"FALLING MAN" - the phony jumpers

[burlington]

Sorry Maat, I did look around and managed to miss the thread about the Falling Man. Should I re-post this there, and delete it here? I would like to see what I can make of the other photos in the series. I wonder if they are all photo-shopped using different shots of the original person (upright and not falling) and the head and torso of the person super-imposed via photoshop..

[Moved it here for you. Maat]

[IwasBettyOng]

Hi there,
I had the same thoughts as you. A while ago I too turned the photo upside-down and my immediate thought was of someone riding a bicycle. I also am very curious to know where Richard Drew was when he took this pic. Because to my untrained eye he was on the same level.

[SmokingGunII]

Hi Betty, pleased to see you are still with us!

Of course, only those associated with the MSM and Hollywood had prime positions to "film" the events of that day - all from elevated vantage points.

Steve Vigilante's video is even more curious. Shot from street level, he somehow managed to get a perspective of a "jumper" from above!

[simonshack]

sorry, smoke... those frames dont cut it...
they're lifted from this video which confirms the angles
are out due to the video being shot of the history channel
doc on an elevated angle looking down at the TV screen...

Well yeah - lol - that's just one of the three "JOE WONDER" shots (recorded from a TV screen):



THE JUMPERS - September Clues.info http://septemberclues.info/jumpers.htm

Never mind, Smokey - the shot is still a computer animation!

[burlington]

Ok, here I go, picking on the Falling Man again. I have done an experiement to show that the legs from this first shot, were taken from the famous shot. This time I've followed protocol and these shots are taken directly from the official falling man video on youtube. But the following images, that I worked with, were the ones posted earlier in the thread, which were verified when posted.

Turned so head is facing up -- no other alterations at all.





Now for my leg exchange experiment. I began by depriving Falling Man of his legs, and adding the other image for comparison. (I apologise for the quality. I used to have a wonderful, intuitive image editing program, and now I'm working with a frustrating program. I bascially used the magic wand tool, then copied and pasted body parts, so the edges are pixelly.)



Then I separated the legs and they changed places, left to right.



I added the missing foot the way the scammer did, on an incorrect angle, and then took part of the right leg to create the new left leg.



The original torso angle was changed, but you can still see a trace of the black t-shirt at the shoulder, and I think this fellow looks like he has a muzzle because there is another head behind his. The white hand has been coloured to look like his shirt, but still shows a bit.

[burlington]

Hi there,
I had the same thoughts as you. A while ago I too turned the photo upside-down and my immediate thought was of someone riding a bicycle. I also am very curious to know where Richard Drew was when he took this pic. Because to my untrained eye he was on the same level.

I agree with you that it was more likely a bicycle, and not a stool as I originally thought. The more I look at the bare white arm and hand in this shot, the more I can see that part of the wrist is blocked by something -- most likely bike handle. That would explain the reason his left foot couldn't be seen in the famous shot. In the other shots, his right foot was probably added to his left leg and altered slightly.

[IwasBettyOng]

I don't know if you have looked hard at the other 'jumpers'. I have and many of them look as though they are in martial art poses. Those which are just vague black silhouettes are exactly that IMO. If you type 'silhouettes' into Google images compare them to the crappy 'jumpers'.

But, back to the Falling Man. Don't you think he looks incredibly calm? No flailing arms and legs. The lighting seems to be wrong, he looks sort of highlighted. Definitely suspicious.

[MsQ]

Hi there,
I had the same thoughts as you. A while ago I too turned the photo upside-down and my immediate thought was of someone riding a bicycle. I also am very curious to know where Richard Drew was when he took this pic. Because to my untrained eye he was on the same level.

I agree with you that it was more likely a bicycle, and not a stool as I originally thought. The more I look at the bare white arm and hand in this shot, the more I can see that part of the wrist is blocked by something -- most likely bike handle. That would explain the reason his left foot couldn't be seen in the famous shot. In the other shots, his right foot was probably added to his left leg and altered slightly.

How about sitting on a railing?
Not the exact angle and pose obviously...

[nonhocapito]

Why are you guys assuming this is even a real person photoshopped? This is almost certain completely fake CGI, created with a software like Poser and inserted in the scene. There is no need to imagine the original pose of an actor when we have no reason to think there was an actor in the first place.

[MsQ]

Why are you guys assuming this is even a real person photoshopped? This is almost certain completely fake CGI, created with a software like Poser and inserted in the scene. There is no need to imagine the original pose of an actor when we have no reason to think there was an actor in the first place.

In that case, what an awful creation!
It's an odd pose to put someone in regardless. I've always found the photo strange and unnatural looking, though I never thought to question it before finding September Clues.

