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.

 

Will The Real Luc Courchesne Please Stand Up?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Is Luc Courchesne actually Jules Naudet?

To anyone who has not seen Leslie Raphael’s work, it can be found here:

frankresearch.info...

Per Raphael:


Step 1 : anyone interested in 9/11, no matter what your views on who did it, should already have a DVD copy of the film "9/11," directed by Jules and Gédéon Naudet and James Hanlon. If you think you're an expert on 9/11, but you don't have that film, you're not. Everyone who cares about what happened that day, and wants to find out the truth, should have a copy, and should have some familiarity with the film. If you're not prepared to spend a few dollars or pounds, or give up some of your time and make a bit of effort, stop reading now and go elsewhere, to put it politely. There is a version of the film posted on YouTube, but it is a different edit : this article is based on the DVD cut, and tells you exactly where to find all the stills and sequences under discussion. You could just take my word that what is shown here is in the DVD, and I have not faked or misrepresented anything, but having the original is better, and would help you follow my arguments. This is not an easy read, and I will not pretend otherwise : 9/11 is not an easy subject.


What does Mr. Raphael have to do with Luc Corchesne and Jules Naudet? Well, I took Raphael’s advice and bought the Naudet film to study, and in the process I found this interesting anomaly.

Here is the footage of Amateur photographer Luc Corchesne:

WMV:
ms.radio-canada.ca...

You can get a great AVI for it here on item 17:
www.911conspiracy.tv...

Note how there is a rainbow effect on the footage, also note the angle of the buildings flanking either side and the perspective to the towers. Corchesne caught the impact of flight 175, and his reaction was similar to that of both Gedeon and Jules Naudet’s reactions when they caught their impacts. They all panned away shortly after impact and then back again. But more than that, there’s the rainbow effect from the Naudet film which is clearly visible on the footage from Luc Corchesne. Is that a French name by the way?



Here is a still from the Naudet film at 29.17



Will The Real Luc Courchesne Please Stand Up?

edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Agreed, both photos are taken from very similar positions; just a few feet away, it would seem. Courchesne is indeed a French name. Common in Quebec, don't know how common it is in France or elsewhere, though.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
In my humble opinion..it's not the same picture taken a few feet away.. it is the same picture. Look at the clouds and the double exposure on the building.. exactly the same.. there are a few difference's but.. how could the same anomlies happen to 2 different pics? Again.. the double exposure on the buildings..etc.. this is awesome find..

Now remember.. I said in my *humble* opinion, I'm sooo not an expert..however:


edit on 24-3-2011 by tracehd1 because: add info



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 


Thanks, yeah...I'm pretty sure it's the same picture. One is cropped a bit it looks like. In the videos for both, you can see other anomalies too. The rainbows tipped me off...the Naudets spend a lot of time trying to appear amateurish in their movie, you know pretending to obsessively wipe his camera lens and appearing to have filtering problems. Problem was they're not that good at it...I think they're part of the B team.

edit...by "same picture", I should clarify to say the same guy took the pictures. I couldn't match the smoke when i went frame by frame through the footage, so they're not identical shots, but I think they're taken from the same footage.
edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


and what's really weird... *I've been looking and studying the pics still* the clouds between the buildings are almost identical but color! light, darker... anyways.. what's werid.. if it is the same pic.. 1 has a plane and the other doesn't.. but then.. that's probably your point... I'm slow on the upTic sometimes..hahaha again...this is soo interesting..

Isn't there a program that you can put the pics into and get all the info from the pics? Of course if someone wanted to hide something I'm sure they would know to change the info...............if one could do that???

Ps.. Ok.. slap me.. this was a video taken by 2 different people..not a pic.. but still.. I get your point.. being video makes it worse.. your point is right on spot..



edit on 24-3-2011 by tracehd1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 


I know, right? It's tough on a guy's sleep habits when you get started...

If you don't have the Naudet film, get it! It is so a must have...at least read Appendix 4 in the Raphael piece I linked above.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Please read my PS on my other post. I'm sorry I missed that...I get upset at people that jump in with 2 feet without looking at ALL the facts... I did just that... boo to me.

However and as I stated in the PS.. knowing it's video makes your point even more. 2 different people, 2 different cameras.. they're at the same place same time, little difference's ?? wowo.. I'm catching on now? right? lol sorry again..



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 


No worries.

This means the Naudets were in position to catch not only the first strike of Flight 11, but they both caught Flight 175 from different angles. That's some pretty remarkable luck those dudes have.

Here's the way it worked...Gedeon was out in the street filming the crowd so he could catch this shot of the Flight 175:



Meanwhile, Jules stole away from the fire department and filmed Luc Courchesne's shot from another angle. They simply didn't include it in their film, instead they released it later under the name of another Frenchman. These b@stards are laughing at us.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Note how there is a rainbow effect on the footage

Originally posted by Yankee451
there’s the rainbow effect from the Naudet film

Originally posted by Yankee451
The rainbows tipped me off

You sure are fixated on that "rainbow" aren't ya? Have you ever owned any VCR's or VHS Camera recorders? I doubt you have much experience with either, because if you had any reasonable amount of experience, you would know that "rainbow" effect is normal and one of the most notable of VHS recorders.

