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.

 

If One Photograph Is Faked From 9/11, Why Not All?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

I was browsing through this article concerning the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11
Observe, in the 1st photo, the yellow 'trashcan' to the left of the lamp-post, on front of the man with the white shirt.
Draw an imaginary line from the photographer, through the man in the white shirt, throught the yellow trashcan towards the building almost engulfed in smoke. Let this be the principle line of sight for the shot.


This photo was taken from the NJ side which means that "yellow trash can" is in the middle of the Hudson river. It isn't a trash can, it's a boat. It looks to be travelling upriver because in the second photo you can see the same yellow object in between the fellow with a backback and the fellow exiting the police SUV.



Observe the car between the photographer and the man in the white shirt.
Observe the black man with the white shirt adjacent to the car.


Through the car's window you can see silhouettes of people sitting in the driver and passenger seats. This means the vehicle was still moving. Due to the antenna on the car's window this means we're seeing the car's rear, meaning it was driving away from the photographer, so it would have been out of the frame within a second.

The fellow in the white shirt is standing unmoved in the same position in both photos, which is understandable as he is going through the worst moment of his entire life at that point of time.


Observe the colour of the smoke about to encompass the building is a very dark grey..


9/11 was a sunny day, and the smoke cloud was a moving three dimentional object. As it faced the sun, it would appear light. As it faced away from the sun, it would appear dark.


I conclude that it is therfore meaningless to investigate, via the photographic evidence available, the exact causes and mechanisms of collapse of the twin towers as it is reasonable to suggest that if one photograph has been faked, then so very well may the rest of them.


I already know that it is meaningless to investigate. Regardless of the thoroughness of the evidence presented to you conspiracy people, you people will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS continue to grasp at pretty absurd straws exactly like this to keep your conspiracy stories alive. This is becuase you conspiracy people really don't care to know the facts behind the 9/11 attack. You conspiracy people want it to be a conspiracy regardless of what the facts behind the 9/11 attack really are. It's the whole reason why you go to those damned fool conspiracy web sites for all your information to begin with.

I would love to see the original photos as they were originally taken. I will wager my eye teeth that some conspiracy con artist or another cropped these photos to artificially embellish the "faked photo" claim.
edit on 16-2-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I believe based on looking at the two photos that as some have already stated, these are entirely different photographs taken with two different cameras from two different angles (vantage points) I think that while some might feel the need to argue that there is somehting "funny" about them, it is only because they are two different photographs using two different cameras. Nothing more sinister here IMO.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by pshea38

I was browsing through this article concerning the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11
Observe, in the 1st photo, the yellow 'trashcan' to the left of the lamp-post, on front of the man with the white shirt.
Draw an imaginary line from the photographer, through the man in the white shirt, throught the yellow trashcan towards the building almost engulfed in smoke. Let this be the principle line of sight for the shot.


This photo was taken from the NJ side which means that "yellow trash can" is in the middle of the Hudson river. It isn't a trash can, it's a boat. It looks to be travelling upriver because in the second photo you can see the same yellow object in between the fellow with a backback and the fellow exiting the police SUV.



Observe the car between the photographer and the man in the white shirt.
Observe the black man with the white shirt adjacent to the car.


Through the car's window you can see silhouettes of people sitting in the driver and passenger seats. This means the vehicle was still moving. Due to the antenna on the car's window this means we're seeing the car's rear, meaning it was driving away from the photographer, so it would have been out of the frame within a second.

The fellow in the white shirt is standing unmoved in the same position in both photos, which is understandable as he is going through the worst moment of his entire life at that point of time.


Observe the colour of the smoke about to encompass the building is a very dark grey..


9/11 was a sunny day, and the smoke cloud was a moving three dimentional object. As it faced the sun, it would appear light. As it faced away from the sun, it would appear dark.


I conclude that it is therfore meaningless to investigate, via the photographic evidence available, the exact causes and mechanisms of collapse of the twin towers as it is reasonable to suggest that if one photograph has been faked, then so very well may the rest of them.


I already know that it is meaningless to investigate. Regardless of the thoroughness of the evidence presented to you conspiracy people, you people will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS continue to grasp at pretty absurd straws exactly like this to keep your conspiracy stories alive. This is becuase you conspiracy people really don't care to know the facts behind the 9/11 attack. You conspiracy people want it to be a conspiracy regardless of what the facts behind the 9/11 attack really are. It's the whole reason why you go to those damned fool conspiracy web sites for all your information to begin with.

I would love to see the original photos as they were originally taken. I will wager my eye teeth that some conspiracy con artist or another cropped these photos to artificially embellish the "faked photo" claim.
edit on 16-2-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)


Firstly. I acknowledged my error in mistaking the boat for a trashcan.

You say that because we observe the driver and passenger silhouettes (which for the life of me, i am having difficulty discerning) the car must be moving. I cannot see how you can definitively come to this conclusion based on photo1 alone. Also this would be strange, would it not? One of the most spectacular sights they are ever likely to see, and they just drive away. Also the black man in picture 1 seems strangely nonchalant about the whole event and doesn't even seem to be paying the catastrophe any attention.

If you accept that both pictures were taken by the same photographer (see link below for equal sized photos), and that no more than 1 or 2 seconds could have passed between the shots, based on the distance the top of the spire has fallen and the dust dispersal difference, then you must accept that the photographer must be roughly in the same spot to have taken both shots almost consecutively, just zooming out for the second picture. Both WTC background building perspectives appear identical. But this cannot be the case, as the foreground setting clearly indicatess in photo 2, with the large relative jump in position of the man in the white shirt/brown shorts, the absence of the black man in the shot, the absence of the car seen in photo one and the presence of the police SUV and three spectators nearby.

However, in order to acount for the changing relative position (with respect to the lamp-post seen in front of him in photo1) of the man with the white shirt and brown shorts, the photographer would have had to have moved 20-30? yards to his left, putting the black man to the right and out of picture. This does not seem to be either practical or possible considering the short amount of time between shots. This would also alter the perspectives of the WTC background buildings as seen in both pictures, and again, this perspective does not seem to change at all.

So we are left with a dilemma goodolddave. The photographer could not have remained stationery while taking both shots, due to the foreground differences, and he could not have moved the 20-30? yards to his left in the 1 to 2 seconds available, which would also have altered the background perspectives.

Get out of that one goodolddave. To my mind it is a very valid line of inquiry and your rant at the end of your post is totally unjustified.

Actually, it just occurred to me that the buildings shadows and the spectators shadows are at odds and contradict one another. The building shadows indicate that the sun is on the left of both photos and the spectators shadows indicate that the sun is on the right of both photos. Hmmm...
Also your reasoning does not account for the difference in dust colour between both shots. You can clearly see that the same areas of dust that are in shade(?) in both pictures are of a different colour, one dark grey and one light grey.

I think that unless you can come up with something good, goodolddave, you will look like the damned fool.
You say that you would bet your eye teeth that some conspiracy con-man cropped the pictures to embellish the fake-photo claim but to the best of my knowledge i am the first to bring attention to any anomalies that may be present in these photographs so methinks you may be sucking you steaks through a straw.

This Link Here is where the photographs appeared originally and the article analysis is solely regarding the strange behaviour of the spire on its descent.

Take a closer look and reasonably explain the large amounts of pixilation present around almost all objects in two otherwise clear pictures and also reasonably explain the huge chunk missing from the head of the man in the white shirt/brown shorts in picture 1. You might also try explaining how the same mans right hand in the same pictures is in an impossible position by the back of his head, with his thumb above his fingers.

Far from some conspiray con men doctoring the photographs to advance fakery claims, i think it is pretty clear that the pepetrators of this huge 9/11 hoax are responsible for these amateur efforts of complete fakery and i also believe that very few pictures or videos seen from that day are genuine. Hence the on-going 10 year long confusions and argumentations over the exact causes and mechanisms of collapse of the WTC buildings.
To re-iterate the title, IF ONE PHOTO WAS FAKED ON 9/11, WHY NOT ALL?

If you are a genuine person, you cannot but help acknowledge the truth of my observations and question what you think you are so sure of. If not, it will show, to me at least.
I look forward to hearing your response.

pshea



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Dude that has all been explained already.

Pixelation around objects in low quality jpeg digital pics is common and not a sign of a fake.

As I said before you can not do photo analysis on anything other than the original RAW files, because as soon as it is changed from RAW to a lower quality compressed jpeg, or other format, you get digital artifacts.

You say that one guy looks nonchalant, but remember you are seeing him for a split second in time.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok,

It is pointless trying to debate with him over this issue. You could explain it repeatedly and he would still be none the wiser? These are the same type of posters who are using low quality compressed video to claim that the aircraft at WTC are missing pieces, and therefore evidence of holographic trickery.

Pshea38,

Get yourself on a photography course! Obviously in your case you would have to vet the instructor just to see if he is an 'OS believer'. You are making yourself a laughing stock by believing that the guy has a 'huge chunk missing from his head'

Try it yourself if you own a camera? Experiment by taking a city scape image with people in the foreground. Save it as a low quality image and zoom into it - note how pixelation and other artifacts appear at low quality? As already explained to you sometimes an image is just that - an image. You are trying to do indepth analysis on low quality images and trying to present it as some sort of smoking gun.

TJ



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Dude that has all been explained already.

Pixelation around objects in low quality jpeg digital pics is common and not a sign of a fake.

As I said before you can not do photo analysis on anything other than the original RAW files, because as soon as it is changed from RAW to a lower quality compressed jpeg, or other format, you get digital artifacts.

You say that one guy looks nonchalant, but remember you are seeing him for a split second in time.


sorry anok. i accept what you are saying somewhat. i wanted to get a different opinion on the matter. if, for one minute, you could assume the photos were faked, then could not the pixilations and defects be attributed to bad quality photoshopping? goodolddave says that he wouldn't be surprised if some conspiracy conmen got hold of the photo and embellished it with fakery to further the cause. implicit in this statement is that the photographs do show signs of fakery to him. i do not care, as stated above by tommyjo if i am a laughing stock. these two photograph just do not add up to me.
edit on 17-2-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok,

It is pointless trying to debate with him over this issue. You could explain it repeatedly and he would still be none the wiser? These are the same type of posters who are using low quality compressed video to claim that the aircraft at WTC are missing pieces, and therefore evidence of holographic trickery.

Pshea38,

Get yourself on a photography course! Obviously in your case you would have to vet the instructor just to see if he is an 'OS believer'. You are making yourself a laughing stock by believing that the guy has a 'huge chunk missing from his head'

Try it yourself if you own a camera? Experiment by taking a city scape image with people in the foreground. Save it as a low quality image and zoom into it - note how pixelation and other artifacts appear at low quality? As already explained to you sometimes an image is just that - an image. You are trying to do indepth analysis on low quality images and trying to present it as some sort of smoking gun.

TJ


there is plenty of evidence of 9/11 photo and video fakery out in the open. you have your opinions and choose to overlook or discount this. that is your prerogative.




does this not show a large chunk missing from the left side of the back of this mans head, through which a portion of the background building can be seen? does his hand also not appear to be in an impossible position with the thumb above the fingers? i do not care who views me as a laughing stock. i do not have any experience with photography and these defects may very well be artifacts and the pixilations the result of bad compression, but they are still there to see. is it not possible that it is not the result of bad photoshopping? are you 100% sure?
i accept you have some knowledge of photography but these are not the only oddities on which i am basing my speculations. as regards the OS, i have enough sense to know that a whole lot of things just don't add up about what the official story says occured on 9/11. or maybe, as has been already commented, i am simply retarded.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Weeeden
Isn't that yellow thing a boat on the water??? For the life of me, I can't see a yellow trash can!

Edited to add that Anok beat me to it!!
edit on 14-2-2011 by Weeeden because: (no reason given)

Yes, that's a boat on the water. Seen probably that same one and others just like it on the Hudson River countless times.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
it looks like the photographer went back a few metres and over to the left or that it was someone else taking another picture.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Interesting thread. There's more than a few anomalies in photographic and video records of what happened that day. The technology required to produce these fakes is far from new, even in 2001. Here's a few of my personal favourites.

Fake Smoke




The Moving Bridge




The Disappearing Bridge




Food for thought




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

if, for one minute, you could assume the photos were faked, then could not the pixilations and defects be attributed to bad quality photoshopping?


Sorry, but that's just ridiculous reasoning.

If, for example, one were to assume for a moment that the photos were taken by aliens, then the defects could be attributed to the different design of alien cameras. You can't make an assumption and reverse engineer your evidence to fit it!

Later you admit you know very little about photography. Are you sure you shouldn't rectify that before pontificating further?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by pshea38

if, for one minute, you could assume the photos were faked, then could not the pixilations and defects be attributed to bad quality photoshopping?


Sorry, but that's just ridiculous reasoning.

If, for example, one were to assume for a moment that the photos were taken by aliens, then the defects could be attributed to the different design of alien cameras. You can't make an assumption and reverse engineer your evidence to fit it!

Later you admit you know very little about photography. Are you sure you shouldn't rectify that before pontificating further?


i disagree. there are two possibilities open to us. either the photos are real or the photos are faked.
if they are real, the anomalies can be explained by bad compression and artifacts.
if they are fake, the anomolies can be explained by bad quality photoshopping.
what is ridiculous about this? no need to bring aliens into this.
if a photo contains a lifelike picture of a unicorn flying side by side with a dragon, do i need to know anything about photography to be confident in pontificating that it is fake?
as stated, my case doesn't hinge on the pixilation anomalies.
i pointed out certain other difficulties i have with the photographs. everyone is free to come to their own conclusions.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
Interesting thread. There's more than a few anomalies in photographic and video records of what happened that day. The technology required to produce these fakes is far from new, even in 2001. Here's a few of my personal favourites.

