• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debunking Pinnochio's Nose

tacodaemon said:
The system used for the "first down" lines is called 1st & Ten and is made by Sportvision, a producer of various sports TV graphics products that doesn't appear to have anything to do with L-3. It's a complicated system to use that requires precise 3D models of each stadium's field, along with data about the exact camera locations, along with several different computer systems and a truck full of technicians at the stadium; it's not a little video game you can play with your WESCAM camera controls in your news chopper.
Click to expand...



And it needs all that to put a fixed line on a fixed field, using a fixed camera.


Perfectly adequate for what Ace-baby proposes!

;)
 
Now I find myself wondering where the notion that WESCAM is a composite effects system originated. Did some CTist just knowingly make it up out of nowhere (ex posteriori, as it were), or was it an honest misunderstanding of something someone read somewhere? (The latter is not too unlikely given the level of reading-comprehension skill CTists have demonstrated.)
 
Sorry to have been scarce. My laptop has died completely, it will be about a week before I am able to rebuild it. Currently I have almost no software and my internet access is limited.

During the short time yesterday that I had my machine back, I began a study of Pinocchio's nose that should prove very instructive. It involves analyzing the velocity of the plane frame by frame, then repeating the exercise after stabilizing the picture.

The OP is correct on several observations. The plane certainly does not continue through the building at the same velocity. Once the "nose" or "debris" exits the building, it certainly is moving much more slowly than was the plane prior to entering the building.

This does not prove that the plane was real. I'll have a lot more to say next post.

It is also correct that the Wescam system is not the real time overlay system used on football games. This error comes from several researchers, and we are correcting that. It is a minor point. Chroma key overlay has been available since the 1960's, and sophisticated systems which are able to compensate for camera movement in real time were available pre-2001.

Whether the overlay system was on board the helicopter (certainly possible), or at the studio is a bit of a minor point. More later, must go.
 
Well, even if you did manage to show that falsification is a possible characteristic of the video, the real question you would need to answer is why it is epistemologically preferable to think falsification is a characteristic of the video.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Sorry to have been scarce. My laptop has died completely, it will be about a week before I am able to rebuild it. Currently I have almost no software and my internet access is limited.

During the short time yesterday that I had my machine back, I began a study of Pinocchio's nose that should prove very instructive.
Click to expand...


It is doubtful that any study of your latest fantasy will prove instructive to any rational person.
Absolutely nothing is capable of instructing you.


It involves analyzing the velocity of the plane frame by frame, then repeating the exercise after stabilizing the picture.

The OP is correct on several observations. The plane certainly does not continue through the building at the same velocity.
Click to expand...




An important point. There were so many experts who really felt that the plane's crashing into the building and being totally destroyed did not affect its velocity. Excellent work, Ace.




Once the "nose" or "debris" exits the building, it certainly is moving much more slowly than was the plane prior to entering the building.
Click to expand...


Your ability to generate such insights is what sets you apart from the rest of us.



This does not prove that the plane was real. I'll have a lot more to say next post.
Click to expand...



Yes, proof of the plane's reality is lacking. You managed to dismiss the thousands of eyewitnesses very adroitly. Oh, you didn't dismiss them at all? Well, that's just a minor detail.



It is also correct that the Wescam system is not the real time overlay system used on football games. This error comes from several researchers, and we are correcting that.
Click to expand...



Not to be indelicate, but regarding that "we," is any member of the team not mentally ill?



It is a minor point. Chroma key overlay has been available since the 1960's, and sophisticated systems which are able to compensate for camera movement in real time were available pre-2001.

Whether the overlay system was on board the helicopter (certainly possible), or at the studio is a bit of a minor point. More later, must go.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



People here know vastly more about this subject than you do. They are vainly attempting to communicate their knowledge to you. The task is impossible.

You appear to have missed this post:

In other words, the cameraman is part of the IMPOSSIBLY Vast Conspiracy. You love to present inept calculations. I presented a very simple and correct one showing that your imaginary conspiracy cannot possibly exist. The probability that someone, one of the hundreds of actual accomplices or the thousands who have been clubbed into line, would spill the beans approaches 1.

You neglected to comment.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Sorry to have been scarce. My laptop has died completely, it will be about a week before I am able to rebuild it. Currently I have almost no software and my internet access is limited.
Click to expand...

Heh, heh, my remote laptop disabler device worked!

Oops, I didn't mean to post that.

During the short time yesterday that I had my machine back, I began a study of Pinocchio's nose that should prove very instructive. It involves analyzing the velocity of the plane frame by frame, then repeating the exercise after stabilizing the picture.

The OP is correct on several observations. The plane certainly does not continue through the building at the same velocity. Once the "nose" or "debris" exits the building, it certainly is moving much more slowly than was the plane prior to entering the building.

This does not prove that the plane was real. I'll have a lot more to say next post.

It is also correct that the Wescam system is not the real time overlay system used on football games. This error comes from several researchers, and we are correcting that. It is a minor point. Chroma key overlay has been available since the 1960's, and sophisticated systems which are able to compensate for camera movement in real time were available pre-2001.

Whether the overlay system was on board the helicopter (certainly possible), or at the studio is a bit of a minor point. More later, must go.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have been easier to just hijack a plane and crash it into the building?
 
Ah yes. I've debated with Holmgren. I'm afraid that the man is a loon.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
No. See Holmgren.
Click to expand...