That "rainbow" can happen when the tape becomes worn, when the recording heads become dirty, or if the tracking is not aligned in the recorder.


Now here's what you did: You created a conspiracy, all while providing evidence to prove your conspiracy wrong!



Originally posted by Yankee451
I couldn't match the smoke when i went frame by frame through the footage, so they're not identical shots, but I think they're taken from the same footage.

This whole sentence is an oxymoron in and of itself. They're not identical shots, but taken from the same footage? Really?

Of course they're not identical shots. You can clearly see the differences in each shot. You can also see that one video was recorded with a VHS recorder, the other was likely not.

Why no-planers continue to make stuff up is beyond my comprehension.

Yankee, let the no-plane disinformation go. All it does is make you look ridiculously silly. If you like to make yourself look silly, carry on. If not, leave the no-plane garbage in the dust like the 9/11 truth movement did years ago.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
To me they look like they are from the same video recording.

Look at first picture and measure the distance from the top of the undamaged building to the top edge of the picture. Count the number of windows visible on the building to the left.

Now compare that to the bottom picture. Smaller distance and fewer windows.

My conclusion is same video with the bottom picture being zoomed in slightly.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 

Seems like it's been added to the DVD. If you go and look at the original broadcast (it's on Google Video in various shapes and forms), it goes from Jules being in the lobby with the FDNY to Gedeon being back at the firehouse with Tony. It then follows Gedeon out on the street and have him filming the impact from the opposite angle of the still.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's merely added footage from another source, quite possibly from Luc Courchesne. Especially as we know that Jules was under strict orders to stay with Chief Pfeifer, and we know that Gedeon was at the firehouse / on the street north of the towers.

ETA: Forgot to add, my DVD doesn't have the rainbow effect on the shot from south of the towers.
edit on 24-3-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


I'm using the Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition, released in 2002.

I went over the Luc Courchesne WMV, and although it's really small and hard to see, it appears the footage in the Naudet DVD was pulled from early in the Courchesne footage.

The Naudet's footage was released in 2002, but the Courchesne footage doesn't appear to have been released until 2004, although that's not cast in stone. That's when the CBC aired it. However, note the quality of the footage in the Naudet film as compared to the WMV file. If the CBC version had the full footage, I could get a better screen shot of it to compare.

Compare the little whisp highlighted below:






By the way, like many of the amateur photographers, Luc is another 3D animator. His work can be found here:

www.youtube.com...





edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." — Noam Chomsky


I understand your concern. The 911 psyops groups of the faux truth movement require we study the correct conspiracy, the "acceptable" one within the strictly limited spectrum of opinion.

Read my signature.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
When are we going to get it. Most/all 9/11 footage released was computer generated
imagery and does not represent the reality of the day. There are buckets of examples of
skilled photographers who happen to capture very similar shots from very similar
positions. Co-incidence, i think not. All shots generated are part of the same software
matrix and attributed to different (some non-existent) individuals.
9/11 was a huge hoax with no terrorists, no planes and few if any victims,
the lie being sold to the public by a complicit sold-out main stream media.

www.septemberclues.info



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 




I emailed Simon asking if he'd consider doing a graphic representation of this thread I was working on:

letsrollforums.com...

The damage fits nicely to the theory but he dismissed it out of hand. He claims the EMP would kill all video or photos taken and that Manhattan was evacuated. I asked him if he thought the EMP weapons would also kill analog cameras, but I never got a reply. I don't think the EMP would affect non electronic cameras but I really don't know, so I think we need to take some of what Simon says with a grain of salt.

September clues is a great resource for examples of the fakery, but I think Shack is purposefully making false claims now in an effort to cast doubt on his own work. Could be just me though.

Just saying.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
When are we going to get it. Most/all 9/11 footage released was computer generated
imagery and does not represent the reality of the day. There are buckets of examples of
skilled photographers who happen to capture very similar shots from very similar
positions. Co-incidence, i think not. All shots generated are part of the same software
matrix and attributed to different (some non-existent) individuals.
9/11 was a huge hoax with no terrorists, no planes and few if any victims,
the lie being sold to the public by a complicit sold-out main stream media.

www.septemberclues.info


Yes, how stupid of us all. How could photographs taken of the same thing at the same time possibly look similar? That you for point that out septemberclueless.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
www.septemberclues.info

Anything and everything "September Clueless" has been thoroughly debunked here:

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign




Originally posted by Yankee451
letsrollforums.com...

Another link to a website where blatant and purposeful disinformation is deliberately created...



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Care to comment on the near precise match of Naudet's footage and Courchesne's? If you have the Naudet Fimakers' edition, you can compare it to the Courchesne video yourself and comment.

Note the screen captures above.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   


I don't think the EMP would affect non electronic cameras but I really don't know, so I think we need to take some of what Simon says with a grain of salt.


Almost all cameras in 2001 had electronics and would be affected by an EMP. Even the old Minolta SLR I bought in 1978 had electronic metering.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Thanks. I refer to September clues too, but I still try to be cautious about my sources.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join