Fake Smoke




The Moving Bridge




The Disappearing Bridge




Food for thought



yes quackers. all this and so much more. have you seen any of the victim memorial photographs, and some of the obvious and clumsy photoshopping efforts? now there's something weird. you would have thought that each of the victims families could have provided at least two decent genuine pictures, for their lost loved ones to be respectfully remembered by!



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


But you said you were making the assumption that they were fake. And that's not a reasonable one, because as you rightly point out the anomalies could easily be casued by other factors.

So the only evidence you have for their fakeness is your assumption, other than some other faintly mysterious "issues" you - an avowed non-expert - seem to have. Which is hardly compelling.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


I have looked at your website septemberclues.info... and I do consider it important work to cover all the bases with what exactly did happen. My main problem is that it points to the 'no plane' theory. With any stressful investigation it is very common to get different witness statements as people notice and remember different things. I was on the couch for 3 days when it happened and do remember a few moments that stuck out as odd and not fitting right. The point is, that if such an event without any planes hitting the buildings did occur there would be many witnesses to testify that no planes where there or a smoke screen was used as cover. The damage to the building is also representative of a plane until the collapse.

THE 16-SECOND 'MAGIC SEQUENCE'
The cuts between shots makes it hard for an accurate time comparison, possible there was a small time delay between cameras. I do remember a few things flying around that day. The ball in the first shot looks like the plane coming down. The camera was about 60 degrees to the left and 30 degrees up of the next shot.

THE CBS 'FOLLOW-UP' SHOT
This is the most interesting. It could be due to the mpeg compression algorithm to cause the few pixels to bleed in front of the building as the plane passes by. If the camera used captured it in a raw video format and the raw footage is available it would confirm this.

THE NOSE-OUT FIASCO
A physics engineer may be better able to explain this one. The nose is fairly strong due to its shape and to handle hitting birds and stuff. The centre of the plane did not go through the core of the building.

THE NAUDET BROTHERS' 1ST HIT FIASCO
The rooms on that floor did just have a huge fire ball go through it. It would have knocked out any plasterboard walls and windows accounting for the black smoke.

CONFLICTING SUNLIGHT
This looks like it has more to do with the expose, levels and angle of the sun. If you try to shoot into the sun the foreground object will be dark, if you away from the sun the will be light. You can perform an experiment on any similar building to test this out.

IMPROBABLE TRAJECTORIES
If you match this up with the first video 'magic sequence' with the plane coming down from a higher altitude then levelling out before hitting the tower it adds up.

IMPOSSIBLE AERODYNAMICS
This also matches up with the 'magic sequence' as the plane is in a roll on the final approach. I have not performed all the calculations to confirm the angles are accurate.

RIDICULOUS REFLECTIONS
That is a strange one, I would like to see the original, not sure.

MAGICAL OPTICS
The camera operator may have heard the plane coming to preempt it's impact. The laser is interesting, have heard some reports that the plane was on fly by wire remote control. The laser may have been a targeting system used. Not sure.

PREPOSTEROUS PHYSICS
Not real sure of the speed difference between the plane and a F1 at top speed, maybe twice as fast. Also the wings are used to store the fuel so there would have been a lot more mass and inertia to help punch through the outer wall. More a matter of physics. The plane was about 200 tons.

FLAWED GRAPHICS
Again, more of a problem due to the mpeg compression algorithm.

Your analysis and observation have been excellent. It is just the theory you where working on is where the problem is. This has been a very difficult case and all of us have taken a wrong turn with it some where along the line. It is possible that I have called it wrong, but considering a lack of other supporting evidence in one of the busiest cities in the world I do find it hard to entertain the no plane theory. Excellent try and I expect you would be very good at video analysis with some great observation skills and good arguments put forward.


It is very possible that there are some fake videos and photos some where in all this mess.

edit on 17-2-2011 by kwakakev because: removed quotes

edit on 17-2-2011 by kwakakev because: tried removing quotes again



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by pshea38
 


I have looked at your website septemberclues.info... and I do consider it important work to cover all the bases with what exactly did happen. My main problem is that it points to the 'no plane' theory. With any stressful investigation it is very common to get different witness statements as people notice and remember different things. I was on the couch for 3 days when it happened and do remember a few moments that stuck out as odd and not fitting right. The point is, that if such an event without any planes hitting the buildings did occur there would be many witnesses to testify that no planes where there or a smoke screen was used as cover. The damage to the building is also representative of a plane until the collapse.

