I agree as well. @FalseFlag - can you post a picture with some arrows pointing at the black dots you're referring to, or circle them or something like that.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
911myths on Mineta, Cheney and Clarke
- Thread starter MikeW
- Start date
I do believe there's something, probably an overlaid text or similar, right under the midline, and overlapping, the abc logo on the right in this original image (the blueish one).
The question remains, what does that prove beyond the fact that Cheney may have used his VCR recorder?
The question remains, what does that prove beyond the fact that Cheney may have used his VCR recorder?
Axxman300
Philosopher
If they were going to use a VCR, why not have the correct time on the screen when the picture is taken?
If you're going to stage a photo, why show the screen at all?
If you're going to use Photoshop to put an image, especially in the commission of a capital crime, why would you use a flawed image?
If you're going to stage a photo, why show the screen at all?
If you're going to use Photoshop to put an image, especially in the commission of a capital crime, why would you use a flawed image?
It doesn't prove anything conclusively. Like I said before, it's probably from the VCR, and it could have been easily explained away if it showed the time, or something similar. It would not matter if the time or channel was correct or not.
There would also be absolutely no reason whatsoever to edit the image.
The problem is if those black lines represent something that would conclusively prove a tape was being played. There are two black lines, and they could represent a time. That seems most logical. If the text was --:--, or 00:00 to 23:59, it could easily be explained away. No one would have any reason to suspect anything was wrong, even if the time was wrong. No one bothers setting the correct time on their VCR, so there is no reason to trust it. However, if that first number was 24 or higher, then it could not possibly be attributed to a time of day. It could only be the time of the tape that had been played, or the time remaining.
My suspicion is that they saw this and blurred it out. They should have just refused to release the image. They had no problem not releasing image two in this series, so they could have easily made image three the first image and pretended the first two never existed.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,941
For what it's worth, here is my own modest attempt at matching photo with video:
I generally use the videos on archive.org
https://archive.org/details/911/day...0_Live_With_Regis_and_Kelly/start/13:28:26UTC
at 0:35 clock jumps to 9:28
at 0:22 I took a screenshot of my best match - it's 9:28:47 on the ABC clock:
I downsized that, ritated 2.5°, removed some red, added noise, and blurred the image to simulate the out-of-focus'ness. To the left, the cropped TV screen fromn the photo, to the right my edited video screenshot:
I generally use the videos on archive.org
https://archive.org/details/911/day...0_Live_With_Regis_and_Kelly/start/13:28:26UTC
at 0:35 clock jumps to 9:28
at 0:22 I took a screenshot of my best match - it's 9:28:47 on the ABC clock:
I downsized that, ritated 2.5°, removed some red, added noise, and blurred the image to simulate the out-of-focus'ness. To the left, the cropped TV screen fromn the photo, to the right my edited video screenshot:
LOL... http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_tv.html
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/how-to-take-pictures-of-a-tv-screen-4781
http://www.urbanfox.tv/workbooks/sonyz1/z1shutter.htm
http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/Digital-Cameras/Digital-Photography-Hacks-11-82-89/3/
Based on the bar you could calculate the shutter speed.
http://www.halfhill.com/video.html
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8145/img0149dn.jpg
What 911 truth does not know, does not fill books, it fills libraries.
If they were up to no good, they would use a shutter speed of 1/15 of second to eliminate bars on the screen;;; which also makes no sense except to keep you from posting silly claims based on a bar because of shutter speed.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Your comparing a picture tube Ty with an Led digital screen, some one should explain to you, about
Electron gun scan line distortions or crawling black dots on non digital analog signal televisions.
They are common distortions on analog TVs. Your simply looking at a place where the picture is not displaying properly, do to being in anolog not digital.
This is amazing news a political figure too cheap to by a good modern TV.
This is, without a doubt, the craziest post I have ever read.
Are you actually trying to debunk my claim by stating that Cheney was recording the broadcast on 9-11-2001, and then at some point while the attacks were allegedly actually happening, he rewound the tape and played it again?
Are you [deleted] kidding me?
Do you realize that this would cause the entire timeline of these pictures to be called into question, which goes against their entire purpose of staging the pictures in the first place?
Your post belongs in the Hall of Fame of BS. Seriously, it's so absurd it boggles the mind.
Last edited:
Your excuses make me laugh.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Oh really you know that crawling black dots are a common signal distortion, in the old style
TVs.
Even a miss firing spark plug, or cop, coil on plug, on an automobile can cause such interference patterns.
What is your purpose for doing this? The black lines do not appear in the original broadcast. There is no disputing that fact. If the black lines are not in the original broadcast then they have to be caused by the TV or the VCR.
I don't see what you are trying to do. Placing your image over the TV proves nothing. You admitted you had to blur the image in order to attempt to match what was on the TV. You didn't blur the text, you only blurred the time. That is possibly the exact same thing they did.
You also did not use the right blur tool. Your blur is more smoothing than pixelation.
Thanks for proving the concept though. You probably didn't mean to do that, did you?
Last edited:
Oh really you know that crawling black dots are a common signal distortion, in the old style
TVs.
Even a miss firing spark plug, or cop, coil on plug, on an automobile can cause such interference patterns.
Possibly. But that effect would be seen over a wider area. It would also be seen in more than one picture.
Nice try.
Show me where I have previously posted one word about the black bars you are talking about. Show me. Link to my post, and highlight where I have mentioned the black bars that you are talking about in your post.
The black dots, or lines, seen at the bottom right of the screen in picture one are NOT the black horizontal bars going across the entire screen. They are two different things. The black horizontal bars going across the entire screen prove or disprove nothing. They are perfectly normal, and expected.
Last edited:
Let's just pause this for a second.
Why does this matter so much to you?
Why are all of you spending so much time trying to debunk this using such absurd arguments? Remember, every time you post an absurd argument you are taking the chance of destroying whatever fake credibility you had in other posts in other threads.
If my claims or theories had no merit you would just ignore them.
That is not what is happening.
Why does this matter so much to you?
Why are all of you spending so much time trying to debunk this using such absurd arguments? Remember, every time you post an absurd argument you are taking the chance of destroying whatever fake credibility you had in other posts in other threads.
If my claims or theories had no merit you would just ignore them.
That is not what is happening.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
No it wouldn't, it would be frozen by the camera, at the point in the scan line where the electron beam was exciting the phosphorus compounds on the surface of the CRT.
Your not observing a digital image on an LED screen.
It is definitely an analog image on a CTR, Cathode Ray Tube, with an electron gun, aimed
At the scan line by a magnetic field.
The picture is a composite of individual scan lines, crawling black
Dots can appear on any scan line, dependent on the signal timing.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Your starting assumptions are wrong. We're mostly just here because we enjoy arguing with people who don't really know how to think clearly, and sometimes we just like poking them with a stick to make them say something even more absurd. This thread is a case in point; the communal stick-poking has resulted in you formulating a conspiracy theory in which the conspirators, with the connivance of VP Cheney, faked a photo to falsify the 9/11 timeline, noticed a minor discrepancy in the photo, and decided to address it by replacing it with another, equally visible, discrepancy and releasing the photo anyway when they could have simply not bothered. You yourself, showing at least a vestige of self-awareness, have commented on how ridiculous a supposition that is, yet you simply can't let it go. The entertainment value is significant; the value for a re-evaluation of history isn't.
Dave
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,810
What Dave said, pretty much.
