"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

[Ailurophile]

Well folks,

The year is coming to an end - and it seems the many aspiring SC debunkers infesting the interwebs have all left to planet Mars...
This "Debunk a September Clue" thread has been a resounding success - or a total failure (depending on which side of the truth you're on!). I haven't seen one single serious counter-argument to the facts exposed here - and if that sounds too much of an optimistic statement, let me know your thoughts.
In any case, it looks like it's been - for some individuals - a year packed with enlightenment and discovery, even for the sim-researchers !

Youtube message to Simon Shack - from "Dr Judy Wood" - MARCH 2010


...and nine months on...

Youtube message to Simon Shack - from "Dr Judy Wood" - DECEMBER 2010


Now that's what I call progress !

This is brilliant! Her "resurch" is great Simon, shame on you.

[simonshack]

ADMIN NOTICE:
The 3 last posts of this thread (by bware59 / reel.deal / and Heiwa) have been moved to this more appropriate topic:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 7&start=15

[maiklasLTU]

Hello everyone and Merry Christmas . This is my first post in this forum. (16 year old from Lithuania). I just wanted to ask about the Naudet "jumping buildings". Could this be only a compression artifact, such as this: http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/V ... ction.html ?
If no, then can you please explain why?

[simonshack]

Hi Maiklas - and season's greetings to you too.

This is the gif that you linked to:



Let's first compare it to the phenomena observed in the Naudet video:


Here is a cropped view of the building at right:


And here is, most importantly, the same video-segment extracted directly from the DVD of the Naudet's movie "911" (which should be available in your local video store): http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF ... quake1.wmv Please download it and watch it at leisure in your video player.

Yes, that short clip has of course been through a .wmv conversion, so you have only 2 options: 1.Take my word for the fact that it's not significantly different from the original DVD source material. 2. Go and buy the DVD (I think it's still available for purchase on the internet too), upload it to your video editor and check it out for yourself. For now, please download this clip which certainly has 'suffered' less downgrading than the .gif file above.

You may know that this phenomena seen in the Naudet video is by no means the only problem with their "AA11 first WTC hit" footage. But since your specific query has to do with this 'wobbling' effect, let's stick with this issue right now. So firstly, there is no reason to believe that the original video material has undergone the sort of noise reduction mentioned in the article you linked to. As far as we know, the Naudet DVD is the result of professional video tape converted into DVD format at top quality. Secondly, if - for some reason - the Naudet 's source material had some inherent, random defects, we would observe similar 'wobbling' effects elsewhere in their 129min movie - which is not the case (and there's no shortage of motion views with buildings in their film). Thirdly, and to get back to your linked article, the Naudet phenomena affects a wide range of areas in the frame (entire 'blocks' of buildings/color zones) and appears quite different from the example you linked to, where we only have a distinct, white pixel area (the white sliver of window) 'bobbing' in realtion to adjacent, much darker pixels.

In conclusion, the Naudet 'phenomena' cannot be explained - neither technically nor visually - by the noise reduction artifacts described in the article you linked to.

[maiklasLTU]

Thank you for taking your time to reply, I really aprreciate it

[brainsandgravy]

THE RESTLESS VERRAZANO BRIDGE

This used to be a favorite of the hard-workin' debunkers, back in the old days...
They just loved to talk about "parallax" and "lens distortion" and fancy terms that made them sound like smart & knowledgeable professional photo pros...
They sure made me work hard for my "money"...heheh! The early September Clues already featured comparisons such as these:



This split-screen shot was actually aired on the BBC just as you see it! :



One fine day, I found a chopper view from a REAL (pre-2001) camera:

The bridge as seen on the History Channel_________The bridge (7.5 miles away) as seen by a REAL camera



So today's challenge (N°23) is :


Does the Verrazano bridge seen on TV look real to you? If so, please hire a NY sightseeing chopper and prove it with any lens of your choice!

It's all about distance. The farther away you are from BOTH objects--the more their relative sizes will change visually. Objects closer to you will visually shrink faster than more distant (background)objects as you move away. If you then zoom in with a camera--the background objects will appear relatively "bigger" than if from a closer position.


These photos are the work of photographer Kevin Willey. See his website for more information on perspective distortion: http://www.kevinwilley.com/l3_topic04...

The truck (and obviously the barn) were never moved for this series of photographs. They both remained in the exact same location. Distance and lenses with different focal lengths are all that were used to achieve this effect.

"The relationship between an object in the foreground and an object in the background is called perspective. Because telephoto lenses can compress the distance between a foreground and background object, and have a very small field of view (narrow picture angle), they can drastically alter our perspective in a photograph. Even when the objects in a scene do not move, a photographer can use a wide angle lens to show a background object as distant and small, or a telephoto lens to show a background object as near and towering."

[simonshack]

Brainsandgravy,

Please tell us which of these two shots were taken with a telephoto lens - and which was taken with a wide angle lens. As you must know, for your thesis to be true, two wholly different lenses had to be used:



Next, tell us how you figure that these identical moments in time were filmed - from a similar point of view - by two TV choppers (supposedly equipped with different lenses, according to your thesis).

[XxCeltics34xX]

One fine day, I found a chopper view from a REAL (pre-2001) camera:

The bridge as seen on the History Channel_________The bridge (7.5 miles away) as seen by a REAL camera






It's all about distance. The farther away you are from BOTH objects--the more their relative sizes will change visually. Objects closer to you will visually shrink faster than more distant (background)objects as you move away. If you then zoom in with a camera--the background objects will appear relatively "bigger" than if from a closer position.



If you were to turn the "real" picture on the right to match the angle on the left, the bridge would be on the left side pretty much. Can a lens move stuff at 90 degree angles?

[brainsandgravy]

**********Win a free ride on the next NASA mission to planet Mars**********

"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"

And today's clue for allcomers to debunk is... :


7 LAST SECONDS COMPARED

Here, two different (in)famous videos are compared: they supposedly portray the last 7 seconds of "FLIGHT175" as it slams into WTC2.




So today's challenge (N°5) is...

Please explain:
- Why the 2 trajectories seem to be different (one always level/the other always descending)
- If you assert that it is just an optical illusion "due to the different angles of view",
provide scientific demonstrations (optics/or trigonometrics) to back up your claim.

I believe a researcher pseudo-named "achimspok" did an extraordinary job demonstrating a consistent flight path using trigonometry to triangulate camera positions and plot the planes position in space an time by comparing various clips from different camera angles filmed at the same times. His work can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

and a refined version here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K-WjsHa_2k

[simonshack]

Brainsandgravy,

Please respond to my questions above before making further posts, thanks.

[brainsandgravy]

If you were to turn the "real" picture on the right to match the angle on the left, the bridge would be on the left side pretty much. Can a lens move stuff at 90 degree angles?

I'm only referring to the visual size of the bridge relative to the towers. Making the bridge "move" should be a simpler concept. Drop the camera down and move it to the left until the towers line up with the center of the bridge. Back up four miles and then zoom in. Voila.

[brainsandgravy]

Brainsandgravy,

Please respond to my questions above before making further posts, thanks.

It's not about lens--it's about distance. The relative size of the bridge to the towers (visually) depends on how far one is from both objects. Obviously with a zoom lens you can adjust the focal length where you need it to get the desired shot.

[simonshack]

It's not about lens--it's about distance. The relative size of the bridge to the towers (visually) depends on how far one is from both objects. Obviously with a zoom lens you can adjust the focal length where you need it to get the desired shot.

Oh, I see. So would you say that the two shots (aired side by side by the BBC) were captured :

1: By two TV choppers coincidentally positioned on the same axis but one further away from the other?

or

2: By the same TV chopper speeding towards (or away from) the towers and adjusting the focal length accordingly?

[brainsandgravy]

It's not about lens--it's about distance. The relative size of the bridge to the towers (visually) depends on how far one is from both objects. Obviously with a zoom lens you can adjust the focal length where you need it to get the desired shot.

Oh, I see. So would you say that the two shots (aired side by side by the BBC) were captured :

1: By two TV choppers coincidentally positioned on the same axis but one further away from the other?

or

2: By the same TV chopper speeding towards (or away from) the towers and adjusting the focal length accordingly?

I would say--two choppers at different distances and similar but different vertical and horizontal angles as evidenced by the parallax with WTC7. You believe this is not possible?

[rhdpre]

Google traslate:

I was surprised at this frame (New versión September Clues part 6, min G), which makes a comparison of two different runs:





If you look at the making of the left, the shadow cast by the ball of the blast, in the other tower, "converge"(the trickle) with the shadow of the buildings proyec ..... but in making your right there is no discernible shadow !!!!!!

The angle of the shadow of the "trickle" from the building, nor is it that fits .....