• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Absolute proof of video fakery

Wait i think i finally figured it out...
Our government didnt commit the 9/11 attacks. It was the "FRENCH"!

On a serious note im going to watch the footage a little from another source and see if the mark atleast appears in it, and then work my way from there.
 
mchapman said:
Reported.
Click to expand...

If you take "offense" to the term "ignorance"- then you surely will be able to provide credentials that you are a qualified video engineer, or that you have provided your research to someone of similar qualifications.

If not- then your outright ignorance on the issues- not only on this particular topic- but in just about everything you've posted so far- is so obvious that it strains the imagination as to how you expect to even be taken seriously.

You claim that this is irrefutable proof- and you can't even answer the simplest questions.

That- and anyone who cares can see that you're just retaliating for being made a fool of in other threads. There's absolutely no merit to this complaint, and I'm pretty confident the mods will see that.
 
mchapman said:
Reported.
Click to expand...

I actually think he raises a good point.

You certainly wouldn't consider that Redford is a reptilian, so you can accept that the strange eye is indeed surely due to a digital mistake.

Then, if you can accept that for the Redford video, then why are yo so quick to jump to the cover-up/photoshop conspiracy theory about the Naudet film? That conspiracy theory is as equally unlikely and as grotesque as the reptilian Redford one.
 
Last edited:
mchapman said:
Watch the video all the way through. Its only about 6 minutes long. It is irrefutable unless the maker has altered the naudet footage and I don't think he has.
Click to expand...


It's 7 minutes and 18 seconds long, ok, God damnit! I know more about the video that you're telling me to know more about than you do.
 
Totovader said:
If you take "offense" to the term "ignorance"- then you surely will be able to provide credentials that you are a qualified video engineer, or that you have provided your research to someone of similar qualifications.

If not- then your outright ignorance on the issues- not only on this particular topic- but in just about everything you've posted so far- is so obvious that it strains the imagination as to how you expect to even be taken seriously.

You claim that this is irrefutable proof- and you can't even answer the simplest questions.

That- and anyone who cares can see that you're just retaliating for being made a fool of in other threads. There's absolutely no merit to this complaint, and I'm pretty confident the mods will see that.
Click to expand...

Address the OP or don't bother posting in the thread.
 
mchapman said:
Reported.
Click to expand...
You should be reported for falling for real stupid stuff. 7 years and this is the best you can do? Do not feel bad, all of 9/11 truth is void of evidence, just like you.

So far you have presented zero evidence not a video so incredibly stupid. Who do I report you to for bringing up a stupid video to the forum?

Darn, I looked at the rules, you are allowed to show us videos from terminally stupid people with idiotic ideas about 9/11.

7 years and still no clue videos are being made.

Why did people's eyes see a plane? There goes the junk video, refuted by real people on 9/11, with real eyes. Did you miss the simple stuff?

Yes, a jet makes noise, a jets at 700 feet going 470 mph downtown, they look up and your failed video is refuted. This is too easy to refute what you bring. 7 years, you could have had a PhD, but you got bad video.
 
mchapman said:
Because it looks the same as other naudet footage. Unless you can prove he has altered it?
Click to expand...


The title of your thread includes "video fakery" and you're saying that I have to prove someone faked a video?
 
Pardalis said:
I actually think he raises a good point.

You certainly wouldn't consider that Redford is a reptilian, so you can accept that the strange eye is indeed surely due to a digital mistake.

Then, if you can accept that for the Redford video, then why are yo so quick to jump to the cover-up/photoshop conspiracy theory about the Naudet film? That conspiracy theory is as equally unlikely and as grotesque as the reptilian Redford one.
Click to expand...

The gash is not an artifact. It is on everything including an original factory made DVD of the naudet film "9/11"
 
Totovader said:
That doesn't make it "not an artifact", do you understand that?
Click to expand...

It prevents it being a compression artifact.

It is on different frames with different zoom. It exists, no matter how much you want to call it an artifact.
 
mchapman said:
Address the OP or don't bother posting in the thread.
Click to expand...

I am addressing the OP. If you think I am posting off-topic, then I suggest you report my posts to the moderator.

If you feel it necessary to act like the child you just claimed I was by starting a mod war, I think you'll find that you're not in the best spot: trolling is frowned upon, here- as is sock puppetry.
 
mchapman said:
The gash is not an artifact. It is on everything including an original factory made DVD of the naudet film "9/11"
Click to expand...

You would need to do further investigation to find out if it is not indeed an artifact than just saying it isn't.

It could be an artifact that happened during any part of the film's production, it could be a visual distortion caused by the zoom in, or any other rational explanation.

You need to see a real expert to find this out, than just one amateur video from an obviously demented YouTube subscriber.
 
Ok, mchapman, the "gash" appears on one video* but not the other. What is your logical determination for the discrepancy?

Please note I did say "logical".



*Assuming the "gash" was not edited in by some unscrupulous individual, with the intent on duping people like you.
 
Last edited:
mchapman said:
It prevents it being a compression artifact.

It is on different frames with different zoom. It exists, no matter how much you want to call it an artifact.
Click to expand...

This is why you're ignorant.

DVD is not raw video, and it's not the original footage. Nor do artifacts always disappear with zoom.

Like I said- if you lack the qualifications, then where is your expert?
 
Quickest thread to 3 pages?


With superfluous posts like this...probably.
 
mchapman said:
The gash is not an artifact. It is on everything including an original factory made DVD of the naudet film "9/11"
Click to expand...
No, it is a far away visual effect and you are pure gullible.

Your presentation of the video junk is pathetic. Here is the same effect seen, making the video junk! Your post, your thread shows how shallow your research, and your knowledge are?

11debunkedu.jpg


same as the video, nothing here, but your gullibility to fall for LIES about 9/11. Pure lies. That is the dumbest video I have see lately, thanks for bringing up pure stupid in one video.

Why do you lack experience on this stuff? 7 years, no excuse for presenting real bad false information. Can you raise the bar out of the pit of 9/11 truth ignorance, or is this your peak?
 
Last edited:
It is worth repeating...


The gash is in the other videos. I don't understand how this guy missed it. Do you want to know why he missed it. Because he was so busy looking to find evidence of fakery that he never comprehended the idea that shadows are perceived differently from different angles. Meaning the Naudat footage is from bellow catching the shadow where the face of the WTC was made uneven from damage, whereas the other footage is more straight on. Meaning the shadow in those shots isn't pronounced, but the damage is still visible if you actually look. Ironically he points to it while saying it isn't there.
 
Last edited:
mchapman is a noplaner. noplaner, your theories are ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of what you are doing.

Welcome to ignore.

TAM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom