Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[Carll68]

Why?
Source?

Where was the camera position for the video, lens focal length? The camera stand was? Where is your paper published? Where are the details for the setup?

Where did you go to school for video? Who did you study under? Why are you qualified? And how does this fit into the CD delusion? What is the conclusion of this video data analysis? What video expert (like one who has a PhD) has peer reviewed your analysis? Do you have a PhD?

Of course he doesn't have a PhD! He likely does not have have any degree whatsoever. The charlatan fraud does not even understand high school level physics:

Read this gem: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4644501#post4644501 - Conservation of Momentum escapes him.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6157496#post6157496 can't understand a simple elasticity problem

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2815761&posted=1#post2815761 still doesn't get it

That the discussion has gone this far is actually disappointing.

 

[femr2]

That the discussion has gone this far is actually disappointing.

The OP was very clear that this thread should not be used for your kind of, er, posts. Reported.

I fully admitted the CoM gaff I made a year or so ago within about 2 days of it occurring, so whatever personal purpose you may have is rather out of date. Very boring.

It was my interpretation of the system definition that caused the brain fart...treating a rigid body as excatly that, rigid and undeformable. Oops. Of course perfectly rigid bodies do not actually exist...

...ironically the very same kind of thing you still, after over a year, have not managed to grasp with your ramblings on your cut and paste elastic thread question.

The answer in your C&P text is the theoretical limiting case. It's the one value that cannot be reached exactly in the real world. Pretty funny really.

It would be useful for someone other than myself to assert that Fo/2 is an unattainable limiting case to close the book on the whole ramble.

I agree that the Fo/2 is a limiting case that only occurs when c = 0. You won't find that with any real-world material.

As you will clearly have nothing useful to contribute to this thread carlly/bigc, please refrain from further posting here. I am sure that given the clear requests made from OP onwards the mod team will have no issue dealing with further interruptions.

 

[Carll68]

you will clearly have nothing useful to contribute to this thread carlly/bigc, please refrain from further posting here. I am sure that given the clear requests made from OP onwards the mod team will have no issue dealing with further interruptions.

Nothing useful except to expose your uneducated charlatan presence to everyone, in hopes they they will realize they are investing there time arguing with a fraud who can not grasp simple physics....but claims to be an expert...who holds nary a degree...but presents himself as an authority....

You still don't get it, do you?

This whole useless video analysis --where you are trying to somehow prove your senseless CD dreams - is about as useless as the collapse 'model' you created that matured into a complete laughing stock .. (all the energy goes to crushing the concrete...LOL)...

Much like your previous UFO hoaxes kid.... you are a fraud

 

[femr2]

There doesn't seem to be much input relating to noise treatment methods, which from my perspective is the main purpose of this thread.

There's also been very little progress in terms of opinion on data quality. Not quite sure why. Graphs have been presented which are in good agreement with the NIST moire method, showing horizontal movement down to inch accuracy. Inch, not feet

The focus on second order derivations of the data is fine up to a point, as it's there where noise levels can be amplified if the data is not treated appropriately.

However, the majority of points I intend on analysing do not require derived data plots, but instead use position/time data comparisons between various points to describe order and scale of movement, not rate of movement. An example of this would be using trace data to determine the angle through which *tilt* of WTC1 progressed before *release* of all four corners (and so the transition to vertical drop).

Worth noting the strange additional focus on my *analysis* of the data...which I haven't really done here yet. The extent of *claims* at this point is simply suggesting a +/- 0.2 pixel accuracy for the Dan Rather position/time data. Of course that value will vary depending upon what footage is being traced.

So here's some NIST Cam#3 data...
Download

Will begin some analysis of the data soon

 

[GlennB]

Will begin some analysis of the data soon

What might be achieved by this analysis in terms of 9/11 CT (which, after all, is where this thread currently resides) ? If we're looking at pure science - for the joy of science - it should be in the science sub-forum. If not, then surely any conclusions that might be drawn from the video analysis are fair game for generalised counter argument, CT-wise, no?

In which case, afaics, the terms and conditions of the o/p are unreasonable. Rather like calculating whether the health of my cattle appeared to improve through homepathic treatment while arbitrarily banning any discussion of homeopathy.

Meanwhile, there is a perfectly functional pm system if a (very, in this case) few people wish to exchange private communications. Or email.

 

[femr2]

What might be achieved by this analysis

Methinks it sensible to actually do the analysis first eh

any conclusions that might be drawn from the video analysis are fair game for generalised counter argument

Generalised ? No, of course not. Counter argument specific and directly related to the conclusion in question, sure. What an odd thing to ask.

there is a perfectly functional pm system if a (very, in this case) few people wish to exchange private communications. Or email.

You are very welcome to ignore the thread. You're not obliged to participate you know.

 

[TexasJack]

What might be achieved by this analysis in terms of 9/11 CT (which, after all, is where this thread currently resides) ? If we're looking at pure science - for the joy of science - it should be in the science sub-forum. If not, then surely any conclusions that might be drawn from the video analysis are fair game for generalised counter argument, CT-wise, no?

In which case, afaics, the terms and conditions of the o/p are unreasonable. Rather like calculating whether the health of my cattle appeared to improve through homepathic treatment while arbitrarily banning any discussion of homeopathy.

Meanwhile, there is a perfectly functional pm system if a (very, in this case) few people wish to exchange private communications. Or email.

I agree, there's no CT here and this thread should be moved to the science forum. You'll probably get more attention there from other people that are adept in these fields. Posting it here and stating I don't know if it is a CT or not doesn't cut it.

 

[femr2]

there's no CT here

So you wouldn't classify refudation of multiple NIST conclusions under that moniker then ? That's interesting.

stating I don't know if it is a CT or not doesn't cut it.

CT ? I'm afraid not everything falls under such convenient tag-lines. I guess you'd brand MIHOP as a CT, which is just weird seeing as MIHOP includes nothing whatsoever about pointing fingers, simply mechanism. Interesting.

Perhaps you should examine tfk's motivation for starting the thread. I get the impression there's a fair few locals, such as yourself, that really don't want to have to spend any time or effort employing those ol' critical thinking skills, and simply enjoy getting a fix of *twoofer baiting*, or some other quasi-fetishist negative discourse banter.

If you are not interested in the content of the thread, simply ignore it. There are numerous threads within this category that are far from, how you say, CT related. They'd all have to go as well of course

Now, there is an established dialogue occurring, and it would be appreciated if you have nothing useful to contribute that you simply post nothing at all.

 

[TexasJack]

So you wouldn't classify refudation of multiple NIST conclusions under that moniker then ? That's interesting.

If you ever get around to a "refudation" you still have to tie it into a CT. Simply nitpicking mistakes that NIST has made, doesn't invalidate their findings. You must come up with an alternative CT hypothesis that is relevant this forum. You have failed to do this. Why are you reluctant to have this moved to a more appropriate forum, where you can get the peace and quiet you keep complaining about? You will also get more input from that forum.

I get the impression there's a fair few locals, such as yourself, that really don't want to have to spend any time or effort employing those ol' critical thinking skills, and simply enjoy getting a fix of *twoofer baiting*, or some other quasi-fetishist negative discourse banter.

Ah, look who's doing the baiting, good job hypocrite.

If you are not interested in the content of the thread, simply ignore it. There are numerous threads within this category that are far from, how you say, CT related. They'd all have to go as well of course

The subject is this thread; your speculation on other threads is irrelevant.

Now, there is an established dialogue occurring, and it would be appreciated if you have nothing useful to contribute that you simply post nothing at all.

Please don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do, this is not your forum. If you noticed, I was responding to Glenn's post. If you don't like a post, report it, instead of whining about it. I will do you a favor, I'll put you on ignore, and leave it up to tfk if he wants this thread moved to Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology, where IMO I think it belongs.

 

[femr2]

If you ever get around to a "refudation"

Have to agree on method validity first.

Simply nitpicking mistakes that NIST has made, doesn't invalidate their findings.

So if they got it wrong, they got it right ? Splendid.

You must come up with an alternative CT hypothesis that is relevant [to] this forum.

No I don't. I'm responding to the the thread topic.

Why are you reluctant to have this moved to a more appropriate forum

What gave you that impression ?

where you can get the peace and quiet you keep complaining about? You will also get more input from that forum.

The ignore coming up is the perfect solution

Ah, look who's doing the baiting, good job hypocrite.

We can all get frustrated with pointless interruption. Numerous posts now that are completely off topic, regardless of where the thread is located. Annoying, and dilutes the usefulness of the thread for anyone who may be interested in its content.

The subject is this thread

Should be, but at the moment it's where you think it should be located.

your speculation on other threads is irrelevant.

And yours on this one is off topic.

Please don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do, this is not your forum.

I haven't. I've politely suggested what would be appreciated.

If you noticed, I was responding to Glenn's post. If you don't like a post, report it, instead of whining about it.

I respond to most posts I'm afraid.

I will do you a favor, I'll put you on ignore, and leave it up to tfk if he wants this thread moved to Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology, where IMO I think it belongs.

