Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Thoughts on Apollo Video Fakery

I'm suspicious that they faked the Apollo moon landings, as are many others. The lunar lander blast-off appears quite fake. There's no rocket flame visible, allegedly they used some type of fuel that burns perfectly transparent. More likely is that they were indoors on a large movie set, and the smoke would diffuse into the air, thus spoiling the whole "no air" effect.

Also, the motion of the lunar module blasting off from the moon appears to be consistent with being on a cable. It goes up, and swings to the left, then begins to swing back to the right again. This pendulum-like motion seems unlikely for a real spacecraft.

I'm trying to imagine faking moon videos myself. How would I do it?: What problems would I have?

Moon has no air, and 1/6 gravity of earth. Motion is a big problem. While basic human movements will be the same on the moon, falling objects will behave differently. On the moon, the time it would take an object to fall from, say, 5 feet is about twice the time it would take on earth. Could I shoot video at twice the frame rate, and play it back at the regular frame rate? Yes, this would create 1/2 speed slow motion, but would not be exactly correct. 1/2 speed falling objects would appear to begin falling too slowly, then would finish up falling too quickly, compared to a real falling object on the moon. But the difference would be subtle to the eye, but measurable.

If regular broadcast video is shot, I would fear someone taking measurements of falling objects, frame by frame. I would seek some way to screw up the timing of the video frames, so that precise measurements become difficult or impossible. I have found a document that might possibly represent the solution to this problem that was devised by the actual Apollo video fakery crew.

"Apollo Color Television Subsystem Operation and Training Manual"

1 June 1971

In order to have a NTSC color frame from the sequential field inputs, there must be three (3) even color fields and three (3) odd color fields. The input fields to the disc from the tape machine are odd, even, odd, even, etc. Any three fields presented at the output of the disc, as a result of this will contain a wrong field, either two odds and one even or two evens and one odd. To correct this, the wrong field is converted by being delayed 1/2 line. Where there would be two odds and one even field, the even field is converted to odd, and where there would be two evens and one odd field, the odd field is converted to an even field. This process continues as the wheel continues to rotate.

The output of the color converter is fed into an encoder. The encoder completes the transformation to the NTSC standard.

Bolding mine. So in each field of video, part of the information is delayed. It could be the red, or the green, or the blue information. To make the types of measurements I'd like to, it would be necessary to figure out which color was delayed, on a frame by frame basis. This could be a nightmare.

Dynamic Duo - 2.27.08 Seg. 2

911 Amateur Part3New

Dynamic Duo - 2.27.08 Seg. 3

Hutchison Effect - Part 1

Stuff Wiggles and/or Falls Up.

Anti-Gravity Goop

Tesla's Dancing Screw

Dynamic Duo - 2.27.08 Seg. 4

Red Bull Can

Oops, you're supposed to crop out the string.

Originator of the Hutchison Effect?

Fred Astaire

"The Royal Wedding" 1952

Monday, February 18, 2008

Dynamic Duo Radio Interviews

Dynamic Duo is the radio show hosted by Scholars founder Jim Fetzer. I've been his guest several times.

mp3 - September 27, 2007 - Video Fakery
mp3 - December 18, 2007 - Video Fakery
mp3 - January 15, 2008 - Analysis of 9/11 news soundbites
mp3 - August 5, 2007 - Talk at Madison Scholars Conference

Saturday, February 16, 2008

$1000 Ryan Mackey Challenge

Ryan Mackey is a rocket scientist. He's a NASA engineer and staunch supporter of the official 9/11 story. He is "RMackey" on the JREF forum and has recently claimed victory for his side of the argument, supposedly based on the notion that nothing "new" has emerged from the truth movement in some time. In a recent JREF poll, Mackey spews:
In my experience, the other side hasn't contributed anything useful for a long, long time, essentially forfeiting the contest.

-Ryan Mackey

Plenty of new 9/11 research is coming out, especially in the area of video fakery, so Mackey's premise is false. Even accepting the notion that no new 9/11 truth claims have emerged recently, it's a complete fallacy to think this means the argument is over. How ridiculous! Copernicus, Galileo and Newton haven't contributed anything useful for a long, long time. Have they essentially forfeited the contest to the astrologers, the alchemists, and the Flat Earth Society? Please.

This is the same Ryan Mackey who claimed that my Chopper 5 velocity study did not make falsifiable predictions. Of course it does. My method predicts that in legitimate airplane videos, stabilizing the footage will stabilize the motion of the airplane. Further, my paper presents control cases to test the predictions.

In trying to discredit my analysis, and no-planes theory in general, Mackey offers this:

The [no-planes, video compositing] theory presented is not complete, because it does not describe how the attacks really were carried out (and leaves no readily apparent candidate), who did this, or why. We must treat this as an Anomaly or Artifact, and assign an initial plausibility score of 0.25.

The evidence presented in support of this theory is disputable on its face, and the theory makes no predictions, testable or otherwise. Methods of calculation are ad hoc and nonstandard, permitting no easy review. There are no positive adjustments. There are, however, several negative adjustments:

* The unsupported and exceptional assumption that video editing capabilities of this sophistication exist
* The assumption that all major news organizations are complicit in this plot
* The repeated refusal to address those who witnessed the impacts, rather than finding out about them through news organizations
* Repeated arguments from personal incredulity regarding the phenomenology of the collapses that eventually followed

Ryan Mackey is a NASA engineer, for crying out loud. He holds two patents. Is he really trying to convince us that video compositing doesn't exist? It not only exists, in my town, children learn video compositing at video camp. Mackey calls the existence of video compositing technology an "unsupported and exceptional assumption" ? Huh?

Mackey knows perfectly well that video compositing exists, and he knows perfectly well that my velocity study yields falsifiable predictions. When I began pointing this out to Mackey, right around the time I spoke at the Madison Scholars conference, I was immediately and permanently banned from the JREF forum.

All this came long after I had repeatedly challenged the esteemed rocket scientist to a debate. I repeat the challenge. Ryan Mackey, if you will debate me on 9/11 planes, I will pay you $1000. You can keep the money, donate it to your favorite charity, or whatever. Mackey lives in the greater Los Angeles area, as do I.

My only stipulations are that the debate be video taped, and that I be allowed to present photo and video evidence. I'm not holding my breath. I think what I've always thought. Mackey is scared to death of a one on one debate. He knows he's lying and defending mass-murderers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Social Service Wrong (Again)

Much has been wondered about the very strange Evan Fairbanks video. Simon Shack aka "Social Service", who is the creator of the September Clues series of videos, has given us:

911 Amateur Part3New

I have long been quite curious about the reflection of the towers and the airplane seen in a windshield near the bottom of the picture. This reflection was covered up by logo graphics in several airings of the clip, and cropped out completely in others. Reflections in windshields are a little tricky to composite, because windshields are curved. The reflected image also has to be curved.

Lately, I have been unable to find a version of Fairbanks which shows the reflection. I seem to remember a version in which the plane path is straight, and I've commented about it on the Dynamice Duo radio program with Jim Fetzer. However, the version Shack now offers does have the reflection, and the path is curved.

In 911 Amateur, Shack is suggesting that the entire reflection was put in, and that the perpetrators screwed up in doing so. Says Shack:

"The frontal view of a windshield will NOT allow to observe objects behind a car"

That's wrong. Go try it yourself, as Shack suggests. If you're fairly close to the ground, you will absolutely see objects above and behind the car. The Fairbanks reflection in the car windshield is 100% real, except for the composited plane. The perpetrators would have never put a reflection in the windshield that didn't belong, how silly. The reflection of the towers was already there, so they had to put the plane in.

This is the best look I've had at the reflection. As I said, I'm unable to find this particular version in the archives. It does appear that they did a nice job of curving the reflection. Certainly do-able. I could do it. Hmmm.

I do remember seeing a version of Fairbanks where the plane path was not curved. Is my memory mistaken? Perhaps.
Hmmmm. I wonder where Simon got this ABC version.

So, here is a request to Simon Shack, or anyone: If you have a link to this ABC Connie Chung interview of Evan Fairbanks in which the Fairbanks footage is played naked, without a fig leaf graphic covering the reflection, please forward it to me.

In the meantime, I continue to wonder. The Fairbanks video is surely a fake, but not because there's a reflection in a windshield. If earlier versions have a STRAIGHT airplane, THAT would be a smoking gun. But the real dead giveaway in Fairbanks was spelled out by Fairbanks himself:

"It disappeared like a bad special effect"

-Evan Fairbanks

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Questions for 9/11 Plane Theorists

1. Why was the Chopper 5 footage never replayed, despite it being very dramatic footage of history's defining moment?

2. Why did WNYW delete the Chopper 5 footage from the archives? I realize you are not WNYW, but why would they? No answers have emerged at all for this one, so you plane theorists need to get busy.

3. Will you take the nose out challenge? Your position is that the "dust explosion" does not look like the nose, my position is that they are indistinguishable. The challenge is as follows. You will be presented with 6 pictures, labeled a-f. Each one will be a cropping from a different frame of the Chopper 5 video. At least two will be of the airplane nose before "impact", at least two will be of the "dust explosion", and the other two could be either. All will be enlarged by the exact same amount. No other processing will be done to the images.

The enlarged version is here.

Your task is to identify which are noses, and which are dust explosions. This is a scientific test. If the noses are distinguishable, then distinguish them. If they are not, then admit they are not.

4. Why did the "Park Foreman" video 1st appear as a series of only 3 frames?

5. Can you please give me a mechanical explanation of when the plane-shaped hole in the south face of the south tower occurred? Studying the ghostplane video, it is apparent that the hole is not visible after the wings of the airplane have already passed into the building. A subsequent frame, from the same video, at a wider zoom, shows the hole quite clearly. Therefore we know that if the hole existed at the time of the plane insertion, it would be visible.

The enlarged version the ghostplane sequence is here.

6. Is it your position that some other aircraft besides UA175 hit the south tower? Clearly the bottom of ghostplane is gray, not blue. The bottom of a UA airplane is blue. The rest of the video shows very nice color - sky blue, tan buildings, red brick, green bushes and trees, so video color problems are ruled out. Can you at least state that UA175 did not hit the south tower?

7. Wake Vortex. Fixed wing aircraft generate strong tornado-like vortices behind each wing. These are stable phenomena, and can persist for minutes, which is why even the busiest airports only land one plane every few minutes. No wake vortex is seen in either of the 9/11 "airplane crash" fireball explosions, despite the fact that the smoke and debris are directly in the "flight path" within just a few seconds.

Here are examples where either smoke or clouds allowed wake vortex to be photographed.

Here is some background research on wake vortex.

Here is the Wikipedia article on wake vortex.

Below is the WTC1 explosion from the Naudet video.

An enlarged version is here.

If there were real planes at the WTC, why do we see no vortex in either of the twin tower explosions?

What Plane?

Click image for enlarged version

This gif was made from Eric Salter's DV copy of his VHS recording of the West Coast Chopper 5. The airplane was copied from later in the video when the airplane appears. It was resized to be less than 75% of the width of a tower. The towers were 208 feet wide, a Boeing 767 is 159 feet long, or 76% of the width of a tower.

What plane?

Correcting Mistakes in No-Planes Research

Nobody is perfect. Least of all me. At the Madison conference, I presented a lot of things, including some material from September Clues. One claim made in SC is that two particular shots are the same, and that one of them had the background removed. In fact, they are two decidedly different angles.

It's an easy mistake to make, during certain sections of the videos, because smoke obscures the rooflines of the towers. However, studying other moments of the same videos, when the smoke allows the rooflines to be seen, we can easily tell that they are different angles. I relied on Simon Shack, and trusted his work uncritically. I was wrong to do that. "ThoughtCrime" has also presented a similar claim. The following sequence should put this notion to rest I think.

click image to enlarge

Fred BSRegistration has also been very busy making similar claims. In this video for example, he says that the WNBC and a CNN shot are "the same shot, simply rotated and cropped differently". This gif clearly shows that they are not.

BSReg, Webfairy, Killtown and many others were also quite hot on the idea that the Greenwich Residences at 19 Rector Street was missing from the Hezarkhani "ghostplane" video. It was offered that in the 3D Microsoft Virtual Earth, 19 Rector Street was accidentally rendered as 2D. I trusted this research also, until i just went and looked for myself. I stabilized the ghostplane video, and found 19 Rector right away, right behind a wiggly tree.

I support continued research into every area of 9/11. We should leave no stone unturned. But we mustn't expect there to be too many more smoking guns. The perps would never have embarked on video fakery unless they thought they could do it very well. The #1 no-planes smoking gun is, and always has been, Chopper 5. There's no plane in the wide shot, the nose comes out, the motion of the plane is too unstable, and they fade to black.

The Hezarkhani ghostplane video is also very incriminating, but not because of any missing buildings. The problem with ghostplane is the complete lack of crash physics, and the lack of blue color on the bottom of the plane.

Pixel bleed, missing wings, animated skylines, shifting bridges, missing buildings, and FCS are all false leads. We all need to look critically at no-planes research. For plane huggers and OCTs, this means prying your head out of the sand and looking at Chopper 5 and ghostplane. For committed no-planers, it means having the courage to admit some mistakes and move forward.

The $1000 Mark Roberts Challenge

I've been round and round with Ron Wieck about possibly appearing on the Hardfire public access show in New York. Ron is a writer for American Thinker, frequent guest host of Hardfire, and outspoken supporter of the official 9/11 story. Last spring I was all set to appear debating Frank Greening, when Wieck pulled out. This came after I made it clear that I was going to show photos and videos.

"Outspoken supporter of the official 9/11 story" is putting it mildly for Mark Roberts, aka "Gravy" on the JREF forum. Though a mere "tour guide" by profession, Mr. Roberts is author of the foremost paper on the official WTC7 "collapse" theory, as we still await a final government report on the matter.

Roberts is also author of some 12,000 posts on the JREF forum, and has appeared several times on Hardfire, with the "Loose Change" filmmakers, and with Scholars for 9/11 Truth founder Jim Fetzer, Ph.D. Roberts has also been a fixture at ground zero, debating truthers on the street. He boasts of not backing down from debate.

But he has completely chickened out of a debate with me. I've repeatedly pestered him to do so, and (lacking evidence to support his position) has declined, accusing me of being mentally ill, and other ad-hominem attacks.

I've upped the stakes. I offer Mark Roberts, who lives in New York, $1000 to simply appear on the Hardfire show with me, and defend the 9/11 plane theory. $500 could go to his favorite charity, and $500 in his pocket. Or, he could give the whole $1000 to charity. Whatever.

Come Mr. Roberts. What is your favorite charity? I realize $500 or $1000 isn't all the money in the world, but it's something. Can you really not spare a couple hours of your time, especially since you claim no-planes is such a far-fetched idea?

Debate me. My only stipulations are that I get about half of the show, and that I am allowed to present photos and videos. I think you and Ron Wieck are deathly afraid of allowing the evidence to be seen. Now is your chance to prove me wrong.