Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[Major_Tom]

Fair enough: very boring.

It is a shame because there are some very interesting applications to this tracing method. I have seen 2 different people detect horizontal movement in the WTC1 antenna and NW edge of the building occuring for 9.5 seconds before the visible collapse. The NIST did not know about this movement so that is some pretty damn good measuring.

These methods also give us the most accurate measurements of WTC1 antenna and north face tilt available.

These methods can be used to show that WTC1 never actually tilted as a "rigid block", it's very first movements were of pure deformation, and it is very interesting to detect what portions of the building sagged first, because it is not consistent with what the NIST says.

Doesn't have to be boring at all if distractions wouldn't dominate the discussion.

 

[leftysergeant]

Fair enough: very boring.

It is a shame because there are some very interesting applications to this tracing method. I have seen 2 different people detect horizontal movement in the WTC1 antenna and NW edge of the building occuring for 9.5 seconds before the visible collapse.

Linky?

The NIST did not know about this movement so that is some pretty damn good measuring.

Well, why hasn't someone told them? It would put a big sweaty gym sock in the mouths of the lunatics who think the towers were CDed.

 

[Cuddles]

Several posts have been removed to AAH. Remain civil and avoid engaging in personal attacks and bickering.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Major_Tom]

This application of the method to WTC1 has already been posted in a different thread and it was just ignored. Leftysergeant, actually it is a big sweaty sock in the mouths of the people who believe the NIST WTC1 collapse initiation scenario.

Here the method is applied by 2 posters who abtain similar results:

Beginning at about 9.5 seconds before the visible collapse initiation, building movement first became detectable using tracing methods.

These measurements show us a few very important features, or attributes, of the collapse initiation process. This information is new and the NIST did not know about it.

The detection of the earliest tendencies of movement of the building is one application of sub-pixel tracking. We can observe the NW corner get pulled eastward from fl 98 upwards over a 9.5 second interval. At the same time, the base of the antenna is moving eastward and then sags in a "hook" motion. while we see no movement along the west edge of the building.


Two approaches, same results.

First analysis:

SOURCE VIDEO

http://xenomorph.s3.amazonaws.com/Etienne-Sauret-WTC1-DVD.mpg

Frame 1 in analysis = Frame 370 in the deinterlaced mpg.

Processing...

1) Deinterlace - unfold.
2) VideoEnhancer Resolution Upscale (*2x, *4y)
3) Deinterlace - fold.
4) Bob Doubler (Alternate Fields, No resize)


Only the first 1300 (interlaced), 2600 (deinterlaced) frames are examined.

Written out as .bmp, download yields 2600 files, totalling 10,782,860,400 bytes (10 Gb)


HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT, NW CORNER

http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-426-3

Camera shake is obvious (between frames 1150-1250).

Black thick line is horizontal movement of the NW corner.

Grey is raw NW corner.

Blue is static point.

(Remember there would be a time delay between event and camera if indeed the source of shaking originated from WTC1)


STATIC POINTS

Two static points are used, one in the foreground (on the building on the left of frame), and one low on the East side of the building. The locations are shown in the following linked images:

The static feature fixed to WTC1...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/700962521.png


The foreground static feature...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/556859827.png


The following graph compares and shows the difference between both static points...

HiRes http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-427-3







Blue is FG static point.

Grey is Building static point.

Black is the difference.

Note...

1) There is good correlation between both until near the very end of the trace, indicating that parralax effects are minimal between near and far field objects.

2) There is Westward movement of the static point on the building at the end of the trace.

3) Camera shake period should be obvious.


Static Feature Comparison (Vertical)

HiRes

Notes...

1) Slight gradual vertical drop of building static feature following camera shake.

I'm aware of stating movement of static features here, but I was expecting the traced point on the building to *stay* static.


Washer Horizontal Movement (Normalised to FG static point)...

HiRes http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-431-3


Notes...

1) Camera shake is between 1150 and 1250.