Excellent. Laters.

 

[Carll68]

I agree, there's no CT here and this thread should be moved to the science forum. You'll probably get more attention there from other people that are adept in these fields. Posting it here and stating I don't know if it is a CT or not doesn't cut it.

TJ, this charlatan uneducated fraud simply doesnt get it. It is a bad investment of time to discuss this analysis, as it is both flawed in it's 'opinion related' conclusion and lacking in accuracy. Lil femr - this kid without a degree - is simply trying new ways to slip in his delusions of CD.

femr--do you think either 1, 2 or 7 was a CD?

Yes or no?

If no, then what is your point? Should this whole elementary exerciser not be moved to the science forum, where it can be accurately assessed and your flaws pointed out? Remember the Physics forum where your diluted incorrect answer to the high school physics question I asked got posted, and you were soon told how incorrect you were? It took a total of 2 posts.

If yes, then what evidence do you have to support your delusions? We all know it's 'Yes', after all, not too long ago, you were arguing that there was no energy from the collapse to hurl the WTC debris to Winter Garden roof. So, since it is Yes....where, from this flawed SynthEyes program incorporation, are you looking to derive your evidence?

 

[beachnut]

Perhaps a clearer statement...persistance of vision and the timing between interlaced frame display, along with better horizontal FOV than vertical FOV results in the eyes percieving less vertical artefacts than horizontal ones. Better to display interlaced video as alternate horizontal lines than vertical ones. Consider it a personal opinion if y'like. Not interested in a protracted discussion of human eye sensitivities.

why mention it … it was your opinion based on BS. No source.
Phosphor

Have already told you I'll dig it out. Patience.

Take your time; 8 years have passed. What is another 8 years to 911 truth?

No idea and unlikely to find out. Not going to make any appreciable difference either. Could see if SynthEyes can solve the scene and determine it, but there's probably not enough resolution.

no focal length? No lens or camera details? Any tech info on the setup?

Not fixed.

The camera is flying?

What paper ?

No paper? What is goal?

What setup ?

The setup. position of camera, focal length, etc… Without the setup the science is not there. Makes this effort equal to bar talk.

Stick to the technical detail beachnut. OP is clear on this request. Please don't continue with your usual rhetoric. If there is an element of information on video data you think is wrong, by all means question it.

I have tried to get tech info; you don’t know. What is the goal of the work? Will your work support CD? How? Simple technical questions. Do you have a goal?

 

[dafydd]

The OP was very clear that this thread should not be used for your kind of, er, posts. Reported.

I fully admitted the CoM gaff I made a year or so ago within about 2 days of it occurring, so whatever personal purpose you may have is rather out of date. Very boring.

It was my interpretation of the system definition that caused the brain fart...treating a rigid body as excatly that, rigid and undeformable. Oops. Of course perfectly rigid bodies do not actually exist...

...ironically the very same kind of thing you still, after over a year, have not managed to grasp with your ramblings on your cut and paste elastic thread question.

The answer in your C&P text is the theoretical limiting case. It's the one value that cannot be reached exactly in the real world. Pretty funny really.



As you will clearly have nothing useful to contribute to this thread carlly/bigc, please refrain from further posting here. I am sure that given the clear requests made from OP onwards the mod team will have no issue dealing with further interruptions.

We take it that you have no qualifications.

 

[femr2]

it was your opinion based on BS

Nope, but such a trivial point it's not worth arguing about.

The camera is flying?

No, it's on a tripod, but not fixed. If you'd even bothered to watch the video you'd know this.

Without the setup the science is not there. Makes this effort equal to bar talk.

NIST did not look at the *setup* for any of their positional data, and regardless, the effect upon results is trivial. Perhaps you'd like to quantify the pixel-scale effect of various lenses and focal lengths on the resulting image data and derived metrics Best use reasonable values though. There was a limited range of professional broadcast cameras used by the media in that place on that day yeah.

What is the goal of the work?

The work ? Read the OP. That outlines the purpose of the thread.

We take it that you have no qualifications.

You can take whatever you like, and assume whatever you like dafydd, but may I remind you to address the topic. If there is an error you want to highlight, by all means say so and provide a correction...

 

[beachnut]

Nope, but such a trivial point it's not worth arguing about.


No, it's on a tripod, but not fixed. If you'd even bothered to watch the video you'd know this.
...

No goal. Perfect. Why can't you state a goal of the work. What about your CD theory? How does this work dovetail with your CD theory?