Yes well, but your given link presupposes the existence of a conspiracy. What I have said though, is even if you did manage to show that that falsification is a possible characteristic of the video (or even why “they” might have wanted to employ it, for that matter), the real question you would need to answer is why it is epistemologically preferable to think it is a characteristic of the video.
 
Par said:
Yes well, but your given link presupposes the existence of a conspiracy. What I have said though, is even if you did manage to show that that falsification is a possible characteristic of the video (or even why “they” might have wanted to employ it, for that matter), the real question you would need to answer is why it is epistemologically preferable to think it is a characteristic of the video.
Click to expand...

It is epistemologicaly preferable to to think the video is fake for a number of reasons.

1. The "debris" that exits the opposite side of the building is indistiguishable from the nose of the aircraft. No one has proposed a mechanism by which this could possibly occur.

2. The plane enters the picture within 3 frames after a zoom in, quite a coincidence.

3. The plane does not appear in the wider shot, even though it would have to be there.

4. The video does a quick fade to black immediately after pinocchio's nose appears. As explained ad nauseum, this cannot be the signal cutting out. It is either the output from the helicopter being faded down, or it is the input from the helicopter being faded down on the control room console.

I will present the results of my velocity study when I have them, whatever they may show.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Chroma key overlay has been available since the 1960's, and sophisticated systems which are able to compensate for camera movement in real time were available pre-2001.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's for text and other simple graphical elements. Creating visual effects on the order of making the videos of the aircraft impacts into the towers look as incredibly realistic as they did would require a vastly more sophisticated system.

Take a careful look next time at a football game where the virtual down line is used. It's very good, no doubt, but a good eye will spot the problems which occur when certain combinations of uniform and field lighting reveal definite indistict edges as the players move over the virtual down line.

Video effects, especially real-time ones, cannot yet rival the kinds of effects done by traditional visual effects houses such as ILM, which originally did the effects on film and then composited optically, but are now created and composited digitally and then put onto film. Mind you, even with digital advances, there are still cases where effects are done the old-fashioned way. The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy is a good example of this where traditional perspective tricks and miniatures were used.

For the life of me I can't understand how someone can think the 9/11 aircraft impacts were special effects. They look NOTHING like special effects, and if there's one thing I'm pretty good at, it is spotting special effects. And all visual effects have subtle tell-tale signs which reveal their origin as such.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
It is epistemologicaly preferable to to think the video is fake for a number of reasons.

1. The "debris" that exits the opposite side of the building is indistiguishable from the nose of the aircraft. No one has proposed a mechanism by which this could possibly occur.

2. The plane enters the picture within 3 frames after a zoom in, quite a coincidence.

3. The plane does not appear in the wider shot, even though it would have to be there.

4. The video does a quick fade to black immediately after pinocchio's nose appears. As explained ad naseum, this cannot be the signal cutting out. It is either the output from the helicopter being faded down, or it is the input from the helicopter being faded down on the control room console.

I will present the results of my velocity study when I have them, whatever they may show.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hey, Ace, what about the size of your imaginary conspiracy? Does the fact that it is impossibly large give you any pause whatever? (Of course I'm kidding, you silly goose!)
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
As explained ad nauseum, this cannot be the signal cutting out. It is either the output from the helicopter being faded down, or it is the input from the helicopter being faded down on the control room console.
Click to expand...


As explained ad nauseum, you have no idea what you are talking about.

-Gumboot
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Chroma key overlay has been available since the 1960's, and sophisticated systems which are able to compensate for camera movement in real time were available pre-2001.

Whether the overlay system was on board the helicopter (certainly possible), or at the studio is a bit of a minor point. More later, must go.
Click to expand...



In all honesty you should really stop talking about this stuff. You may be a film composer, but you clearly know virtually nothing else about filmmaking or television broadcast.

The scenario you're proposing cannot have been keyed. It's simply not possible.

The bottom line is, what you are proposing - the insertion of a computer generated aircraft into a live broadcast - simply is not possible. It certainly was not possible in 2001.

Your solution also does not explain the hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of people who witnessed UA175 hit WTC2 with their own eyes.

-Gumboot
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
It is epistemologicaly preferable to to think the video is fake for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...


There is exactly one reason: to validate your deranged fantasy.




1. The "debris" that exits the opposite side of the building is indistiguishable from the nose of the aircraft. No one has proposed a mechanism by which this could possibly occur.
Click to expand...


Blurry photos of debris being ejected fail to show something that is "indistinguishable" from the nose section of a plane. If debris propelled through a building should not take the form it did, what should it look like?


2. The plane enters the picture within 3 frames after a zoom in, quite a coincidence.

3. The plane does not appear in the wider shot, even though it would have to be there.

4. The video does a quick fade to black immediately after pinocchio's nose appears. As explained ad naseum, this cannot be the signal cutting out. It is either the output from the helicopter being faded down, or it is the input from the helicopter being faded down on the control room console.
Click to expand...


Instead of wasting time with your fabricated lunacy, why not tell us where Curtis Cameron went wrong?

A Photo Analysis of the Claim that UA Flight 175 Did Not Hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center:
http://911myths.com/Flight175.pdf


I will present the results of my velocity study when I have them, whatever they may show.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You are not a scientist. You do a terrible impersonation of one. You are incompetent to conduct such a study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom