over a few mm, but the frame still lines up perfectly with the one beneath it, this helps explain it better..............



The two parallel lines clearly show that frame 2 has been moved, look at the distances between the identical objects and the top time stamp before Sep. is a gap the bottom Sep. runs parallel to the frame
.

/cheers.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
It looks to me like it recorded 5 fames in 4 seconds and they weren't perfectly spaced apart. To think this isn't possible or likely indicates to me you've never worked with security cameras, as this is a highly likely scenario. My home surveillance camera is like that and the ones I've worked on are like that.

Beyond that the frames are definitely doctored as they have the wrong date on them.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Its an oscillating camera. Did you not catch that when you googled it?


+4 more 
posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
haha there's no "20 second" frame?

What always makes me laugh, is that there's such a huge debate about what hit the pentagon. And the entire debate could be ended by released just one of the at very least 10 cameras that recorded footage of the event. But they don't release anything.

Then the part that actually makes me laugh out loud, fools come to this forum and defend the OS blindly, not even stopping for a second to consider the logic. If the government had nothing to hide, why is it hiding EVERYTHING?

Hmmmm...

lol.. god some people are stupid and ignorant.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


Which 10 cameras? source? Thanks.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
It looks to me like it recorded 5 fames in 4 seconds and they weren't perfectly spaced apart. To think this isn't possible or likely indicates to me you've never worked with security cameras, as this is a highly likely scenario. My home surveillance camera is like that and the ones I've worked on are like that.

Beyond that the frames are definitely doctored as they have the wrong date on them.


The F.B.I. guy who analysed the video stated it was set for 1 FPS, if it recorded twice for 17:37:19 the frames would be identical, it was not set (apparently) to record 4 frames in 5 seconds, two frames within the same second shows it was not set for 1 FPS, also we are not talking about the CCTV camera now but the F.B.I.`s equipment that time stamped it, and converted the file from VHS to MPEG, which must have registered at two frames in one second whilst doing this.

/cheers.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
What discredits this entire sequence of video is the time and date stamp.
Having to have worked with the government, I know of the scrutiny involved with certain critical systems. IMHO, I think that the time date issue would have been reviewed and corrected at the change of, or during, the following shift.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


SO WHY IS THAT SO ******* HARD TO SWALLOW? WHAT PART OF IT DIDN'T RECORD PERFECTLY ONE FRAME PER SECOND IS HARD TO GRASP???????

it happens all the time every day, to find conspiracy in this is lunacy.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Seventh
 


SO WHY IS THAT SO ******* HARD TO SWALLOW? WHAT PART OF IT DIDN'T RECORD PERFECTLY ONE FRAME PER SECOND IS HARD TO GRASP???????
it happens all the time every day, to find conspiracy in this is lunacy.


Actually quite the opposite good sir, with the technology we have today and under the circumstances of how MASSIVE this is, we the people as a country deserve a un-obstructed video of what happened.. this video clearly shows no real evidence and should not be simply 'shrugged' off.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightWonder

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Seventh
 


SO WHY IS THAT SO ******* HARD TO SWALLOW? WHAT PART OF IT DIDN'T RECORD PERFECTLY ONE FRAME PER SECOND IS HARD TO GRASP???????
it happens all the time every day, to find conspiracy in this is lunacy.


Actually quite the opposite good sir, with the technology we have today and under the circumstances of how MASSIVE this is, we the people as a country deserve a un-obstructed video of what happened.. this video clearly shows no real evidence and should not be simply 'shrugged' off.


Well then I propose you build a time machine, and go back in time to pre 911 and get them to purchase a better camera.

Those of us that live in reality will continue to work with what we have.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
It looks to me like it recorded 5 fames in 4 seconds and they weren't perfectly spaced apart. To think this isn't possible or likely indicates to me you've never worked with security cameras, as this is a highly likely scenario. My home surveillance camera is like that and the ones I've worked on are like that.

Beyond that the frames are definitely doctored as they have the wrong date on them.


Sure. They deliberately doctored the date to fool you into thinking the frames were doctored.

Sneaky bunch those NWO operatives, aren't they?



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


cameras from gas stations, hotels, and various other buildings in the area were confiscated for "national security" because they had a view of the event.

this is very common knowledge.

[edit on 9/2/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by LightWonder

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Seventh
 


SO WHY IS THAT SO ******* HARD TO SWALLOW? WHAT PART OF IT DIDN'T RECORD PERFECTLY ONE FRAME PER SECOND IS HARD TO GRASP???????
it happens all the time every day, to find conspiracy in this is lunacy.


Actually quite the opposite good sir, with the technology we have today and under the circumstances of how MASSIVE this is, we the people as a country deserve a un-obstructed video of what happened.. this video clearly shows no real evidence and should not be simply 'shrugged' off.


Well then I propose you build a time machine, and go back in time to pre 911 and get them to purchase a better camera.

Those of us that live in reality will continue to work with what we have.


I wish not to argue about this much longer due to the fact that anyone who has half of a brain should realize what is in plain sight. If you want to honestly believe that one of the most advanced and important buildings on american soil is only equipped with petty 1 fps video cameras than your kidding yourself. There should be a multitude of cameras along the roof with substantial views of the front yard, etc. which would have seen this "plane" ALOT better.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   


The anomaly with the frames is only compounded with the anomaly in this frame of the "video proof"... I think its THIS frame that is the real smoking gun... that frame is an almost perfect image of a high explosive penetrating air burst detonation.

not a planeeeeeee..




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


This assumes, of course, that the graphics in the lower right and left hand corners is an exact representation of the actual time the cctv capture the image. But since we can see that the graphics in the right corner and left corner are the same and we know the cctv camera and recording system is not capable of imprinting the "impact" statement then we know that whoever apply the "impact" information also placed the time and date stamp. In other words, it was not an automated system, it was the estimated time the frames were captured.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by jprophet420
 


cameras from gas stations, hotels, and various other buildings in the area were confiscated for "national security" because they had a view of the event.

this is very common knowledge.


No, it's the fallacy of the "appeal to common opinion."



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
They've got be freakin idiots if TPTB want the public to believe that our Pentagon only had 1 camera that caught this action!!!

My local 7-11 covenience store has better coverage with CCTV than the Pentagon??
come on guys we can do better than this.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join