BTW, it is BS when you say it is trivial. Why bring up trivia when you know it is talk you make up based on your opinions? If you have no goal your work is trivial, and is not worth arguing about. No purpose.

What is your goal of your work, your purpose.

The work ? Read the OP. That outlines the purpose of the thread.

You read the OP, and come up with your purpose; or is it a trivial point? Your work, the purpose of your work? How does it support your CD theory?

 

[femr2]

it is BS when you say it is trivial.

Quantify the pixel level effect of your suggested additional factors, then also approach NIST and present the same information to them.

What is your goal of your work, your purpose.

I have stated the purpose of performing the tracing many times in several threads. An example...
Post #94

If you cannot be bothered to read the thread content, you will continue to have a blinkered viewpoint.

 

[beachnut]

Quantify the pixel level effect of your suggested additional factors, then also approach NIST and present the same information to them.


I have stated the purpose of performing the tracing many times in several threads. An example...
Post #94

If you cannot be bothered to read the thread content, you will continue to have a blinkered viewpoint.

You never stated your qualification and education to conduct this blinkered work. No over all goal noted. I have read your BS about NIST, and you don't even have a position for the camera, you have no tech data on lens and equipment. blinkered? lol

I see why this will not be published past the Internet. No goal.

 

[femr2]

I have read your BS about NIST

Really ? What *BS* would that be ? Feel free to point out mistakes Beachnut.

you don't even have a position for the camera

Yet again, incorrect. It's kicking around in my piling system somewhere. By all means go find it for yourself, and then quantify the specific technical reason you think you need it, then quantify the effect on the data.

you have no tech data on lens and equipment.

Almost true, yes. And again, you need to quantify the effect of the additional distortions before complaining about it.

Oh, and am I right in suggesting that you think all of the NIST video analysis is useless as they have not taken account of any of the factors you suggest ?

I see why this will not be published past the Internet.

What is it that you think should be published beachnut ? lol. If at the end of trace data analysis I find something interesting, I'll make it known. Said it before many-a-time. It's really not my concern that your blinkered view of my intentions leads you to make such blinkered conclusions, but, well, there you go

 

[beachnut]

Really ? What *BS* would that be ? Feel free to point out mistakes Beachnut.

Read the thread; it was clear you posted BS. Feel free to go back and source your statement, which you failed to source and admitted was trivial talk, IE BS.

Yet again, incorrect. It's kicking around in my piling system somewhere. By all means go find it for yourself, and then quantify the specific technical reason you think you need it, then quantify the effect on the data.

Add elevation when you find the exact location. Better add all tech data on the camera and lens. How far away. Will you model the errors? Will you use a Kalman filter with the error analysis?

Almost true, yes. And again, you need to quantify the effect of the additional distortions before complaining about it.

You need to do this, it is your analysis. Not knowing the additional distortions is due to what? Lack of knowledge, or no expertise in this field? What is your degree in?

Oh, and am I right in suggesting that you think all of the NIST video analysis is useless as they have not taken account of any of the factors you suggest ?

What does your work have to do with 911 conspiracy theories? What does this have to do with your CD delusion? What does this have to with debunking the crazy 911 conspiracy theories; the sub-forum topic?

You don't know what NIST has for tech data on their analysis; you said so.

What is it that you think should be published beachnut ? lol. If at the end of trace data analysis I find something interesting, I'll make it known. Said it before many-a-time. It's really not my concern that your blinkered view of my intentions leads you to make such blinkered conclusions, but, well, there you go

You have no goal to apply this to 911 conspiracy theories? Then what is the goal; no goal? Is this suppose to support 911 truth's failed CD theory?

 

[femr2]

Read the thread; it was clear you posted BS.

No Beachnut, you said *your BS about NIST *. Now out with it...what *BS* would that be ?

Add elevation when you find the exact location. Better add all tech data on the camera and lens. How far away. Will you model the errors? Will you use a Kalman filter with the error analysis?

Perhaps.

You need to do this, it is your analysis.

No I don't. Feel free to do so if you like though. The raw data is freely available.

Not knowing the additional distortions is due to what?

The scale of the resultant distortions would be trivial, which is why I'm really not at all concerned. Again, if you want to pop off and quantify such, by all means feel free.

You don't know what NIST has for tech data on their analysis

Incorrect. NIST make it clear what factors they accounted for. They also shockingly state that even for the Cam#3 footage traces they didn't even bother to apply perspective correction.

They most certainly did not account for lens distortion, camera optics...nowt. They didn't even bother to account for camera shake...no static point extraction.

But beachnut, you're going to have to wait. I haven't done the analysis yet. If there's something I want you to know, I'll let you know