Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[femr2]

Noticed some discussion of the NIST 5.4s interval.

Here is that interval using the Dan Rather dataset...

Make of it what you will.

I think they were a little early (as they treated flexing behaviour in the Cam#3 footage as vertical movement).

I'd suggest (using specific frame numbers to calculate) they were 0.467s too early, making the 5.4s metric more like 4.93s.

 

[Jackanory]

Noticed some discussion of the NIST 5.4s interval.

Here is that interval using the Dan Rather dataset...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/842535832.gif[/qimg]

Make of it what you will.

I think they were a little early (as they treated flexing behaviour in the Cam#3 footage as vertical movement).

I'd suggest (using specific frame numbers to calculate) they were 0.467s too early, making the 5.4s metric more like 4.93s.

Yet another set of pretty data Femr2. 5.4s down to 4.93s woooooooooooooo.

Post #1 asked a very specific question. Post #31 too. You have danced ever since. Pick a spot out of any one of the videos you use. Just one spot and do as Tom has asked. Stop dancing with your 'BS' baffles brains sketch and your fancy garbage in/out data and pretty graphs. Pick a spot, show Tom, and lets see if your pixels and interlaced jargen differ. Lets see if your fence sitting works. Same camera, same distance, same light, same angles, same cameraman, same time etc etc etc. Put up or STFU.

 

[Major_Tom]

It is pretty obvious from this thread that there is an anti-intellectual element within this forum that is allowed to harass at will.

Femr is introducing a tracking tool to measure actual building movement of any of the 3 towers with surprising accuracy.

If we want to see the correct order of events during collapse initiation, or look for any detectable deformations leading up to each collapse, why wouldn't suchn a tool be welcome?

Instead, femr is forced to endure an absurd amount of abuse from people who clearly know much less about this tracking tool than he does.

This sickening level of abuse is allowed here.

It seems encouraged through a pack, group mentality.

Do you really need femr to explain why accurate measurements of early deformation and collapse initiation are important to the subject of CD or natural collapse?

 

[tsig]

It is pretty obvious from this thread that there is an anti-intellectual element within this forum that is allowed to harass at will.

Femr is introducing a tracking tool to measure actual building movement of any of the 3 towers with surprising accuracy.

If we want to see the correct order of events during collapse initiation, or look for any detectable deformations leading up to each collapse, why wouldn't suchn a tool be welcome?

Instead, femr is forced to endure an absurd amount of abuse from people who clearly know much less about this tracking tool than he does.

This sickening level of abuse is allowed here.

It seems encouraged through a pack, group mentality.

Do you really need femr to explain why accurate measurements of early deformation and collapse initiation are important to the subject of CD or natural collapse?

Maybe you could tell us how micro-measuring a video can prove anything.

 

[Jackanory]

It is pretty obvious from this thread that there is an anti-intellectual element within this forum that is allowed to harass at will.

Femr is introducing a tracking tool to measure actual building movement of any of the 3 towers with surprising accuracy.

If we want to see the correct order of events during collapse initiation, or look for any detectable deformations leading up to each collapse, why wouldn't suchn a tool be welcome?

Instead, femr is forced to endure an absurd amount of abuse from people who clearly know much less about this tracking tool than he does.

This sickening level of abuse is allowed here.

It seems encouraged through a pack, group mentality.

Do you really need femr to explain why accurate measurements of early deformation and collapse initiation are important to the subject of CD or natural collapse?

What I want is a straight forward response to the questions raised by Tom in the OP and reiterated throughout this thread. femr2 is versed in the dance. femr2 has used the same dance time and time again.

The methodology and tactic used here by femr2 is the same used elsewhere. The very same technology, terminology, trickery and 'BS' was used by femr2 to attempt to convince the kids at uboob that an anomaly of a 'POD' was attached to the aircraft that struck WTC. femr2 attempted to use the same camera jargen, pixel jargen, interlaced, interpolated jargin top convince the kids that this anomaly was infact a bomb. femr2 used his 'tech knowledge' of all things camera and pixel in much the same manner. femr2 used all manner of 'BS' to attempt to convince the kids. Was it an anomaly? NO. Did it really require such terminology, pixel explanation, interlacing jargin etc etc NO! Did it require hundreds of post, many threads, countless graphs, videos and stills? NO!!!!

Turns out that the 'POD' was infact the fairings that housed the undercarriage and wheels. In femr2's world it was a bomb.

So I make absolutely no appology to you or anyone else for the manner in which I respond to such a charlatan.

femr2 is pulling your chains. It does not require hundred of tech posts to tell me that. If Tom wishes to humour himself then that is Tom's perogative.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[beachnut]

It is pretty obvious from this thread that there is an anti-intellectual element within this forum that is allowed to harass at will.

Femr is introducing a tracking tool to measure actual building movement of any of the 3 towers with surprising accuracy.

If we want to see the correct order of events during collapse initiation, or look for any detectable deformations leading up to each collapse, why wouldn't suchn a tool be welcome?

Instead, femr is forced to endure an absurd amount of abuse from people who clearly know much less about this tracking tool than he does.

This sickening level of abuse is allowed here.

It seems encouraged through a pack, group mentality.

Do you really need femr to explain why accurate measurements of early deformation and collapse initiation are important to the subject of CD or natural collapse?

All for no reality based goal, the goal seems to be to back in CD. It is called failure Tom, you have to have a goal tied to reality in the real world, so this work is nonsense and a waste of time. BTW, tracking algorithms that are much better exist but you can't have them unless you buy them. This is total nonsense since there is no real goal, and in reality it only pertains to 911 because you and ferm2 have delusions about CD and can't figure out 911.

When the work is done and published it will show a gravity collapse, either with better fidelity, or worse, some smoothed out version that looks good and could be used to show the point of interest in some cartoon as an subject with added background. This stuff works great for making up movies and not using blue screen. Super stuff. But the world of tracking is orders of magnitude past this basement hobby application to prove woo.

In the real world steps can be sourced and referenced, not just made up and pushed as being correct. Ask him to source and reference his work, the points/claims/steps/methods/results/etc, it will not happen.

When will you guys publish anything like Heiwa did with his letter?

 

[carlitos]

femr2 is pulling your chains. It does not require hundred of tech posts to tell me that. If Tom wishes to humour himself then that is Tom's perogative. I on the other hand believe that precious time is being wasted by debating with such fools. Ridicule and pity is best suited.

Oh boy. I just found the 'pod' video and the 'impact charges' video, along with several others on youtube. In some, he actually refers to "Flight 175" in quotes, as if it doesn't exist.

 

[femr2]

Post #1 asked a very specific question. Post #31 too. You have danced ever since. Pick a spot out of any one of the videos you use. Just one spot and do as Tom has asked. Stop dancing with your 'BS' baffles brains sketch and your fancy garbage in/out data and pretty graphs. Pick a spot, show Tom, and lets see if your pixels and interlaced jargen differ. Lets see if your fence sitting works. Same camera, same distance, same light, same angles, same cameraman, same time etc etc etc. Put up or STFU.

I have already provided Tom with data for three additional *spots*...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/wtc_7_extra_static_points_2/1-1-0-31

I guess you didn't understand the question Abby.

 

[alienentity]

 

[femr2]

Maybe you could tell us how micro-measuring a video can prove anything.

Rather depends upon what is being observed.

For example, a simple trace of WTC7 can show detailed information about the release point, rate of descent, ...

It is then how the data is interpreted that is important.

Tracing of multiple features of WTC 1 *proves* that the upper section rotated ~1 degree before vertical drop ensued, that the upper block immediately deformed, and that it is highly likely that the core led other features, such as south wall failure. WTC1 trace data has also been used to show a number of *mini jolts* during the early descent.

 

[carlitos]

Therefore, God Bush did it.

 

[femr2]

Good news. The NIST copy of the Cam#3 footage is about to become available (hopefully in 7 minute form). FOIA release.

When I get hold of it I'll be dumping the current Cam#3 dataset and redoing it.

The new version will have the shortest and most traceable chain of custody yet, with NIST being the only body in between the original CBS raw footage.

May compare the datasets simply out of curiosity about quality difference.

 

[femr2]

{deleted}

 

[Jackanory]

Tom,

So, where were we. Assume your 5 day MIA was fun

Static point variance...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/874369222.png[/qimg]

I've applied some processing to the data.

1) Aligned separate traces by either +0.1 or -0.1 pixels relative to t9/16
2) Normal 2 point moving average for jitter treatment.
3) Average of all four traces taken as root.
4) Variance as subtraction of each trace from root.
5) 7 point moving average on variance data (just to simplify the display).

I imagine the step you'll object to most is the first, though I am sure you can see why I have included it if you look at each static trace of the same graph without applying offsets.

