Friday, November 7, 2008

The $100,000 Fred BS Video Compositing Challenge

Understanding the capabilities, the limitations, and the potential pitfalls of video compositing is a key to solving 9/11. One application is to the molten metal videotaped pouring out of WTC2 just before the whole building exploded into powder.

It is not currently possible to RELIABLY motion track a wobbly, tilting, panning camera shot, in REAL-TIME, so as to composite in a stream of molten metal and make it convincingly appear to flow out of a window, fall down, and occasionally splash onto the side of the building. This describes an ABC news video taken at around 10:27 AM on 9/11. The molten metal is very real, and is one of the huge mistakes made by the perpetrators. Molten metal was not supposed to pour out of the building, and we were certainly not supposed to see it.

An anonymous internet personality known as "Fred BS Registration" or simply "Fred" is the creator of a series of 9/11 videos called "9/11 Octopus". As a logo, Fred's videos sometimes feature the Hezarkhani airplane shot with the sky keyed out to reveal an octopus, so Fred obviously knows about video compositing. Recently Fred has offered his opinion about the feasibility of real-time motion tracking a flow of molten metal. Says Fred:

I do know for sure that Ace tells malicious lies, because he's lied about me on numerous occasions. Ace's claims about being a "video expert" are demonstrably false. His assertion that a molten metal video has to be real because of the impossibility of compositing onto a hand-held camera shot reveal him to be either clueless, or deliberately untruthful.

-Fred BS Registration


I hereby challenge Fred to back up his statements. If Fred will come forward, and, using the software of his choice, demonstrate a real-time motion track comparable to what would have been required to convincingly fake the ABC 9/11 molten metal video, I will pay him $100,000.

If Fred is interested, we can negotiate the details. I suggest making a stream of water appear to cascade off a roof, fall down, and occasionally splash against the side of the building. This would need to be created by compositing together a water stream, and a titling, panning, hand held shot of a building. Fred would need to show that no motion track data were entered into the software prior to the real-time demonstration.

I warrant that I have a line of credit in excess of $100,000.


Anonymous said...

LOL and once again, nobody will take the challenge.



Anonymous said...

For God sake! They did a terrible job with the "holograms" on CNN in this November 5th 2008 (using numerous cameras, and matching the camera movements). The "holograms" couldn't stay correctly in place...

How in the would would they do it right with a liquid falling from a building 7 years ago?

Anonymous said...

And another $100K challenge from the man with bottomless pockets... That's $100,000 for John Hutchinson to prove his theory, $100,000 for release of Chopper 5 footage and now this....

Ace, why don't you do something useful with all the bundles of cash you have? Like mounting a legal challenge to the official story using you OWN research?

Why not eh? Seems like a much better use of your endless resources.

Ace Baker said...

I don't have "bundles of cash", and never claimed to. I do have a line of credit. I have no expectation of paying out the $100,000 to any of the challenged. I am very confident I am correct on these issues, that's why I'm willing to offer the challenges. It's a way of proving a negative:

John Hutchison cannot levitate a steel wrench.
WNYW will not release broadcast quality Chopper 5.
Fred BS Regisration will not reveal his identity, and cannot do real-time compositing on a wiggly shot.

Even if I did have "bundles of cash", I would not "mount a legal challenge". In case you are unfamiliar with some of my other work, I don't believe in the U.S. so-called "Constitution". There is no justice system, only a power system.

Witness the "legal challenge" brought by Morgan Reynolds. Thrown out of court. No discovery. No trial.

Of course, it might have been interesting if the kindly Dr. Reynolds would have sued the guys who actually did it, e,g,. FOX and CNN, or if he would have brought some evidence like the GODDAMN CHOPPER 5 VIDEO THAT'S MISSING A PLANE AND HAS THE NOSE COMING OUT OF THE BUILDING.

But based on my past experience as both a plaintiff and a defendant, I doubt it would have made any difference.

spooked said...

I thought Fred was Fred Smart, an acquaintance of Webfairy. I was pretty sure Fred and BSRegistration were the same people intially, but then it seemed as if they started being different.

Found this:

Anyway-- couldn't this have been done with FCS????
(smiley face)

Onebornfree said...

Ace, a quick , partly irrelevant question regarding Morgan Reynolds if you don't mind.

I assume you know Mr Reynolds personally and that he is a sometime writer/contributor for Lew Rockwell's site.

My question, if you know the answer : why has he not written an article directly presenting the evidence for video fakery /NPT on 911 for Rockwell -it would seem like a good place for exposure? [ a thought- maybe he has and it was rejected as being to controversial?]

Anonymous said...

Offtopic, but Ace, could you provide a link to your "Psy-Opera" on your sidebar? I'd like to send it to a few people.