reply to post by lunarasparagus
You know you may be right, my characterization of the clips i.e. 'lousy' and 'sucks' may have been too much simplistic sweeping generalizations of
what I perceived your take to be and not at all specifically what you described them as, this I concede.
I'll be sure to watch that in the future, that over generalizing leap etc.
My impression though, from your '2 cents' point which I got earlier and which was reinforced by your later examples, I tended to view at the time
(last week) as an attempt at 'prediscounting'.
In that claiming that the various 'technical difficulties' (resolution, artifacts, blur, distance etc. The Naudet clip being filmed further away
resulting in much less detail etc.) obviously make discerning 'evidence' from the available footage more difficult. (Which I agree with, more
difficult, but not impossible, as I clarified, and to which you seem to agree.)
And therefore, as a result, though not stating directly, such arguments were soon to be levied against my primary focus of late, that being that one
screen shot frame of the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' seen in my killer avatar pic slide show above left. (That I made myself with Irfanview and
Microsoft Gif Animator.)
This of course remains to be seen.
But allow me to now make the prediction, that when we do get to analyzing this particular screen shot something akin to that argument is likely to be
made. I'm just guessing. Just taking the old college try shot in the dark here.
Also, I'm not so concerned with the second hit, referenced in your indistinct/distinct detail example.
That is YET. I know you included that shot of the second 'plane' to illustrate the level of detail and certain problems with the video record, but
in doing so it was looked upon by me (Jaded as I am and on ATS too long) as a sort of 'preamble to discounting' to include it when my primary
concern is that of a frame or a few frames of a 9/11 video clip but, as it turns out, of actually another 9/11 clip of another different 'plane'
Though I do find it curious that you would include a blow up screen shot of the Naudet clip right at the time I indicate something funny is going on
with the particular frame in relation to the "official story" and yet you never gave it a serious go but rather a mere hint having to do with
distance and lack of detail etc.
Hey it pays to be jaded, there's a real lack of surprise.
I leaped to characterizing your stance, and it meaning 'impossible' (to garner evidence) perhaps somewhat hastily.
And so I appreciate your clarification. Of course I must confess that I expected such a clarification due to the fact that your position cannot be
that all the difficulties mean we can't derive any proper evidence from the available materials for then how could anyone, even the 'hustled
masses', see anything in it to even back up the OS as it is and was presented to all of us?
This is in part why I like the Naudet screen shot evidence. It's an official video.
Not only that, the screen shot I used where you can clearly see the damning anomaly I discovered is not even from a very good resolution clip.
I've since gotten the best video of the Naudet clip available and the same thing very clearly appears on it.
So no one from the OS side, no 'debunker' can come along and say like: "Well, that's interesting what you point out about the wing bump thing but
maybe the video is faked and that bump isn't really there anyway - ever think of that!" What? You mean Naudet faked his video!! lol
My God, and they claimed they shot that whole sequence in one take. Amazing.
I have a lot more to say about all this but we're like way off the Hall subject by now and I plan on starting my very first thread ever on ATS on
this very Naudet anomaly (plus I have ideas for 4 more solid threads all 9/11 related but all very different that I'm collecting evidence on and
writing up as well) so I'd like to just stop discussing it in here and take up more specifics in the new thread if you don't mind.
Just so you know I personally don't think evidence is only in the details. Or that if I casually say a video is 'lousy' that by that I mean
therefore no good evidence can be derived from the viewing of it.
Quite the contrary.