2) Eastward movement follows shake.


Static Point Foreground Vertical...

HiRes http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-432-3


NW Corner Raw Vertical...

HiRes http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-433-3


Draft NW Corner Normalised Vertical...

HiRes http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-434-3

Original posting of first analysis at

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/onset-of-wtc1-movement-and-sauret-shake-t386.html
................................................
................................................

Second analysis:

The entire Sauret clip is tracked to detect vertical and lateral pre-release movement of WTC1.


SOURCE VIDEO

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/enhanced-video-sources-t394.html#p11816


TRACKED POINTS: 4 GROUPS

1) Several static points in the foreground (3 on the metal stick, 2 on the windows behind stick). These "static points" in the foreground are represented by the blue curves.

2) "Static point" at the 92nd floor NW corner of WTC1 (yellow).

3) Several points near the roof (washer, roof corner, window at 110 NW corner). Roof measurements are represented by the green curves. The curve for the window of the 110th floor is a very bright green and appears almost white.

4) Antenna mast along the black/white transition. The movement of the antenna is represented by the red tones.


IMPORTANT NOTE

The trackers have a problem staying exactly in position during the shaking. Many trackers indeed lost the track and were not able to measure the assigned position during the entire length of the clip. Some trackers stayed "connected" but re-calculated the "best fit" several times during the shaking. Therefore we may have different relative positions of tracked points at the end of the shaking. That deviation of the curves doesn't mean that a real displacement of the measured points occurred. Instead we can use the new relative positions as "zero movement" if we are not able to track the movement during the shaking precisely.


HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT

HiRes:http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/9873/sauretfulllengthl.png


EASTWARD LEANING

Prior to the shaking of the camera all curves follow the blue "static foreground". There is no measurable movement of the tower. All apparent movements are the result of the shaking of the camera. After the shaking the yellow curve (floor 92) stays with the blue curves (static foreground). This means the 92nd floor didn't change it's position relative to foreground static points until the 92nd floor was pushed westward during the collapse.

Interestingly, all measured points above 92 - roof, washer (green) antenna (red) - started to lean east immediately after the shaking (about frame 1350).

VERTICAL DROP

HiRes:http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/9484/sauretfulllengthv.png


Prior to the shaking of the camera all curves follow the blue "static foreground". After the shaking all curves vary somewhat but move with the blue curves for about the next 200 frames. At about frame 1465 the antenna mast clearly started to "sag" while roof (green) and 92nd floor (yellow) stayed with the static foreground (blue).

We will have to compare the result with the calculated relations for the south tilt before we can differentiate between tilt and drop. Nevertheless, prior to any sag/tilt the entire upper part of the buildings started to creep eastward.

The east leaning (wide side of the core) is hardly explainable as induced by the south wall inward bowing if we do not measure any increasing south tilt during this interval. The same object tracking tool is used to measure south tilt as well as eastward tilt. Any south tilt would significantly shorten the measured vertical distance between roofline and any tracked point on the antenna.



Perhaps we wouldn't notice a small trapezoidal perimeter deformation towards the southeast if the antenna remained straight up. In that case the perimeter columns would bow towards the southeast, yet the total circumference of thr roofline along the perimeter must remain the same and we do not see a corresponding movement of perimeter roofline columns extending from the SW corner to the NE corner. Therefore such a hypothetical SW perimeter fold-in as the antenna remains near plumb does not match the visual record and so can be excluded as a possibility.

Once again everything points to a core-led collapse, not to a collapse initiated by instability in the south perimeter..



Interesting to note that prior to the collapse the distance between roof and 92nd floor decreases as seen in the HiRes plot of vertical displacement. After the collapse of the 98th floor the 92nd floor was sagging (compared to the "blue" static points in the foreground) until it was destroyed when the collapse reached that floor.


Frame 1641 of that long enhanced video is the frame 0 of the older set of measurements by achimspok.

