Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SEPTEMBER CLUES (NEW) 911 video

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    DubTony wrote: »
    Leaving the "incontroversial flaw" aside, and based on your knowledge of video post production, can you explain the inaccuracies in the technical aspects.

    Although I haven't seen the video, can't watch it where I currently am, amn't a video expert and haven't worked in the industry, I'm going to take a stab at answering some of the questions.
    He seems to use the (I can't remember what he called them) "edges" as proof that the video was altered.

    The first thing I'd ask is what sources the guy is working from.

    Most of thse youtube productions tend to take the publically-available internet footage as their source. I've yet to see one where the author claims to have access to original-definition footage and makes high-quality (i.e. broadcast quality or higher) copies available.

    SO when someone starts on about video analysis, I'm immediately cautious as to what, exactly, they've analysed. If they're working from the internet versions, then it is somewhat equivalent to analysing a fax and arguing that because you can see pixellation or blurry edges, the signature on it has been altered. Of course its been altered...its been digitally scanned using a lossy algorithm.

    If you've ever tried using a program to re-encode DVD or handycam content to another format, you've probably encountered this yourself. Detail is lost. Some stuff looks perfect, and then suddenly some line has a "shadow",
    Moving bridges is another.
    Not sure what you mean here...I'd probably need to watch the video. If we'r etalking about physical bridges (that one uses to cross water) appearing to move up/down (i.e. vibrating), I'd go with it being a compression artefact. If you mean physical bridges appearing to be in different locations in "similar" camera angles, I'd argue that its evidence that the angles aren't as similar as they appear and that this is misdirection to get around that.

    If its some sort of technical term, and not physical bridges at all, then I'ignore what Ive just written.
    Similar camera angles effectively showing different descents of the plane.
    How "similar" are these angles?

    The reason I'm asking....in some movies you see a shot where the central image stays stationary (typically an actor's face) while the entire scenery seems to "zoom" around them. This is done by the camera being rushed towards or away from the actos, with the focus and zoom being adjusted in synch so that the actor's face remains the same, whilst everything else changes dramatically.

    My guess is that two cameras could be in similar positions, but different field of vision and zoom would create different effects as an object moved through the depth of the picture. Similarly, two cameras could produce images which look similar in terms of individual landmarks (like the tower the plane hits) despite being in significantly different locations). Here, movement through any dimensions (height, width and depth) will behave differently.
    A helicopter seemingly disappearing into thin air and seen on some camera angles and not on others.
    Here, again, I'd need to see the exact footage, but my guess would be that it is again going to be explained by the same two notions I've put forward...that apparently-similar camera angles aren't really as similar as one might think, and that image-compression could well cause an object to disappear. I know I've taken photo's with a digital camera where jets flying overhead weren't visible because they were smaller than would register on the resolution.
    I think this No Plane theory is a load of bunkum personally, but to a guy who knows nothing about the technical side of all this, any insight would be very welcome.

    For the record, the experience I'm using for my critique is as follows:

    1) My current efforts to put my DVD collection onto disk, in preparation to having it all to something like a Popcorn Hour or Apple TV box.
    2) Digital photography
    3) The occasional "How does Hollywood do that" show I can recall seeing in my youth
    4) A passing knowledge of 3-dimensional vector handling, from my background in mathematics.


  • Options
    #33
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    DubTony wrote: »
    Leaving the "incontroversial flaw" aside, and based on your knowledge of video post production, can you explain the inaccuracies in the technical aspects. He seems to use the (I can't remember what he called them) "edges" as proof that the video was altered. Moving bridges is another. Similar camera angles effectively showing different descents of the plane. A helicopter seemingly disappearing into thin air and seen on some camera angles and not on others.

    I think this No Plane theory is a load of bunkum personally, but to a guy who knows nothing about the technical side of all this, any insight would be very welcome.


    One of the "leading" minds behind this theory is Ace Baker. I've spoken to him online, and he admits he hasn't got access to the original source footage. NTSC runs at 525 lines of information a frame, running at approx 29.97 frames a second, you tube videos don't contain nearly that much information. The very act of putting it on youtube will mean that visual information will be lost, and blurred.

    The 2nd problem is that real time compositing software didn't exist in 2001.

    Furthermore, the uncompressed footage has been watched by tens of thousands of video editing experts in edit suites around the globe, while making news reports and documentaries.

    Finally



    Here's a hollywood visual effects artist explaining just how dumb this theory is.







    PS. Mahatma you've obviously been on this thread since we last spoke, how's finding those ten witnesses who claim to have seen a missile working out for ya?


  • Options
    #34
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    bumpage for Meglome

    this is the video I was discussin in the Other thread, te questions are here about a page back in some more detail

    AAAAAAANYWAY

    I'll seee if I can find a still of te bit I was talkin about later and I'll post that in the other thread aas that's where the main discussion is goin on


  • Options
    #35
    philiy
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭philiy


    Did anyone see the footage of the presidents aircraft being followed by a jet fighter flying around Manhatten over the last few days?

    That plane is a modified Boeing 747 with a wingspan of approx 60m and a lenght of approx 70m.

    The planes that hit the twin towers where Boeing 767s with approx wingspan of 48m and a lenght of 55m

    Not a huge difference in size between the two. The 767 is maybe 3/4 the size of a 747. But in the video of the 747 flying around new york it looked huge compared to the videos of the 767s flying into the twin towers. The 767s in the 911 videos look to be 1/2 to 1/4 the size of a 747.

    Just thought i wud bring this up


  • Options
    #36
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    I think that's just a case of it being closer. Even the jet fighter looks huge in the footage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    philiy
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭philiy


    Footage of the presidential aircraft from what looks to be on Manhatten Island while the aircraft flies over the Hudson. I dont think there is much difference in distances while this was being filmed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is3HhZlVrgo&feature=related


  • Options
    #38
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philiy wrote: »
    Footage of the presidential aircraft from what looks to be on Manhatten Island while the aircraft flies over the Hudson. I dont think there is much difference in distances while this was being filmed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is3HhZlVrgo&feature=related
    Most of the time there's no buildings to compare is size to and it seems to be zoomed in pretty far making it more difficult to judge it's size.
    But doesn't look out of the ordinary to me.


Advertisement