[Maat]

Why are you guys assuming this is even a real person photoshopped? This is almost certain completely fake CGI, created with a software like Poser and inserted in the scene. There is no need to imagine the original pose of an actor when we have no reason to think there was an actor in the first place.

Exactly, Nonho! I didn't think anyone interested in studying this part of the fakery would not realize that after reading this topic thread as I'd suggested

The controlled 'truther' influence of analyzing 9-11 toons as if real must take some a bit longer to shake off I guess.

[MsQ]

Why are you guys assuming this is even a real person photoshopped? This is almost certain completely fake CGI, created with a software like Poser and inserted in the scene. There is no need to imagine the original pose of an actor when we have no reason to think there was an actor in the first place.

Exactly, Nonho! I didn't think anyone interested in studying this part of the fakery would not realize that after reading this topic thread as I'd suggested

The controlled 'truther' influence of analyzing 9-11 toons as if real must take some a bit longer to shake off I guess.

I never thought there was an actor involved, and I'm not a truther

I'm glad Burlington made those couple of posts. Some of the other falling people pics are bad, but I can at least see that someone has attempted to make some of the shapes look roughly like falling people might look if they jumped from a building. Yet there has never been anything about how The Falling Man looks that really looks like a falling man. Not that it matters, but it's one of those small things which annoys me sometimes since finding out the pic is fake. Just why oh why did they make him have his arms by his sides and one knee raised?!
Now to me, it looks like they modelled his shape roughly on what it would look like if he were perched on the edge of a window. or window ledge about to / or in the process of stepping off. Why he would then be turned upside down I don't know, but I shall no longer look at The Falling Man thinking "WTF were you meant to be doing man!"

[Maat]

I never thought there was an actor involved, and I'm not a truther

I'm glad Burlington made those couple of posts. Some of the other falling people pics are bad, but I can at least see that someone has attempted to make some of the shapes look roughly like falling people might look if they jumped from a building. Yet there has never been anything about how The Falling Man looks that really looks like a falling man. Not that it matters, but it's one of those small things which annoys me sometimes since finding out the pic is fake. Just why oh why did they make him have his arms by his sides and one knee raised?!
Now to me, it looks like they modelled his shape roughly on what it would look like if he were perched on the edge of a window. or window ledge about to / or in the process of stepping off. Why he would then be turned upside down I don't know, but I shall no longer look at The Falling Man thinking "WTF were you meant to be doing man!"

Sorry MsQ, I wasn't trying to suggest anyone here is a "truther", I was actually referring to the 'truther' influence, which is very pervasive and what most 9-11 doubters encounter first when looking for answers.

I know what you mean about the "WTF" reaction to this one. Why they chose that particular image out of the ridiculous 'falling man' series for their "iconic photo" is anyone's guess viewtopic.php?p=2348886#p2348886
— maybe they thought it was the most "artistic" or least goofy looking of the lot
But, since we just don't have any visual reference for how such a thing would/should look if real, they probably knew they could get away with anything as long as they 'packaged' & 'sold' it just right

[burlington]

Why are you guys assuming this is even a real person photoshopped? This is almost certain completely fake CGI, created with a software like Poser and inserted in the scene.

The reason I believe he was photo-shopped is due to him having two right arms in the most famous photo. There's the arm that goes with the white shirted, dark skinned man, and then there's the white bare arm resting right behind it, as if the shirt and head were pasted (or drawn) over top of a white person in a black t-shirt.

(For some reason, viewing him on this angle makes it easier to really see that white arm.)

[fbenario]

The government's ability to superimpose faked images of people onto pictures of structures is now not only disclosed, but also used to make money. Nice.

Birthday Bash Planned for Bridge, But Will the Golden Gate Show?

The Iconic Span Gets So Much Fog Tourists Shell Out $20 for Sunny Photos

So the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, which manages bridge tourism, sold him on a sunnier alternative: For $20, a high-tech camera superimposed Mr. Fernandez and three friends onto a prerecorded image of the Golden Gate Bridge on a fog-free day.

"At least we got a shot on the bridge—even if it is not real," says Mr. Fernandez, 31 years old, who gives a thumbs-up in his fake-bridge photo.

The "Bridge Photo Experience"—a permanent attraction installed earlier this month in preparation for a big bridge birthday on Sunday—uses the same "green screen" technology that Hollywood employs to make superheroes fly and that television meteorologists use to point out weather patterns on maps.
...
On Monday, when the fog created a curtain of white, visitor services representative Corina Spencer stood on a viewing platform at the bridge's south side holding laminated examples of the photos tourists could be taking at the green screen just steps away. "It's always picture perfect," she says.

Tourists can opt for a straight-ahead vista view, as well as extreme simulations including being perched at the top of a tower or climbing the bridge's main cable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... d=ITP_AHED