Originally posted at

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/onset-of-wtc1-movement-and-sauret-shake-t386-30.html#p11880

 

[tfk]

femr,

Please clarify this little point …

If you think your TV displays 30fps...lol

First note near the bottom of the very reference you posted:

"In NTSC countries (USA, Japan,...) it's ca. 30 fps (59.94 fields per second)..."
http://www.100fps.com/

Does US TV use ~30 frames per second, as your reference asserts?
Or are you posting information from incompetent experts?

 

[femr2]

Please clarify this little point

It really should not be necessary.

Does US TV use ~30 frames per second, as your reference asserts?

30 interlaced frames per second. (30 fps)
60 images per second. (60 ips)
60 frames per second. (60 fps)
60 fields per second. (60 fps)
etc...

All are valid descriptors.

(All framerates are approximate and should be *1000/1001)

are you posting information from incompetent experts?

No. The problem is your need for terms to have singular meaning and scope, which does not apply to the real world all the time.

 

[tfk]

MT,

Boy, you shifted those goal posts into the next county, dintcha?

Fair enough: very boring.

Well, that isn't a very physics-y of you.

My comment wasn't on excitement, it was on correctness of a very specific point. Which, the last time I checked, IS kind of a concern of physics.

A point that you understood when you wrote:

TFK, it was this argument that I said is incredibly stupid:

Didn't ask you what NIST said.
I didn't ask if they descended near to, at or above "g".
I didn't ask what was happening "outside that interval".
I didn't ask about other points on the fascade.

I asked you "does the profile of your curve (in red) resemble the profile of the free fall curve (in blue) over any interval?"

Here, lemme help...

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6...7freefall2.png

The red line is a plot of your acceleration data.

The blue line DOES represent a plot of an object that suddenly (at around 12.2 seconds on this graph) goes into real free fall.

If the red curve looks substantially like the blue curve over any interval, then the red curve also "looks like" a free fall acceleration. Over that interval, of course.

If the red curve does not look substantially like the blue curve over any interval, then the red curve does NOT represent an object that is in free fall.

This shouldn't be too hard, femr.

Yes? No?

Free fall? No Free Fall?

Question: Do these curves look alike?

My question was very simple, very direct, supplied with all the information that femr (or you) need to provide an answer.

Do the curves look alike?

My answer is simple: No, they don't. Specifically, there is no point on femr's curve where the curve is horizontal at -32.2 ft/sec^2 for any period of time, much less for 2.25 seconds.

My conclusion from this data is simple: while the average acceleration over some interval between 1 & 2 seconds is somewhere between 0.9G & 1G, the higher resolution of this data shows that the north wall never did actually exhibit "free fall acceleration".

Now, given Chandler's massive self promotion, assertion that the engineers at NIST are incompetent & deceitful, and the inordinate twoofer press that his nonsense has been given, I happen to find that VERY INTERESTING.

You may find it uninteresting because it undermines one of your last straws.

I also find that VERY INTERESTING.

So, now that we've established the "interesting quotient" to be subjective, you castigated my argument for being "stupid".

And you castigated the JREF people here for not being able to discern a "stupid physics argument from a good one", and for not chastising me for the snark I put into my post because femr refused to answer my simple direct question. That I put to him about 4 times.

That he still has not answered.

Now, rather than changing the subject, as you are about to do, why don't you make an intelligent observation about the shape of the acceleration curve that femr has generated compared to the shape of the acceleration curve of an object that is really in free fall.

THAT was my point.
___

It is a shame because there are some very interesting applications to this tracing method. I have seen 2 different people detect horizontal movement in the WTC1 antenna and NW edge of the building …

Goal post moving service noted.

Not interested in this subject with you, MT.

Got anything to say about femr's acceleration graph vs. a real free fall?

Doesn't have to be boring at all if distractions wouldn't dominate the discussion.

"Boring" was introduced by you. Not me. Not femr.
"Boring" ia subjective & irrelevant.
"Right or wrong" is objective & relevant.

Distractions like, say, "inappropriate change in topic", "goal post shifting" or "refusal to answer direct questions"?

Your turn...

 

[femr2]

I happen to find that VERY INTERESTING.

I don't. As MT pointed out, any suggestion that the acceleration curve of any real-world descent, regardless of cause, should correspond to a step function... is stupid.

You may find it uninteresting because it undermines one of your last straws.

False assertion. Your quibble is with Chandler, not with assertions made by either MT or myself.

I suggest you discuss it with him, rather than attempt to apply his assertions upon others.

femr refused to answer my simple direct question.

Incorrect.

That he still has not answered.

Yet again, incorrect...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6448319&postcount=529
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6448862&postcount=547

Now, rather than changing the subject

MT's latest post is a direct response to a question by another poster. Even though you try and demand sole attention, it is not a *change of subject* to make such a response.

"Boring" was introduced by you. Not me. Not femr.

I've indicated above that I find your wandering trails of thought particularly tedious and boring Tom.

 

[tfk]

It really should not be necessary.


30 interlaced frames per second. (30 fps)
60 images per second. (60 ips)
60 frames per second. (60 fps)
60 fields per second. (60 fps)
etc...

All are valid descriptors.

(All framerates are approximate and should be *1000/1001)


No. The problem is your need for terms to have singular meaning and scope, which does not apply to the real world all the time.

YOUR expert says 30 frames per second. You agree with him.

I say 30 frames per second. You say "No, you're wrong."

You did NOT say to anyone who said 30 fps, "Yes there are multiple definitions of the word 'frame'."

You said, "you're wrong." And you added a bunch of "you're stupid" snark, for good measure. And you adamantly asserted that my TV operates at 60 frames per second.

But now that your expert (along with EVERY other NTSC reference that I've seen, and several that I've posted) says "30 frames per second", suddenly the definition of "frame" becomes flexible.


But flexible ONLY for you.
Rigid for everyone else.

Anyone else says "30 frames per second", and you launch into "you're wrong & stupid".

There has been precisely zero misunderstanding on anyone's part about these definitions. There has only been you, shifting you choice of definition from sentence to sentence, or phrase to phrase.

The beginning & end of your video lecturing here.

BTW,

"30 interlaced frames per second. (30 fps)" yes
"60 images per second. (60 ips)" yes
"60 fields per second." yes, "(60 fps)" NO. I've not once seen fps used for fields.

And "60 frames per second. (60 fps)" No. 30 fps.

And you can stop already with the " x 1000/1001" crap. Everyone gets that little correction. It doesn't make your whole exercise in blowing smoke any less intentionally deceptive.

The whole fiasco provided not one iota of information about anything, and was nothing but a giant semantic smokescreen by you. And apparently not the first time for this little charade.

 

[Major_Tom]

I'm showing only one of many applications of the tracing method.

As for your comparision of the WTC7 acceleration data with a step function, my comment on how stupid that is was censored. Your comments on how the curve bears no attributes of a step function is so mindless, so void of substance that it serves as an excellent example how this forum and it's members treat such posts.

Rather than waste time explaining it to you in this environment, it would be more entertaining to watch you expand the argument. Please proceed and explain why the shape of the step function is so important.

 

[leftysergeant]

This application of the method to WTC1 has already been posted in a different thread and it was just ignored. Leftysergeant, actually it is a big sweaty sock in the mouths of the people who believe the NIST WTC1 collapse initiation scenario.

No. There was no perturbation of the smoke. There were no explosive charges detonated inside the building. There was some increase in the amount of smoke rising through the top of the structure, consistant with the progressive failure of floors and parts of the roof. There was no great increase in white smoke from any point. Thermite is not in evidence.

Notes...

1) Camera shake is between 1150 and 1250.

2) Eastward movement follows shake.

Camera shake is simultaneous withj maneuvers by a helicopter nearly overhead, thus irrelevant to the investigation.

Y'all need to figure out what information means. Sometimes it means squat.

 

[femr2]

YOUR expert says 30 frames per second.

And in the same breath...
"In NTSC countries (USA, Japan,...) it's ca. 30 fps (59.94 fields per second)"

...it's ca. 30 fps (59.94 fps)

You did NOT say to anyone who said 30 fps, "Yes there are multiple definitions of the word 'frame'."

Incorrect. I've made that point blatantly clear many times, as you well know. If necessary, I'll pull them all out from this thread.

And you added a bunch of "you're stupid" snark, for good measure.

Incorrect. Quotes please.

And you adamantly asserted that my TV operates at 60 frames per second.

Yep. It does. As I said to you previously, if you want that terms as 60 images per second, or 60 fields per second, whatever...all the same thing.

But now that your expert (along with EVERY other NTSC reference that I've seen, and several that I've posted) says "30 frames per second", suddenly the definition of "frame" becomes flexible.

No, the flexibility of the scope of the word frame was made clear to you repeatedly a long time ago Tom...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6251260&postcount=98

Thought we'd been through this before, but...

What *frame* means is entirely dependant upon context.

A frame of a video which contains two interlaced fields is called a frame.

But if you separate those two fields into their correct two separate images, each of them is also called a frame.

What I've been saying about a frame being called a field of an interlace frame only when it's treated as part of that interlace frame is correct. A picture is an image is a frame is a field (when part of an interlaced frame). It's all just terminology

Among MANY other instances of discussion about the flexibility of term application.

Anyone else says "30 frames per second", and you launch into "you're wrong & stupid".

Incorrect. You are getting context of discussion confused.

There has been precisely zero misunderstanding on anyone's part about these definitions.

Incorrect, or you would not ask questions such as...

do you still claim that your data represents 60 frame/sec info?

And "60 frames per second. (60 fps)" No. 30 fps.

No. Either. So that you understand WHY both are completely valid...when you display an interlaced video with 30 frames per second...on a progressive display (such as a computer monitor)...in deinterlaced form...you see 60 images per second...and each of them is validly called a frame.

And you can stop already with the " x 1000/1001" crap.

Then use 29.97 and 59.94 instead.


The bottom line on all of this drivel is that I deinterlace interlaced video and trace both fields to construct 59.97 sample per second data.

Anyone suggesting tracing of folded interlaced video clealry does not understand.

A point made very clear by the following image and a simple question...

What is the position of the NW corner ?

 

[femr2]

No. There was no perturbation of the smoke. There were no explosive charges detonated inside the building.

What part of indicating problems with the NIST initiation sequence leads you to start discussing explosive charges ?

There was some increase in the amount of smoke rising through the top of the structure

Correct(ish).

consistant with the progressive failure of floors and parts of the roof.

Possibly. That in itself would create problems for the NIST initiation sequence, even if only through omission and consideration.

Thermite is not in evidence.

See note above.

Camera shake is simultaneous withj maneuvers by a helicopter nearly overhead

A helicopter can be heard in the footage, but you have no idea where it was relative to the camera.

thus irrelevant to the investigation

That kind of weak argument is not going to end any *debates*.

It may well be that camera shake was caused by a helicopter.
It may well be that camera shake was NOT caused by a helicopter.

 

[Major_Tom]

No. There was no perturbation of the smoke. There were no explosive charges detonated inside the building. There was some increase in the amount of smoke rising through the top of the structure, consistant with the progressive failure of floors and parts of the roof. There was no great increase in white smoke from any point.

Leftysergeant, another application of the tracing methods shows that the first row of forceful ejections seen along the west wall, fl 98 came out before any observable point on the building started to fall downwards. This was pointed out on the OOS collapse model thread and it was ignored, except for using it as a new opportunity to insult me.

As you can see this method opens many doors to new research.

If your collapse initiation floor becomes over-pressurized before slab movement can possible explain it, it should serve as a big red flag that something is not correct with the official account of events.

