Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[Carll68]

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.

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 his very own admission in the post above, he is not using the best software available to perform his intended task.

he is not using the best source data.

He has shown he doenst understand the data, or the results.

He is comparing his results to NISTs, but using the worng software and poor data.

Classic charlatan fraud

 

[femr2]

By his very own admission in the post above, he is not using the best software available to perform his intended task.

Incorrect. I'm not using the most expensive software in the match-mover arena. SE is, in my learned opinion, by far the most suitable for the task in hand.

he is not using the best source data

Am using the best quality footage available. If you have better, provide it.

He has shown he doenst understand the data, or the results.

Incorrect.

He is comparing his results to NISTs, but using the worng software and poor data.

Incorrect.

Clearly you have absolutely no understanding of what you are talking about. By all means highlight specific technical errors. Any other comment from you is simply a waste of time, and will have no effect on thread progression.

By all means ignore the thread if you see no value in it. By all means dismiss any results when they are presented if you are unable to accept the validity.

 

[tfk]

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.

And, of course, the new Camera 3 videos will show - it MUST show - exactly the same thing that the already-released videos from Camera 3 show.

So, beyond hyperbolic show-boating, the reason for "dumping the current data set" is ...?

tom

 

[femr2]

And, of course, the new Camera 3 videos will show - it MUST show - exactly the same thing that the already-released videos from Camera 3 show.

Almost identical, of course. Identical ? No. Of course not.

So, beyond hyperbolic show-boating, the reason for "dumping the current data set" is ...?

Would have thought that was obvious...

1) Best quality dataset from the best quality footage.
2) Known chain of custody.
3) Full 7 minute duration, enabling early movement tracing.

 

[Reactor drone]

I'm thinking this video from the FOIA release might be the best candidate for determining tilt (not that determining a specific amount of tilt will tell you anything).

 

[femr2]

I'm thinking this video from the FOIA release might be the best candidate for determining tilt (not that determining a specific amount of tilt will tell you anything).

Thanks, but the angle has already been determined from several views ('ll dig out the thread at the911forum if you are interested).

That video is quite handy, but the significant camera movement affects tracing accuracy. It's a *new* view. Had one other version of it (from a sub-picture view) but the new one is full-frame, and so much better quality. Awating the original being released, rather than spending time on a YT recode version.

 

[tfk]

Almost identical, of course. Identical ? No. Of course not.

Demonstrating your highly developed skill of ...

... saying nothing.

Would have thought that was obvious...

1) Best quality dataset from the best quality footage.

The quality of this video's data is "better" than the previous one, during the collapse, how? (I'm not interested in the pre-collapse time. I'm interested in the quality during the collapse.)

2) Known chain of custody.

Do you that think anyone was questioning the validity of that video data?
Do you seriously suggest that the previous video was "manipulated" by anybody for any nefarious purposes?

 

[femr2]

Demonstrating your highly developed skill of ...

... saying nothing.

What ? If you cannot understand why I am saying that the video data on a different version of the video would be different, then you are demonstrating why you have such a difficult time with this topic. The Cam#3 footage version I have, whilst being good quality, has passed through an unknown number of additional recode processes (that's codec recodes, yeah ) and so the pixel level data is guaranteed to be slightly different. Obtaining and using the cleanest version is, for me, an obvious plus.

The quality of this video's data is "better" than the previous one, during the collapse,

Of course.

how?

Cleaner, clearer, guaranteed to not be interpolated (assuming I get the original)...all sorts of things. Why on earth do you think folk have been complaining and suggesting writing to CBS/whomever to get the original video ? Ta da ! It should be on the way, and now you are questioning why I'd want to use it ?

Do you that think anyone was questioning the validity of that video data?

That's what this thread is about Tom. I expect noise levels to be lower with the original footage, of course.

Do you seriously suggest that the previous video was "manipulated" by anybody for any nefarious purposes?

Not at all, and no idea where you get that impression.

 

[tfk]

femr,

And, of course, the new Camera 3 videos will show - it MUST show - exactly the same thing that the already-released videos from Camera 3 show.

Almost identical, of course. Identical ? No. Of course not.

Demonstrating your highly developed skill of ...
... saying nothing.

What ? If you cannot understand why I am saying that the video data on a different version of the video would be different, then you are demonstrating why you have such a difficult time with this topic. The Cam#3 footage version I have, whilst being good quality, has passed through an unknown number of additional recode processes (that's codec recodes, yeah ) and so the pixel level data is guaranteed to be slightly different. Obtaining and using the cleanest version is, for me, an obvious plus.

Thank you for proving my point.

You could have listed a few of these points to indicate what you meant by your answer. But it's not your style to be clear. You've learned the value of being vague, nebulous, hard to pin down. It's become a trademark of your posts.

You know what you mean. You intentionally leave everyone else to guess what you mean with statements like "Almost identical ..." etc.

That has been your MO since the start.

BTW, the grand total of the "difficulty with this topic", as measured by the number of concepts about video acquisition that I've had to change since beginning these discussions with you, is one: Acquisition times. (My previous experience was with vidicons, not CCD devices.)

The grand total of terminology that I've had to change is 2: "deinterlacing" and the ever-flexible definition of the word "frame".

how (better)?

Cleaner, clearer, guaranteed to not be interpolated (assuming I get the original)...all sorts of things. Why on earth do you think folk have been complaining and suggesting writing to CBS/whomever to get the original video ? Ta da ! It should be on the way, and now you are questioning why I'd want to use it ?

The data in the current video is plenty accurate enough to answer any of the questions that are significant.

There is still a major issue hanging out there that I haven't seen resolved: the issue of scaling.

Do you have any better info on that? It seems that is a major issue that deserves your time & attention.

Do you that think anyone was questioning the validity of that video data?

That's what this thread is about Tom. I expect noise levels to be lower with the original footage, of course.

That's "quality". Not "validity".

I mentioned validity in direct response to your "chain of custody" comment, which implies "is it authentic".

Do you seriously suggest that the previous video was "manipulated" by anybody for any nefarious purposes?

Not at all, and no idea where you get that impression.

From your bringing in "chain of custody".


tom

 

[Jackanory]

What ? If you cannot understand why I am saying that the video data on a different version of the video would be different, then you are demonstrating why you have such a difficult time with this topic. The Cam#3 footage version I have, whilst being good quality, has passed through an unknown number of additional recode processes (that's codec recodes, yeah ) and so the pixel level data is guaranteed to be slightly different. Obtaining and using the cleanest version is, for me, an obvious plus.


Of course.


Cleaner, clearer, guaranteed to not be interpolated (assuming I get the original)...all sorts of things. Why on earth do you think folk have been complaining and suggesting writing to CBS/whomever to get the original video ? Ta da ! It should be on the way, and now you are questioning why I'd want to use it ?


That's what this thread is about Tom. I expect noise levels to be lower with the original footage, of course.


Not at all, and no idea where you get that impression.

As I have said all along - your methodology and techniques are flawed and are a clear deception. Spewing nonsense after analysing and using pre used footage whilst awaiting 'originals' is clear deception. No credible analysis whatsoever. Experts in this field are laughing and ridiculing the methodology, techniques and data being used. It is not the first time you have used copied footage, usually from youtube, to spew deception. Footage that has been videod from other footage. Footage that has been copied and copied and copied again and again and again from other footage. Footage that has been passed through various different stages and exposed to all manner of input. Footage that is clearly tainted by over copying yet you have been relying on it for years. Using it for years to spread your deception. Now you want 'original' footage? So you admit that the base material and methods therefore used have been flawed. Garbage in/Garbage out???

No credibility here. Showboating and 'BS' baffles brains is the order here. No wonder the conclusions you arrive at are flawed. Sometimes genius is only in the eyes of the beholder.

The history of the methodology you use and the context in which it is used is clear for all to see. All I see is a constant dance of deception, flawed technique and failed ideas. Have you made progress? How? When? Why?

 

[tfk]

Tom,

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

Static point variance...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/874369222.png

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.

And what you attempting to claim here is NOT "the accuracy of SynthEyes".

It is the accuracy of "SynthEyes plus the noise filtering algorithms that [you] have chosen".

It's validity WILL BE substantiated when you've applied to your work the standard methods of calibrating any measurement technique.

You can NOT simply say "I get measurements to 6 significant figures". Or "I Measure this one point over & over & over again, and only get this variation." And then claim this level of precision.
___

I tallied the accuracy of SynthEyes itself, based on a small sampling (i.e., 4 locations) of data, in my previous post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6274881&postcount=225


That suggests an accuracy of about ±0.4 pixels (INCLUDING employing the 2 point jitter removal).

(Without the 2 point jitter removal, the errors were about ±0.6 pixels.)

You're claiming that you can filter that error down to ±0.1 pixels. It's your job to convince your readers.

I'm not convinced.

 

[femr2]

You could have listed a few of these points to indicate what you meant by your answer.

True, but it's so trivial and obvious it shouldn't need to be.

But it's not your style to be clear. You've learned the value of being vague, nebulous, hard to pin down. It's become a trademark of your posts.

In your view perhaps. From mine it repeatedly shows me that you need to have such trivially simple points explained to you.

You know what you mean.

Yes, and I expect such trivial points to be understood by everyone, including you.

You intentionally leave everyone else to guess what you mean with statements like "Almost identical ..." etc.

Including such details at all times implies I'm conversing with folk with significant arena knowledge issues. If you'd prefer that I do, I'll try and make every response full of trivial details.

The data in the current video is plenty accurate enough to answer any of the questions that are significant.

Agreed ! (is this thread done now ?)

There is still a major issue hanging out there that I haven't seen resolved: the issue of scaling.

Do you have any better info on that? It seems that is a major issue that deserves your time & attention.

I can detail the imaging methods I use to determine the scaling metrics in a more verbose form, but unfortunately the physical building metric information is just not available. Perhaps there will be more detailed information in the forthcoming FOIA data. If so, I'll be on it in a flash.

