Australian Embassy bombing video - Why better quality than Pentagon?

Here is a direct link to the video.It is being shown on TV in the video but cant find the file itself.But you will notice WMP on the TV set.
After watching it,I have to wonder.Why is the video so good?
I mean we got crappy video of the Pentagon and here is a clear fast frame video.
Does the Australian Embassy have better security cameras than the Pentagon?
bbr.aol7.com.au...

It is a conspiracy, Aussie gov't did it to themselves and videotaped it for future reference.

Pentagon was 3 years ago, Aussie bombing video was almost yesterday. I suppose after 9-11 everyone updated their security, including their cams, to make sure they wouldn't go through the same thing over.

I dont think video security has changed all that much in the last 10 years.
If you ask me,Petagon has shown us nothing more that a grocery store security cam.
And Im quite sure with all the advancement in GOV technology,they could have had better cams,,,,stealth bomber comes to mind.

Besides,security cam does not mean 5 frames per second junk.But that is what we got.
As for conspiracy,you bet I think it is.

Thanks for your input though

because the US govt is covering up the pentagon crash. that's why they won't release other videos from other cameras when the "plane" was flying to the building.

thanks,
drfunk

Originally posted by SMR
I dont think video security has changed all that much in the last 10 years.

Well now there's a qualified expert statement. links??

If you're going to make such a bold statement - at least do the rest of us the courtesy of backing up your statement with one shred of evidence. Of course video cameras and video surveillance cameras have improved over the past decade... and there has been a huge surge since 9-11 in surveillance cameras installed around the globe...

Credibility is more important than plausibility.

OOOOOOOOOOO......... I bet that felt good huh Catherder

Well now there's a qualified expert statement.

If you READ unlike you ALWAYS do,my statement was NOT fact,but rather a guess.
Let me show you since you seem to jump in HEAD FIRST all the time.

I dont think video security has changed all that much in the last 10 years.

For one,I dont see that as a BOLD statement,but rather my thinking,,,you get that,,,THINKING - not a factual statement like you want it to be.
And since I KNOW you didnt even READ all those links but rather skimmed over them,,,I will let you know something.

Not 1 of those links say anything about the quality of video changing in the past 10 years or so,,,oh Im sorry,I didnt clearify that good enough for you.Maybe I should have thought you would follow me into ANY thread just to try and one up me.
This is about the quality of the video.Is it not clear enough for you?
Look at the title. Australian Embassy bombing video - Why better quality than Pentagon? Can you see those words good?Here,I will make them BOLD for you.You like BOLD.Why better quality than Pentagon?
And here,here is more for you.I mean we got crappy video of the Pentagon and here is a clear fast frame video. QUALITY is the subject at hand here and you take it out of context like always.

Some people just try to hard only to fail,so sad

Originally posted by SMR
I dont think video security has changed all that much in the last 10 years.
..............

And what makes you think the pentagon cams were only 10 years old? Video has changed a great deal...search for mpeg2 and mpeg4. 3 years ago the probability is that they would be utilizing an mpeg2 stream (if relatively new) and the collection system would probably require less frames per second due to storage & transmission capability....that brings up the second point that as you know storage & transmissions mediums have made major strides in the last 10 years, heck storage & transmission mediums have made major strides in the last 3 years.

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by SMR
I dont think video security has changed all that much in the last 10 years.
..............

And what makes you think the pentagon cams were only 10 years old? Video has changed a great deal...search for mpeg2 and mpeg4. 3 years ago the probability is that they would be utilizing an mpeg2 stream (if relatively new) and the collection system would probably require less frames per second due to storage & transmission capability....that brings up the second point that as you know storage & transmissions mediums have made major strides in the last 10 years, heck storage & transmission mediums have made major strides in the last 3 years.

I would really hate to think with all the renovating they did before 9/11 that they left cameras from the 80's
You have to remember.This is the GOV and they have all the best equipment OUR money can buy.They dont use a security cam system from isle 10 at Wal-Mart

Im not harpin on your comment.You made a good point there.And you are very dead on with the storage & transmission mediums have made major strides in the last 3 years.
Infact,cant wait to get me the LaCie Bigger Disk - 1 terabyte capacity HDD Link,just incase

Originally posted by SMR
OOOOOOOOOOO.........

[blah blah blah rant rant]

If you're going to act like a little child in your posts, and not offer anything of substance I see no need to reply to you. Come back with something a touch over a grade 8 emotion and I'd be happy to carry on. But ranting and raving and turning posts into personal attacks and losing focus on the matter at hand serves no purpose other than to embarass yourself.

You know what.Your being the child here,not me.
Why do you insist on going into most threads I am and make comments on it.Your the child here.You do this to other people as well.If you call this a personal attack,then maybe we should look at all the posts you replied to me and see what we find.
You tried to stonewall me once and I shot you down.Try again,and I'll just report you to the proper people with links to posts.
Look at your reply in this thread.You say with sarcasm and I know it! quote: Well now there's a qualified expert statement.
You try and belittle everyone who doesnt have the same thoughts and opinions as you.Hell,you just did it again in the Pentagon thread.

You know what,,,Im jut gonna ignore you from here on out.Whatever comments,replies,whatever,Im not going to respond.Mock all you want,laugh it up,do whatever.
Your just text to me so I could care less.Nobody is better than anyone else on the interent.You seem to want to give that illusion to people here by your comments and so called findings in which most of it you dont even read.

Originally posted by SMR
I would really hate to think with all the renovating they did before 9/11 that they left cameras from the 80's

��������..They dont use a security cam system from isle 10 at Wal-Mart

���������..

I didn�t say that I thought they got them from isle 10. however, it has been widely reported that they were in the process of renovating that section�.
What that means is they were not done�anyone with experience in infrastructure type engineering knows that the very last systems/discipline to finish is communications/controls�.installation of communications normal starts just prior to inhabitation and ends usually well after�the reasons for this are that without the users present many communications systems cannot be �shook out.� Additionally, the size of this project would probably have force them to start comms/controls well after the other disciplines started; so it would not only be probable but likely that they had not even started the communications renovations in that section, but were still working on other sections. One of the reasons to schedule that way would be that you have less workers getting in each others way. So more than likely the system would have still been the previous system�beyond that the pentagon is an extremely large complex with an amazing array of cameras the level of information to be stored would be unreal so camera pics per sec would in all probability be dictated by storage and transmission. Also communications budgets being small in comparison to the overall project often get underfunded�although necessary they are usually the smallest budget and first cut. Additionally they are often not the focus of the project as the project management is usually much more concerned with the other disciplines; structural, mechanical, electrical, etc� all other disciplines also start digging first so that also helps to make comm an afterthought. and all of this is assuming that the decision was made that an operational system needed to be replaced....a decision that i in all probability would have been opposed. more than likely the money could go in a more important system....there must have been some serious requirements as far as backbone, etc.....



[edit on 12-9-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by SMR
You know what.Your being the child here,not me.
Why do you insist on going into most threads I am and make comments on it.Your the child here.You do this to other people as well.If you call this a personal attack,then maybe we should look at all the posts you replied to me and see what we find.
You tried to stonewall me once and I shot you down.Try again,and I'll just report you to the proper people with links to posts.
Look at your reply in this thread.You say with sarcasm and I know it! quote: Well now there's a qualified expert statement.
You try and belittle everyone who doesnt have the same thoughts and opinions as you.Hell,you just did it again in the Pentagon thread.

You know what,,,Im jut gonna ignore you from here on out.Whatever comments,replies,whatever,Im not going to respond.Mock all you want,laugh it up,do whatever.
Your just text to me so I could care less.Nobody is better than anyone else on the interent.You seem to want to give that illusion to people here by your comments and so called findings in which most of it you dont even read.

I rest my case...

Please, is there a moderator here who can review what this guy is going off about?? I don't like having to deal with immature posters on any forum, and I think it takes away from the value of ATS.

Soon as you show anything contrary to this person's posts he resorts to personal attacks and nonsense and doesn't stick to the facts.

[edit on 12-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Show me a personal attack.
You are the one who calls people stupid when they dont have your opinion.
You have completely hijacked this thread because your thoughts are not either agreed with,or you feel your being picked on.

Nuff said in this thread.

I dont understand why the video says copyright 2003.

Sigh... here, I'm happy to do your work for you.

Australia first to admit "we're part of global surveillance system"

Australian surveillance laws updated

Australian government uses Madrid bombings to justify further police-state powers

The Pilbara Regiment

Australia has been systematically upgrading and deploying surveillance cameras across their nation and at their embassies since they enacted laws allowing them more freedoms to do so. (read the pdf)

Go read them, and be sure to get back to us with your observations.


And not to be a "smarty pants" or anything: this goes to everyone else who reads this, if you want to find information that is more targeted at a country you are searching for information on/about, check on google to see what the correct engine to use is. Example: searching for Australian info: use google.com.au - searching for Canadian info: use google.ca (etc). Google really is the best engine to start with (no foolin).

[edit on 12-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I dont understand why the video says copyright 2003.

As I obliquely pointed out, communications systems dealing with security camera video are not given a very high priority. The training is haphazard and procedures are limited the important thing is to have some images�..so across the spectrum you will find the entire spectrum some old video very poorly maintained all the way to brand new video with great maintenance.

There have been advances in the cameras. Before it was mainly black & white and the footage was stored in tapes. Of course the more the tapes got used the worse the quality became. Then of course to maximize storage the cameras were run at a very low frame rate. Now with the production of massive harddrives you can store an incredible amount of video at a high frame rate before you have to recycle the space. But basically how you store the video has really changed it more than anything. Also with the footage from the security gate at the pentagon there is no need to have a high frame rate video. You want the video going fast enough to capture normal activity. That speed is fast enough to capture even the fastest moving cars & trucks. Why would anyone set their security cameras fast enough to capture a jet? That is just a monumental waste of space.

Why would anyone set their security cameras fast enough to capture a jet? That is just a monumental waste of space.

HUH
It's the Pentagon for crying out loud
Could you imagine if someone placed a bomb somewhere near there,and that slow rate cam only caught the 'boom'How would they know who to look for?
The chance at losing any information to any attack because they feel it is just a monumental waste of space is not what I would think the Pentagon is thinking.

In all honesty,I dont think that cam is a POS slow frame rate cam.I feel it is edited and important 'damaging' information is being left out.It is not hard to edit video and make it look like it is.

Originally posted by SMR
Could you imagine if someone placed a bomb somewhere near there,and that slow rate cam only caught the 'boom'How would they know who to look for?

Even at 5 pics per second I want to see�besides aircraft what you think could get into the viewable area and be detonated with out being captured in one of those frames.

Originally posted by SMR
The chance at losing any information to any attack because they feel it is just a monumental waste of space is not what I would think the Pentagon is thinking.

As I pointed out if the storage medium was the determinate factor then it would not matter what they would be thinking it would simply be a matter of what can we store.

SMR its actually not common to run security video at 30 frames per second. Any time you see surveylance footage its always jumpy. There has never been a need to run at such a high frame rate that you could capture a jet coming in at full speed. I'm not sure if you could have even made anything out if it ran at 30fps. At what point is it fast enough? You going to run it fast enough to capture a super sonic jet? They ran that camera at a proper speed. That is pretty much standard for footage. Actually if you compare it to things like bank cameras it did a darn good job.