THE 16-SECOND 'MAGIC SEQUENCE'
The cuts between shots makes it hard for an accurate time comparison, possible there was a small time delay between cameras. I do remember a few things flying around that day. The ball in the first shot looks like the plane coming down. The camera was about 60 degrees to the left and 30 degrees up of the next shot.

THE CBS 'FOLLOW-UP' SHOT
This is the most interesting. It could be due to the mpeg compression algorithm to cause the few pixels to bleed in front of the building as the plane passes by. If the camera used captured it in a raw video format and the raw footage is available it would confirm this.

THE NOSE-OUT FIASCO
A physics engineer may be better able to explain this one. The nose is fairly strong due to its shape and to handle hitting birds and stuff. The centre of the plane did not go through the core of the building.

THE NAUDET BROTHERS' 1ST HIT FIASCO
The rooms on that floor did just have a huge fire ball go through it. It would have knocked out any plasterboard walls and windows accounting for the black smoke.

CONFLICTING SUNLIGHT
This looks like it has more to do with the expose, levels and angle of the sun. If you try to shoot into the sun the foreground object will be dark, if you away from the sun the will be light. You can perform an experiment on any similar building to test this out.

IMPROBABLE TRAJECTORIES
If you match this up with the first video 'magic sequence' with the plane coming down from a higher altitude then levelling out before hitting the tower it adds up.

IMPOSSIBLE AERODYNAMICS
This also matches up with the 'magic sequence' as the plane is in a roll on the final approach. I have not performed all the calculations to confirm the angles are accurate.

RIDICULOUS REFLECTIONS
That is a strange one, I would like to see the original, not sure.

MAGICAL OPTICS
The camera operator may have heard the plane coming to preempt it's impact. The laser is interesting, have heard some reports that the plane was on fly by wire remote control. The laser may have been a targeting system used. Not sure.

PREPOSTEROUS PHYSICS
Not real sure of the speed difference between the plane and a F1 at top speed, maybe twice as fast. Also the wings are used to store the fuel so there would have been a lot more mass and inertia to help punch through the outer wall. More a matter of physics. The plane was about 200 tons.

FLAWED GRAPHICS
Again, more of a problem due to the mpeg compression algorithm.

Your analysis and observation have been excellent. It is just the theory you where working on is where the problem is. This has been a very difficult case and all of us have taken a wrong turn with it some where along the line. It is possible that I have called it wrong, but considering a lack of other supporting evidence in one of the busiest cities in the world I do find it hard to entertain the no plane theory. Excellent try and I expect you would be very good at video analysis with some great observation skills and good arguments put forward.


It is very possible that there are some fake videos and photos some where in all this mess.

edit on 17-2-2011 by kwakakev because: removed quotes

edit on 17-2-2011 by kwakakev because: tried removing quotes again


I gather from the above analysis that you may be under the impression that this website is the result of my work, which it is not. I meerly stated to you that i was a member and subscribed to the theories put forward. I think it would take considerably longer to familiarise yourself with the true extents of the research done there and i would urge you to consider the extensive victim simulation report by hoi polloi. It is here i believe that the most progress can be made in terms of exposing to the general public some of the larger cracks in the official 9/11 story. The exposure of events like 9/11, 7/7, the madrid and bali bombings etc. as psychological operations incorporating media fakery should be an eye-opener to all and an indicatioin of the extent of the widespread corruption that has long since hi-jacked the western world.

pshea



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 



It is very possible that there are some fake videos and photos some where in all this mess.


How so? How is it "very possible"? What makes it very possible? The volume of photos and videos? How does that affect the probability that any number are fake?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Because it's happened before, on multiple occasions. I think that's called setting a precedent. If it happens once and it is proven then there are likely many other occasions where it happened and it went unnoticed and unchallenged. The fact that it happens is not in question. The BBC, the so called bastion of independent reporting, has been busted doing it so many times it isn't even funny any more, and to think they are the only ones at it, and it happens with such infrequency as to be a non issue is at best naivety.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
did nobody read what sphinx just posted? thats definately the water taxi, its a blatantly obvious shape, and it didnt begin operation until a year after 9/11.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
The BBC, the so called bastion of independent reporting, has been busted doing it so many times it isn't even funny any more


When has the BBC faked a video in that sense? They may have inserted images of presenters nodding or screwed up the odd phone vote, but I don't think you'll be able to show me good evidence that they have specifically fabricated stories with video evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join