What could this Be?? 911 - Second Strike Footage... Wing Disapears

page: 34
59
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 



For such a brilliant clear day, is there any reason why a metallic plane would not be reflecting light all the way around?


It's flying in the shadow of the smoke.




posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
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 rubbish?

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:
www.cs.odu.edu...



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 wing).


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:

www.youtube.com...

And here are four more amateur videos. Anybody see an airplane in these videos?

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


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?



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 



If you see a commercial airliner which looks like a dark cartoonish shadow (like the phony bluescreen CGI garbage they showed us on 9/11


It isn't my (or anyone else's problem) that you post with such enticing challenges.....



Thing is, given more time, and better search words in YouTube (or any other video Search Engine), there are MANY, MANY, MANY more examples. (This one of course is about the so-called "UFO" nonsense, but it DOES have a nice silhouetted airplane example, of which, as I know, there are plenty of examples. IN FACT, anyone who knows ANYTHING about filming, especially video, will realize....).

This is just too easy.....!!!


Not at all that video holds about as much water as paper cup!!

The videos showing a shadow plane on the 911 footage has surrounding objects brightly lit in vivid colour, and then enters the mystery dark shadow plane. You can't have it both ways, you can have a brightly lit building and a dark shadow plane....

In your video if there were any other objects cast in the same light as the plane, they too would apear in shadow.

nice try but not as easy as you thought huh?

Korg.


edit on 22-11-2010 by Korg Trinity because: Spelling




posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Don't be so bloody ridiculous....people may start to laugh. ONE example, and as I clearly pointed out, you can search yourself. Go to YouTube and enter "airplane flybys", you get a lot of results. All sorts of distances from camera, different angles and lighting conditions. It isn't rocket science, it's common sense and digital photography, compression, artifacts.

Watch wings "disappear"...(or, are all of THESE "CGI" too???)





posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Don't be so bloody ridiculous....people may start to laugh. ONE example, and as I clearly pointed out, you can search yourself. Go to YouTube and enter "airplane flybys", you get a lot of results. All sorts of distances from camera, different angles and lighting conditions. It isn't rocket science, it's common sense and digital photography, compression, artifacts.

Watch wings "disappear"...(or, are all of THESE "CGI" too???)




Well done for debunking your own theory.

At no time did any of the above exhibit a wing disappearing. Yes we saw the wings from their edges and even then we still saw them... What’s more is at the times it shows a dark black shadow like plane, all the surroundings were also cast in shadows....

So I would say the jokes on you!


Korg.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 





Well done for debunking your own theory.

At no time did any of the above exhibit a wing disappearing. Yes we saw the wings from their edges and even then we still saw them... What’s more is at the times it shows a dark black shadow like plane, all the surroundings were also cast in shadows....

So I would say the jokes on you!


Korg.





Look again. At exactly 1:03 you will see wings vanish on both planes. But they must be fake planes.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 


Do you realize that you posted a compressed jpeg image yourself, with the wing visible?
But for the sake of argument: Do you have the uncompressed video file in your possession to verify your theory? Or did you take the picture as it is?

I ask this because the image you posted looks pretty much compressed itself. Care to post a source?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Geez is this thread really stlll going?

S



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Yes, it's a jpeg image taken from the published NIST report--but the quality is high enough (obviously) to see the wing.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by stucoles
Geez is this thread really stlll going?

S


Yes, thank you for the bump


I still say Post production editing was used on all 911 footage we have seen thus far.



Originally posted by brainsandgravy
reply to post by kybertech
 


Yes, it's a jpeg image taken from the published NIST report--but the quality is high enough (obviously) to see the wing.


Ahhh that explains why it supports the OS... it's from the NIST report


Korg.

edit on 24-11-2010 by Korg Trinity because: Clarification



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
double post... sorry.. please delete
edit on 24-11-2010 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by stucoles
Geez is this thread really stlll going?

S


Yes, thank you for the bump


I still say Post production editing was used on all 911 footage we have seen thus far.



Originally posted by brainsandgravy
reply to post by kybertech
 


Yes, it's a jpeg image taken from the published NIST report--but the quality is high enough (obviously) to see the wing.


Ahhh that explains why it supports the OS... it's from the NIST report


Korg.

Actually, this thread is not about the "OS", it's about a video clip with a vanishing airplane wing. But it's nice that you have the "well, that's fake too" argument to fall back on. That way you can never be proved mistaken.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 



For such a brilliant clear day, is there any reason why a metallic plane would not be reflecting light all the way around?


It's flying in the shadow of the smoke.


Hahaha!

and we see so many other BLACK objects there too as the result of being in the "smoke shadow"



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Don't be so bloody ridiculous....people may start to laugh. ONE example, and as I clearly pointed out, you can search yourself. Go to YouTube and enter "airplane flybys", you get a lot of results. All sorts of distances from camera, different angles and lighting conditions. It isn't rocket science, it's common sense and digital photography, compression, artifacts.

Watch wings "disappear"...(or, are all of THESE "CGI" too???)



oh puhleeeasse weed... that video and your "argument" was already answered and debunked quite some time ago,, and from what i remember, you never rebutted it. I suggest you do, or use another more logical and relevant argument.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


At no time did any of the above exhibit a wing disappearing. Yes we saw the wings from their edges and even then we still saw them... What’s more is at the times it shows a dark black shadow like plane, all the surroundings were also cast in shadows....
Korg.



Look again. At exactly 1:03 you will see wings vanish on both planes. But they must be fake planes.


not even remotely comparable to the footage in question. Yet another failed attempt at misdirection. wrong angle, wrong lighting. wrong background. wrong everything.

try again.
edit on 24-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by elnine

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


At no time did any of the above exhibit a wing disappearing. Yes we saw the wings from their edges and even then we still saw them... What’s more is at the times it shows a dark black shadow like plane, all the surroundings were also cast in shadows....
Korg.



Look again. At exactly 1:03 you will see wings vanish on both planes. But they must be fake planes.


not even remotely comparable to the footage in question. Yet another failed attempt at misdirection. wrong angle, wrong lighting. wrong background. wrong everything.

try again.
edit on 24-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)


HA HA! Of course it's the "wrong angle, wrong lighting. wrong background. wrong everything"--it's the filming of a different event. It is similar though in that it shows distant banking airplanes against a clear blue sky. The question though, is can video compression artifacts cause the apparent sudden disappearance of detail such as an airplane wing. Obviously, as is demonstrated here, it can--unless you believe this clip is also fake.

How do you explain in this clip one wing on both plains completely vanishing?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by elnine
 



Hahaha!

and we see so many other BLACK objects there too as the result of being in the "smoke shadow"



Could you elaborate?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
How do you explain in this clip one wing on both plains completely vanishing?


Clearly this footage has been edited. There are many anomalies such as both wings going white like some major reflection is on that wing, yet seeing as it is a very cloudy dull day it certainly wasn't caused by the sun.

I would say this footage has been edited to show what you want it to. It cannot be used as evidence for this very fact.

Korg.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
How do you explain in this clip one wing on both plains completely vanishing?


Clearly this footage has been edited. There are many anomalies such as both wings going white like some major reflection is on that wing, yet seeing as it is a very cloudy dull day it certainly wasn't caused by the sun.

I would say this footage has been edited to show what you want it to. It cannot be used as evidence for this very fact.

Korg.



I rest my case.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy

I rest my case.


So you are resting your case on some flawed evidence??

Good luck on the verdict mate, your client is going down!


Korg.





top topics
 
59
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join