reply to post by SphinxMontreal
1) The metallic wing blended in with the sky blue background. Now that's a good one! Took you guys nine years to come up with that
2) Video compression: yeah sure...aside from the wing of the plane, the rest of the video seems to have pretty good resolution and is perfectly fine.
I thought video compression affected the pixels for a good portion of the screen, not just a select few pixels, which in this case miraculously just
happens to be a wing.
This is foolishness. You clearly have no idea about how video compression works. There are various kinds from simple to extremely complex. The most
common types exploit image and perceptual redundancies in order to greatly reduce the amount of file data.
Wikipedia explains the very basics as: "Video data contains spatial and temporal redundancy. Similarities can thus be encoded by merely registering
differences within a frame (spatial), and/or between frames (temporal). Spatial encoding is performed by taking advantage of the fact that the human
eye is unable to distinguish small differences in color as easily as it can perceive changes in brightness, so that very similar areas of color can be
"averaged out" in a similar way to jpeg images (JPEG image compression FAQ, part 1/2). With temporal compression only the changes from one frame to
the next are encoded as often a large number of the pixels will be the same on a series of frames."
There are various techniques employed to accomplish this. If you're interested go here:
The still image above was taken from the original uncompressed video. Notice you can see the wing, but how subtle the color difference is compared to
the sky background. This happened suddenly because the plane emerged from the shadow of the smoke from tower one. This can be seen in many of the
impact clips. Because of its tilt, the underside of the right wing is illuminated by the sun-lit sky. It's also blurred by motion, further reducing
it's distinction. From this angle the color closely matches the sky background. Since this motion-blurred wing is so relatively small within the
frame, is so close in color to the background, and lasts for a fraction of a second, it's not surprising that a typical compression algorithm
(designed to reduce data) would ignore it, filling in by sampling from or averaging with near-by pixels.
When all of the pixels in the video are fine, except for the pixels which create the wing, this is not only reliable evidence of fakery, this
is a tell tale sign of fakery. Video artifacts are randomly created. The chances of it just occurring on a wing must be over one million to one.
That's a nice little deduction you attempted to deliver with authority (in contrast to your previously speculative, "I thought video compression
affected the pixels for a good portion of the screen")--but its absolutely false. It depends on the type of compression and the nature of the
artifact. Most compression codecs are designed to eliminate redundancies in the image data by altering within the image only what the eye will likely
detect--thus codecs "pick and choose" which pixels to alter, and which to leave alone.
Regardless of the camera being used and regardless of the angle it is being shot from? That's funny - because I thought if you shoot the same
scene from a different angle using a different camera, the lighting would be completely different and you would not get the same "artifacts". Thanks
for trying to enlighten me, but I'll pass on the Kool Aid this time around.
Camera and angles don’t change lighting, and you ignored that I said “in similar conditions”. Regardless, yes, similar artifacts could still
show up such as edge ringing, mosquito noise, quilting, posterizing, aliasing, macroblocking, chroma noise, and pixels dropping in and out (like on a
How do you know how many real amateur photographers were pointing their cameras at the Towers at that time? Were most people who were commuting
to work that day armed with cameras which were functioning? Why do you make such an assumption without providing any proof, since there were only 16
short minutes between the two impacts. Not really a heck of a lot of time for people to run home and get their cameras.
What I do know is that there is at least one well known "alleged amateur video" out there which jump cuts just prior to the second impact. Yeah, I
know, they must have quit filming to change the film or battery and turned on the camera a split second before the second impact. Ha! Ha! Go to 1:47
of the video below:
And here are four more amateur videos. Anybody see an airplane in these videos?
You must be kidding or simply obtuse. I was not questioning whether or not there are video clips in existence in which the camera operator missed the
second plane impact. I would imagine those would be in the majority. I’m asking why there are some 40 plus clips in existence from different cameras
which captured the impact—including several from amateurs—but NOT ONE clip in existence, filmed by anyone who captured the south tower explosion
and was in a position which would have clearly captured the approaching plane—not ONE which shows the explosion in the absence of a PLANE? Why also
are there no leaks from the hundreds who would have had to help stage and cover-up this mass murder?