As mentioned above, the NIST copy of the Cam#3 footage should be with me shortly, though even that looks like they have messed with the contrast and brightness to a ridiculous amount. (I imagine they did so to simplify their home-grown tracing procedures.) As NIST have now released their lightened version of the original CBS footage, there can be no reason for not releasing the original CBS data directly, and so if it's not in the 7Tb dataset, it will be requested fairly promptly. Best result there is that I get hold of the original 7 minute version with original colour.

femr2
Did you not follow the same methodology and techniques when you wrongly determined that the manufactured undercarriage fairing was in fact an anomalous 'POD' bomb? I seem to recall you used much the same jargon and methods to quite vehemently state that it was most definitely a bomb strapped to the underside of a commercial aircraft. It wasnt!!!!!

I am curious to ask if you have ever retracted your technical findings once you realised you were wrong? It certainly doesn’t appear that any of your findings have ever been retracted once proved wrong.

Wouldn’t you agree, femr2, that it is prudent for those seeking the truth to admit when they were wrong and that to continue in the same vein could be viewed as deception?

To discuss flawed methodology and techniques would be a waste of time in my opinion. Particularly when being discussed by those who have a proven track record of being wrong. Wouldnt you agree femr2?

Have you managed to use your methodology and techniques to establish that pre placed charges/explosive devices were detonated in any buildings on 911? If so, why havnt you done something about it? If not, why not?

I know the answers femr2 but those you are trying to reach may not be aware of them.

 

[femr2]

femr2
Did you not follow the same methodology and techniques ...

No Abby, as you well know. You also know that your assertion is false.

You clearly have nothing to add to this thread, other than to *address the arguer, not the argument* (which you have been recently warned about) - Rule 12.

If you have any specific questions about the techniques in use, firstly, read the thread, then by all means ask questions.

 

[carlitos]

femr2, do you believe that United flight 175 struck the World Trade Center? Just curious. Having viewed your videos recently, I couldn't tell. If so, why did you put "Flight 175" in scare quotes sometimes?

 

[femr2]

Just curious.

No matter how many times you are requested to stay on topic, you are incapable of doing so. Again, you mistake me for a no-planer. What relevance does it have to this thread ? Scare quotes ? LOL. Go and find something more interesting to spend your time on Carlitos. I'm not interested in what you are curious about, and if you wish to discuss something off thread topic, there are plenty of other places you can discuss them with me.

Yet again, stay on topic please.

 

[femr2]

Tom,

So, where were we. Assume your 5 day MIA was fun

Static point variance...

I've applied some processing to the data.

1) Aligned separate traces by either +0.1 or -0.1 pixels relative to t9/16
2) Normal 2 point moving average for jitter treatment.
3) Average of all four traces taken as root.
4) Variance as subtraction of each trace from root.
5) 7 point moving average on variance data (just to simplify the display).

I imagine the step you'll object to most is the first, though I am sure you can see why I have included it if you look at each static trace of the same graph without applying offsets.

As mentioned above, the NIST copy of the Cam#3 footage should be with me shortly, though even that looks like they have messed with the contrast and brightness to a ridiculous amount. (I imagine they did so to simplify their home-grown tracing procedures.) As NIST have now released their lightened version of the original CBS footage, there can be no reason for not releasing the original CBS data directly, and so if it's not in the 7Tb dataset, it will be requested fairly promptly. Best result there is that I get hold of the original 7 minute version with original colour.

 

[alienentity]

No Abby, as you well know. You also know that your assertion is false.

You clearly have nothing to add to this thread, other than to *address the arguer, not the argument* (which you have been recently warned about) - Rule 12.

If you have any specific questions about the techniques in use, firstly, read the thread, then by all means ask questions.

The questions were not Rule 12 violations. They were about your methodology.

You're just trying to dodge the questions. I think they're perfectly valid and appropriate, as you've used your technical methods to try to prove some pretty outlandish things in the past.

 

[alienentity]

As mentioned above, the NIST copy of the Cam#3 footage should be with me shortly, though even that looks like they have messed with the contrast and brightness to a ridiculous amount. (I imagine they did so to simplify their home-grown tracing procedures.) As NIST have now released their lightened version of the original CBS footage, there can be no reason for not releasing the original CBS data directly, and so if it's not in the 7Tb dataset, it will be requested fairly promptly. Best result there is that I get hold of the original 7 minute version with original colour.

Why can't you guys just get it from CBS directly? What's the point of using NIST as an intermediary?