From your bringing in "chain of custody".

My intention was to highlight that the nearer to original the digital file is, the fewer process are likely to have been applied. My current Cam#3 footage is still from NIST, but via a 720p HD download from YT, so at least includes 1) YT recode and 2) NIST video package editing for it to be in the presentation and 3) NIST (or earlier) lightening of the footage.

NIST were provided the original direct from CBS, so hopefully that file will be in the release, which will be splendid.

 

[femr2]

your methodology and techniques are flawed and are a clear deception.

Incorrect. Present specific details or retract your accusation.

Spewing nonsense after analysing and using pre used footage whilst awaiting 'originals' is clear deception.

Incorrect. Better quality video data will simply reduce data noise levels. Current data is more than high enough quality for any currently suggested conclusions (of which there are very few btw)

No credible analysis whatsoever.

Very little analysis at all Abby. What analysis are you referring to ?

Experts in this field are laughing and ridiculing the methodology, techniques and data being used.

And who are they ?

Now you want 'original' footage?

Always. When not available I'll use the best there is, of course.

So you admit that the base material and methods therefore used have been flawed.

Base material *flawed* as-in not original quality, yes. Methods flawed, no. Same methods applied regardless of video source.

conclusions you arrive at are flawed.

What conclusions ?

 

[femr2]

And what you attempting to claim here is NOT "the accuracy of SynthEyes".

It is the accuracy of "SynthEyes plus the noise filtering algorithms that [you] have chosen".

Hmm. The only noise filtering we've been looking at is de-jitter. I've also provided the graphs of the data split by field, then by 3 sample interval (as suggested by W. D. Clinger). Those graphs have absolutely zero noise filtering.

When moving over to velocity and acceleration derivatives, yes, there's smoothing, but the base positional accuracy includes only dejitter.

It's validity WILL BE substantiated when you've applied to your work the standard methods of calibrating any measurement technique.

Which are...

I tallied the accuracy of SynthEyes itself, based on a small sampling (i.e., 4 locations) of data, in my previous post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6274881&postcount=225


That suggests an accuracy of about ±0.4 pixels (INCLUDING employing the 2 point jitter removal).

(Without the 2 point jitter removal, the errors were about ±0.6 pixels.)

You're claiming that you can filter that error down to ±0.1 pixels. It's your job to convince your readers.

I'm not convinced.

Then I'll continue...

 

[tfk]

It's validity WILL BE substantiated when you've applied to your work the standard methods of calibrating any measurement technique.

Which are...

I would have thought that those are so obvious to everyone that I wouldn't have to explain them to you.

Perhaps this explains why you're having so much trouble with this...

 

[femr2]

I would have thought that those are so obvious to everyone that I wouldn't have to explain them to you.

Perhaps, but would you do so anyway please.

 

[femr2]

The data in the current video is plenty accurate enough to answer any of the questions that are significant.

Please pick some points on some other buildings (not WTC7) that have definable points that are comparable (in size, distance, spatial frequency & contrast) to the points on WTC7 that you've tracked, and provide tracings of those feature for several seconds. A couple of tracings of near-to-each-other features (one on WTC7 and one nearby in the frame, but on another building) would be very useful.

Please make sure that all scaling factors are set the same as in your WTC7 traces.

Presumably, that point on that building will be stationary. If there are no "sub-pixel" jumping up & down in those traces, it'll go a long way to showing that the bouncing signal are at least associated with WTC7. Perhaps schlieren effects from heat, if not actual motion of the building.

However, if the signal from a non-impacted building is bouncing just like the WTC7 signal is, then it's pretty clear that source of the trace noise is from some other source. Perhaps the software algorithms.

Whay is your current opinion on your OP segment above ?

 

[femr2]

Tom,

Is there any reason you have not stated your version of *the standard methods of calibrating any measurement technique* ?

If you do so, and apply it to the provided data, I suggest that you look at the data in the form suggested by W.D.Clinger...

(Image alternates between upper and lower field, with each trace being for a sequential 3 sample interval. Think it's quite clear that variance is lower than your suggested 0.8 pixel value.)

I would then suggest that the *blob test* traces also become significant.

If you've lost interest, no worries. I'll get on with providing the actual analyses of various traces, and if you want to disagree on conclusions presented, you can pick this back up then.

 

[beachnut]

Wow, using all available data, your data, and all evidence; WTC7 collapsed due to fire. Your data shows no blast effects. Good job.

Sad news! This was known on 911. 9 years and you can't figure out 911, you still think there were 2 flight 175s, or some anomaly. No source or references yet. Darn, I thought you were done.

 

[femr2]

Your data shows no blast effects.

A very odd thing to say.

What would, in your opinion, the data be able to show in terms of *blast effects* ?

And how does the data, in your opinion, show no *blast effects* ?

Movement (flexing) clearly occurs before the start of the Cam#3 clip I have available at this time. I will be looking at the full 7 minute version as and when it surfaces. Whether that will provide any useful information is yet to be seen.