Incorrect. The application of tracing methods has been applied to elements of WTC 1 initiation, and *crush front* rate of progression, as has been made clear on this thread. What *outlandish things* are you suggesting tracing methods have been used to prove...?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Who said anything about tracing methods, besides you? We're talking about the misapplication of your 'precise' methodologies to support outlandish claims in the past. About your use of technical jargon to make such claims seem more 'sciencey'.
Sure, that's a bit OT to the thread, but it ain't no Rule 12 violation.
Same for my question. I'm just trying to assess the judgement of the analyst looking at the data. Why can't truthers answer direct, simple questions?
Here's my answer regarding United flight 175 impacting WTC2 - "yes."
femr2's answer is ... ___________?
It's not a gotcha question, it's a legit inquiry. I notice that some of the videos that seemed to claim "flight 175" don't work from the femr2's youtube links #1 video. Kudos for the video that states it was "not a missile," by the way. Here is the one I refer to:
Here's my answer regarding United flight 175 impacting WTC2 - "yes."
femr2's answer is ... ___________?
It's not a gotcha question, it's a legit inquiry. I notice that some of the videos that seemed to claim "flight 175" don't work from the femr2's youtube links #1 video. Kudos for the video that states it was "not a missile," by the way. Here is the one I refer to:
And there is an entire thread here that looks at the source of the question, namely the FlightExplorer information that places UAL175 50km NE of WTC 2 as 35000ft, and N175F at the location of the impact. My viewpoint is made clear on that subject, on that thread. Both are Flight 175. I assume you now see why suggesting that I think "Flight 175" did not exist is a false accusation.
Comment on the appropriate thread. Nothing you are saying has anything to do with sub-pixel tracing methods, the topic of this thread. Rule 12. (Way too much time on your hands
)
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
I don't think Rule 12 means what you think it means. This is about the arguments and the methodologies used.
There is no Rule 12 violation in discussing those topics.
There is no Rule 12 violation in discussing those topics.
And there is an entire thread here that looks at the source of the question, namely the FlightExplorer information that places UAL175 50km NE of WTC 2 as 35000ft, and N175F at the location of the impact. My viewpoint is made clear on that subject, on that thread. Both are Flight 175. I assume you now see why suggesting that I think "Flight 175" did not exist is a false accusation.
Comment on the appropriate thread. Nothing you are saying has anything to do with sub-pixel tracing methods, the topic of this thread. Rule 12. (Way too much time on your hands
Thanks, but "yes" would have been a lot shorter. Too much time on your hands?
I wonder what conclusion your youtube subscribers gleaned from a video asking "Which 'Flight 175' Crashed into WTC 2?" There were several "no plane" comments @ youtube. And your responses are interesting.
femr2@youtube said:
Or what they gleaned from analysis of "ejecta anomalies" from what you called "impact charges:"
So the ejecta from WTC was not a result of a jumbo jet hitting it at high speed? This is delusional, and veering into Ace Baker territory.femr2 @ youtube said:
As alienentity noted, you use video analysis and slick production to make vague accusations about 9/11. You find "anomalies" and present them as fact based on your analysis. You have no expertise in any area which qualifies your analysis to be taken at face value. You won't list any qualifications here. And you use technical jargon which at times you don't understand to make your work seem impressive. It's not. This is directly related to this thread.
Also related to tfk's point within this specific thread, please note your claim of "milliseconds" above. You do not appear to understand the concept or application of error analysis when processing data.
Far from enough I'm afraid.Too much time on your hands?
Nope. I certainly highlight what I deem to be anomolies, and ask questions about them. Sometimes there are answers, sometime not. The near-central white plume ejecta from the impact video you have gone to lengths to dig into is possibly focussed ejecta through the central core corridor. The other highlighted area is still unexplained.
You have no knowledge of my qualifications...
Correct.
Incorrect. I may use terminology you personally don't understand, or interpret incorrectly. That's not my problem.
No it's not. It's *attack the arguer* and ignore the *argument*. Look at the lengths you're going to...scanning through YouTube to quote mine for things you think make your *point*. Too funny. I'm a bit thicker skinned than that I'm afraid. It boils down to a simple and deliberate attempt to derail the thread.
Oh. My. Many. Gods. Something actually about this thread...?
I assume you mean the NIST 5.4s graph. Note I state *using specific frame numbers*. The calc is fully qualified.
Incorrect. As also indicated, make of it what you will.
Now, if you've finished wasting your time trawling YouTube (which you might note I haven't been to in months) get specific about the technical procedures pertinent to this thread, or be quiet
Thanks mate.Then I shall assume further comments will address sub-pixel tracing methods, their accuracy and direct arguments from such.
Great
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
Then I shall assume further comments will address sub-pixel tracing methods, their accuracy and direct arguments from such.
Great
This entire thread is laughable --why even bother with this frauds feeble uneducated attempts at video tracing?
For Pete's sake, this stooge is using a program that isnt even an acceptable program to utilize for his intended and stated purpose. Look it up.
he is using a inferior program with bad data and no understanding of the results he spews.
Frankly, HE HASN'T A CLUE AS TO WHAT HE IS DOING.
POINT. BLANK. END.
I understand (most of) your jargon just fine. My concern was, and is, that your pseudo-sciencey jargon, charts and graphs and pretty video production impresses truthers, who then use it to validate their erroneous theories. Like "no plane" (flight 175) or "bombs in the WTC tower" (ejecta anomalies). This is visible in the comments section for your videos, whatever the context of their presentation elsewhere may be. I only picked a random 2 or 3 that had something to do with flight 175, and no, I certainly won't be trolling for more. The preceding is true whether you consider yourself part of the "truth" movement or not.
Similarly, your youtube channel subscribers and friends include lots of truther fantasists, including luminaries like "alexjones4president" and "WarCrime911." You can play naive all you like, but the fact remains that your vague and misleading insinuations are used to validate truther fantasies which have no grounding in fact. Like "bombs" or "fake planes" or "the government did 9/11." I suspect that this is why you refuse to state an alternative hypothesis which better explains the events of 9/11/2001; you don't have one, preferring to
Heck, look at the comments on your own website to see this. Missiles? Pods?
I won't comment further on this thread, per your request. If there is a purpose for your analysis other than questioning the common narrative of 9/11/2001, I'd be curious* to hear it.
*yes I know that you don't care what I'm curious about
SynthEyes is one of a small number of available *match mover* applications. There are not any applications designed to perform the task I'm using it for, however, the 2D tracking engine is of superb quality and accuracy. There are a couple of rather more expensive options out there, but I'm afraid I'm not prepared to invest the $10,000 required for a BOUJOU or 3DEqualiser seat, for what is basically an extremely similar underlying tracking engine.
Accuracy has been shown to be at least on-par with the flawed NIST moire method, which claims inch accurate metrics.
If you are aware of an application that you can show exceeds the 2D tracking engine capabilities of SynthEyes, then by all means say so.
If not, then your comments are entirely without merit (as per usual).
What a good idea.
Noted. Thank you.carlitos said:
I got the expected response.
I asked specific questions relevant to the methodology and techniques used and how those same methods and techniques have been wrongly used by you to reach incorrect conclusions in all other areas of 911. A plethora of false and misleading information that leads directly to false conclusions or misleading assumptions as shown in works on youtube and posted here by alienentity. Did you submit those works to youtube? Have you accepted that the methods used have concluded in you being incorrect? Was the 'POD' a bomb?
In my opinion it is deception to continue in the same vein knowing that those very methods and techniques have already lead to failed conclusions. This is not the accepted norm amongst those seeking advancement in their field of expertise. Are you making progress?
Over to you Tom.
Incorrect. Nothing to do with tracing techniques.
Again, incorrect. Provide example of incorrect conclusions derived from the methods and techniques being discussed in this thread (sub-pixel video feature movement tracing).
LOL. You have been banging on about pods for years Abby. Years. No. No pod Abb's, as I've highlighted to you many times a very long time ago...here's one of my renders to prove that (rather than flimsy hand waving from others) from march 2009...
Your opinion is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. No offense intended. I like chocolate, and tea
I'll assume you've *had your say* now Abby. Not one technical point raised whatsoever.
Now, if everyone has gotten all their personal frustrations out of their systems, I can get back to the tracing methods thing...the thread topic...
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
What were you saying about Rule 12? You just made personal attacks....that would be hypocrisy
Just sayin
He has no reality based goal, or purpose for his work; and if he could he would censor the those who can comment on his work; on-line, he has to block dissenting points of view. I thought reference and sources for his steps would be great; but they are not going to happen. If this was his forum, or his video, we would be blocked; he hates JREF and has said so.What were you saying about Rule 12? You just made personal attacks....that would be hypocrisy
No sources, no reference, no goal, no purpose. The CD delusion runs deep in 911 truth; past reason. This work might be interesting but serves no purpose; there are proprietary and other classes of this work already done. Without modeling the errors due to lens, atmosphere, and many other errors, this work is a waste. I worked with engineers, professors, PhDs and scientist who did this type of work right; we are 10 pages away from just setting up the introduction.
By all means link to them then beachnut...
Incorrect. The main usage of trace data thus far has been determination of the relative start points of multiple building features. Quantifying the suggested errors is irrelevant in that context. Also, given the scale of other noise sources, such as video artefacts and quality, the effect of the suggested factors are of lower magnitude and are not separable.
Bound to be some hand waving, so...
Lens distortion will present itself over large movement distances, atmospheric distortion (such as smoke) is minimised due to the use of region based tracing methods, and...well, that's all you've listed. I've been looking at other sources of noise, such as tracing algorithm noise, camera shake, ... There will be more time to look at other possible sources of noise if the substanceless noise in the thread is eliminated.
You are not aware of other work? That is all I will say about that; I thought you were an expert on this stuff (not really, it is like you make it up as you go); I see you are unaware of other work. Good for you, you must think you are a pioneer in the field. No wonder you don't source or reference anything.
Source and references please. Wait; did you say hand waving? You are making up these claims and you don't understand the errors.
Your claims are not sourced, no references, and seem to be backed by only your opinion. But then you did say hand waving. Good for you.
substance-less noise, yep, you hand wave away the errors and fail to quantify them. No goal, no purpose, no tie to 911, no sources, no reference, no backing up claims with the same - Substance-less work (no wonder you have to block u-tube users from making comments) Will there be/is there a you-tube video?
Last edited:
You complain about sources, yet you are refusing to do so ? Interesting.
I've pointed you at the most relevant source beachnut...NIST. By all means post references to others.
For what ? For saying that lens distortion will only present itself over large movement distances (utterly obvious), and atmospheric distortion (such as smoke) is minimised due to the use of region based tracing methods (less obvious but correct nonetheless) ?
You have to be kidding. Either you have no ability to understand what I've said, or you simply request sources *for a laugh*. Don't lose your peer-reviewed paper on the correct procedure for breathing now. Just in case you've lost it...
1) Breathe in.
2) Breathe out.
3) Repeat from (1).