 

[beachnut]

Leftysergeant, another application of the tracing methods shows that the first row of forceful ejections seen along the west wall, fl 98 came out before any observable point on the building started to fall downwards. This was pointed out on the OOS collapse model thread and it was ignored, except for using it as a new opportunity to insult me.

As you can see this method opens many doors to new research.

If your collapse initiation floor becomes over-pressurized before slab movement can possible explain it, it should serve as a big red flag that something is not correct with the official account of events.

What method? Your conclusion is already made, it is CD, just like femr2, you guys cast doubt by make up terms and science to back in CD. femr2 is now exposing errors and I can't believe the phony curve fitting going on.

So far the only conclusion from your work and the work femr2 does when he is not telling lies about NIST is 7 took longer than free-fall and based on all available evidence collapsed due to fire. You can nit pick and specialize all you want, but in the end you have to take all the reality based evidence which destroys your paranoid conspiracy theories of CD.

femr2 study is not related to 911 conspiracy theories, unless the goal is to back in CD, or prove 911 truth is wrong about some claim. To argue NIST is wrong about anything is science and engineering, not conspiracy theories. Since you are here arguing tangential to femr2 no-goal effort, it must mean you think failed tracking work will support your CD delusions; you make the thread in the correct forum. bingo

 

[leftysergeant]

Leftysergeant, another application of the tracing methods shows that the first row of forceful ejections seen along the west wall, fl 98 came out before any observable point on the building started to fall downwards.

Did you have a point?

If your collapse initiation floor becomes over-pressurized before slab movement can possible explain it, it should serve as a big red flag that something is not correct with the official account of events.

Why would slab movement not occur before the core snapped?

 

[alienentity]

femr2, I've long held that this thread doesn't belong in the 9/11 conspiracy forum; it is a discussion about methodology, and at no time have I seen you attempt to link your observations to any conspiracy.

Even criticism of the NIST hypothesis (ROOSD theory) is not really a conspiracy topic either, as far as I can tell. Unless you or Major Tom is positing a specific conspiracy to link to, that is. In that case, you're both taking an inordinate amount of time to come to the point.

Maybe it's time to take further discussion to the Science and Technology section.

 

[tfk]

NTSC specifications:

The first 10 references cited by a google search of "NTSC television standards specification"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC
NTSC color encoding is used with the system M television signal, which consists of 29.97 interlaced frames of video per second

Every other line that would be odd if counted in the video signal, e.g. {1,3,5,...,525}) are drawn in the second field, to yield a flicker-free image at the field refresh frequency of approximately 59.94 Hertz
___

http://www.paradiso-design.net/videostandards_en.html

The common NTSC color subcarrier system is also called "NTSC M" or "NTSC 3.58". The refresh rate is 29.97 Hz or 29.97 fps respectively. This corresponds to 59.94 Hz (interlaced - half-images) or 59.94 fields/s respectively

___

http://www.planetomni.com/ARTICLES-Pal-to-NTSC-Multisystem-Video-Converters.shtml

NTSC is the technology which sets the standard in television and video standard in the United States and provides a composite video signal having a refresh rate of about 60 half-frames per second, interlaced.
___

http://www.ntsc-tv.com/

30 frames per second interlaced 2 to 1
___

http://www.videointerchange.com/pal_secam_conversions.htm

NTSC has 525 lines displayed at 30 frames per second in a 2:1 interleave.
___

http://www.tvtopcconverterblog.com/video-converter/pal-to-ntsc-multisystem-video-converters

NTSC is the technology which sets the standard in television and video standard in the United States and provides a composite video signal having a refresh rate of about 60 half-frames per second, interlaced.
___

http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/WorldTV/video.html

Name|Frame/Field Rate|Scan Lines|Colour Systems|Sub-carrier Freq
NTSC 4.43 |29.97/59.94 |525 |NTSC |4.43MHz

___

http://www.ehow.com/about_6606346_specifications-ntsc-tv-tuner.html

The framerate of NTSC tuners, measured in frames-per-second (fps), was set at just under 30 fps (29.97, to be exact)
___

http://www.indata.com/broadcast.html

Code|Frames|Scan
Lines|Freq Band|Sound Offset|Vision Modulation|In Use
M|30|525|VHF/UHF|+4.5MHz|Neg|Yes

___

http://www.riovista-media.com/pdfs/About_NTSC_Broadcast_Specs.pdf

Frames per second (FPS) = 29.97 (interlaced)
___

So, let's tally up, shall we?