I get the impression, FF, that you're relatively new to the whole 9/11 Truth thing, or at least haven't spent much time speaking with people who debunk it. You have to realize that you're dealing with people here who are, in many cases, at a professional or even expert level in their various fields and have many, MANY years experience at examining all the various bits and pieces and pointing out the discrepancies in conspiracy theorist's posts. The fact that you refuse to see when your inconsistencies are pointed out to you is immaterial to us; we're not really doing it for you. At this point, nearly fifteen years after the whole shebang occurred, most of us are doing it for the amusement value, because at this point we have yet to encounter anything remotely resembling evidence of a conspiracy to deliberately crash planes into the towers and the Pentagon or whatever the conspiracy du jour is with you people. The little minor discrepancies and oddities that you CTers tend to nitpick mean very little in the real world, where it's accepted that there will be some discrepancies from one event to another, but those discrepancies do not negate the overall conclusions drawn from the entirety of the event. There are oddities in every major event in the entirety of human history, but they almost never indicate that there is something nefarious going on. You may refuse to accept that; that is your prerogative, but it is ours to mock the absurd levels CTers will stoop to in order to make things fit their twisted views of the world.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,941
My immediate purpose was rather simple and self-centered: I am in the process of writing a few blog posts about the photoset, in which I will document the exact and relative timing of all photos. So far, I simply had not done those screen shots myself in the format that I do them, and since I just stored the jpgs in my Photobucket album, I thought, hey, why not post them.
I am the first here I think who attempted to get the quality of the screenshot about right.
Or in the way that an analogue SLR camera captures images from CRT screens. As someone already pointed out, shutter speed plays a role in conjunction with the CRT's refresh rate. So does bleeding.
(There is also the scanning process. This does not apply to the dark band on the TV, but in general you have to keep in mind the possibility of scanning artefacts when analysing these photos)
No, this is FALSE: I applied all filters (color balance, gamma, contrast, noise, blur) to the entire TV - TV frame, text, time, logo, towers, smoke, sky, everything.
I think you don't understand the steps by which the photo was created, and how to mimick them with filters:
Step 1: The brightness (gamma) is a matter of aperture and shutter time - exposition, in one word.
Step 2: Contrast and color balance are a matter of sensitivity of the film's chemistry upon exposure, and of the chemical development process.
Step 3: The film has some random "pixelation" - that's noise, which I added
Step 4: But the lens is not focused - it blurs things that are out of focus. This blur is indeed a smoothing and smearing of edges. That's what I did last.
(Actually, Step 3 and 4 ought to be reversed. Doesn't make a big difference though as there is not much noise in that part of the photo. Also, I (the simple software I use: IrfanView) don't have a filter that mimicks bleed - bleed is the effect that very bright areas of an image spill into the darker neighboring region, this effect makes the white characters of the text appear larger than they are).
Since you erred about how I used the filters, and admit that the logo and time become illegibly blurred while the text caption is still readable, I think you just prove MY concept
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,941
Like I said, I am already a long way down in a process to write articles analysing the photo set. I don't spend as much time trying to debunk you as I invest it into improving my article. And you have already brought three bits of new information that is of some value to me:
- Bohrer's Canon zoom lens
- Mrs. Cheney's jewelry change (minor, but well spotted)
- An approximation to the exact second on video when the first picture was shot
Also, the Matalin pictures are a welcome excuse to invite my special hairdresser friend to breakfast on wednesday! I had texted her on Friday that I need her expert judgement to assess some evidence concerning a conspiracy theory, and all weekend long she couldn't imagine to save her life what expertise she would have that's relevant, till I told her briefly this morning what it is I want her to look at - who'd a thunk that a less-than-perfect hairdo makes or breaks a huge and murderous government conspiracy?
I don't buy the convoluted stories you weave from tiny and perceived "anomalies", and care little if you are serious or, as some here allege, trolling or poeing. I'd like to keep this civil, and perhaps gain a bit more if this exchange continues. For the record, I am not happy with some of the attacks and the unsupported claims you are receiving.
One recommendation: When you are asked to mark and point out a feature in an image, don't draw circles too close around it. This introduces high-contrast edges that more confuse than help the eye. Better to draw arrows that point toward the feature, but stay away a dozend pixels or so. Or post the same photo twice, once with and once without the marking, next to each other.