Sample size: 10

Number that said "29.97 (aka 30) frames per second" = 8
Number that said "about 60 half-frames per second" = 2
Number that said "60 frames per second" = Zero.

10 out of 10 said 30 fps or 60 HALF-frames per second. 100%.
Zero percent said 60 frames per second.


You got a lot of letters to write, femr, to get all those folks to change their specs. It's stunning to me that all those experts can all be so wrong.

Or perhaps we should consider a more parsimonious source of the error...
___

Note the following refresh rate spec:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC
"Every other line that would be odd if counted in the video signal, e.g. {1,3,5,...,525}) are drawn in the second field, to yield a flicker-free image at the field refresh frequency of approximately 59.94 Hertz" [emphasis added]

This was NOT simply a matter of elastic definition of terms.
This post PROVES it.

It's not arrogance at all. It's utter disbelief at the lack of understanding.
What's the refresh rate of your telly ?
Mine's 50Hz.
It displays 50 pictures per second.
PAL is 25i NTSC is 30i (actually 30*1000/1001)
The i refers to interlaced, not progressive.

There is no doubt that you KNOW that the refresh rate you quote is the FIELD refresh rate, and not the FRAME refresh rate, which are both explicitly stated in the NTSC specs. You were misleading to imply that a 50 or 60 Hz refresh rate refers to frame rate.

The fact that you chose to not reply when I asked you what the "25" & "30" meant in the "25i" & "30i" specs confirms that you know you've been misleading.

You have been intentionally misleading on this whole issue. It is a bewilderment how you can expect anyone to trust your statements or conclusions about anything, when you play fast & loose with your terminology, your definitions & your discussions.

Credibility, uncompromising honesty & clarity in other researchers are absolutely paramount.

Sorry to say it, but based on consistent patters, I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you.

… well, with the exception of a few geographical locations:

 

[femr2]

femr2, I've long held that this thread doesn't belong in the 9/11 conspiracy forum; it is a discussion about methodology, and at no time have I seen you attempt to link your observations to any conspiracy.

Even criticism of the NIST hypothesis (ROOSD theory) is not really a conspiracy topic either, as far as I can tell. Unless you or Major Tom is positing a specific conspiracy to link to, that is. In that case, you're both taking an inordinate amount of time to come to the point.

Maybe it's time to take further discussion to the Science and Technology section.

As has been highlighted numerous times throughout...it's not my thread.

 

[femr2]

NTSC specifications

Already yawning I'm afraid Tom.

So, let's tally up, shall we?

Nah.

This post PROVES it.

Nope. Irrelevant waffle. Terms are interchangeable depending upon context.

I'd prove the point, but it's so trivial I really can't be bothered.

As long as you FINALLY understand the simple intricacies of interlaced video, the need to deinterlace for the purposes of tracing, and (if you are really pedantic) that your poor ol' telly shows you about 60 different pictures per second, I'm all good thanks

You were misleading to imply that a 50 or 60 Hz refresh rate refers to frame rate.

Nope. When I write 60fps, that's 60 fields per second, or 60 frames per second. I'm quite happy that both are absolutely fine. If you choose to be utterly anal about a topic you have repeatedly shown you *ain't good at*, go ahead.

To make repeated accusations of attempts to mislead are laughable. Get a grip.

Perhaps you should also address every other false accusation and assertion you have made during this thread. It would, however, be so long that it would immediately almost double the length of the thread. Not good. Not interesting. Very boring.