• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lying with Pixels - Technology Article from 2000

Putting it bluntly, the article is scare-mongering BS.

They're talking about removing people or objects from video footage in real time, and the thrust of their article is "OMGZWTFBBG j0 can't trust TEH MEDIAZ or TEH SATTELITEZ!!!!!11!!!"

It's a load of [rule8]. Making anything "disappear" in real time requires a real time life-like render of elements of the image which don't exist (you remove a person from a frame, you have to fill in the blanks).

It cannot be done now (not in real time, and not effectively enough to fool anyone), and it certainly couldn't be done in 2000.

This sounds to me like that voice morphing presentation - something of little use or effectiveness, but announcing an interesting possibility for the future - which paranoid idiots have mangled into being some sort of super advanced technology.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Putting it bluntly, the article is scare-mongering BS.

They're talking about removing people or objects from video footage in real time, and the thrust of their article is "OMGZWTFBBG j0 can't trust TEH MEDIAZ or TEH SATTELITEZ!!!!!11!!!"

It's a load of [rule8]. Making anything "disappear" in real time requires a real time life-like render of elements of the image which don't exist (you remove a person from a frame, you have to fill in the blanks).

It cannot be done now (not in real time, and not effectively enough to fool anyone), and it certainly couldn't be done in 2000.

This sounds to me like that voice morphing presentation - something of little use or effectiveness, but announcing an interesting possibility for the future - which paranoid idiots have mangled into being some sort of super advanced technology.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
In the cited Katarina Witt example, they have exactly that. The background doesn't change, so you can locate a spot a few frames away that has the same spot Katarina is in now. You'll have to correct it for the camera motion, but that's worlds easier than creating it whole cloth. Not having seen the video, I would speculate that Ms. Witt is seen skating with the ice and the skating rink walls (the short, half walls around the ice) as a background. That would put her on a static background, with the edge of the wall as a dividing line for the area where the spectators are seen moving.

Not that it matters. Making someone disappear is not blending two tracks with motion.

Nor does it explain the amateur videos and the witnesses.
 
Well now I'm convinced. In fact, I never noticed before, but if you look carefully at the footage, you can very clearly see the visible nylon strings attached to the plane. The other thing that gives it away is the ripple dissolve and the harp arpeggios in the background transitioning between the plane approaching and the fireball.
 
negativ said:
Well now I'm convinced. In fact, I never noticed before, but if you look carefully at the footage, you can very clearly see the visible nylon strings attached to the plane. The other thing that gives it away is the ripple dissolve and the harp arpeggios in the background transitioning between the plane approaching and the fireball.
Click to expand...

Good catch. The NWO was so impressed with Plan 9 From Outer Space that they brought Ed Wood back from the grave to fake the WTC airplane crashes.............until Ace figured it all out. :p
 
You asked me for my opinion on whether RMackey was incorrect or not, and on that point I said I would wait until I had read the article, and until he had replied.

My comment above was in response to someone else making the comment about greenscreening.

TAM:)
 
peteweaver said:
How do you explain the eye witnesses who saw UA175 Ace ?

How do you explain the fragments which came off UA175?

My friend's uncle was hit by a piece from it which fell to the ground, that piece almost killed him.
Click to expand...

Also, how did the holes get in the buildings? (Don't bother saying planted explosives Ace. If that were the case the entry holes would be going out of the building instead of in.)
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
In attempting to discredit my UA175 velocity study paper, RMAckey has claimed that video insertion technology did not exist in 2001. I invite you all to read "Lying with Pixels". Then comment upon whether or not RMackey is correct.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000711055157/http:/www.techreview.com/articles/july00/amato.htm
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]By Ivan Amato[/FONT]
Click to expand...

I haven't read RMAckey's comment or post but if he did state that technology didn't exist in 2001 he would be incorrect according to the article. It looks as if the technology was in place as early as 1999 and possibly 1998.

Deleting people or objects from live video, or inserting prerecorded people or objects into live scenes, is only the beginning of the deceptions becoming possible.
Click to expand...
Interesting quote from the article.


Which begs the question, when Jesus comes back, what channel will he be on?;)

Peteweaver
Click to expand...
I'm glad your uncle is alive, but did he have a part number to identify the part that almost hit him?
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
This question needs to be repeated:

[What about the amateur videos?]

Seems it's the elephant in Ace's room...
Click to expand...

They didn't air live. No one disputes that videos can be fabricated offline. This thread is about the technology to insert pre-existing video into live video. No informed person disputes this either.
 
Mackey, your bodyguards aren't doing too well here. What about it? Ready to retract?

And how about your claim that my velocity analysis hypothesis does not generate falsifiable predictions? Ready to retract that one too?
 
peteweaver said:
How do you explain the eye witnesses who saw UA175 Ace ?

How do you explain the fragments which came off UA175?

My friend's uncle was hit by a piece from it which fell to the ground, that piece almost killed him.
Click to expand...

Unless the tail number is visible or parts identified by number, there is no empirical evidence supporting what they saw was UA175.
 
I haven't read RMAckey's comment or post but if he did state that technology didn't exist in 2001 he would be incorrect according to the article.
Click to expand...

This is wrong. The technology to insert/remove static items existed. The technology to do what truthboy claims was done did not exist. Just ask Pixar!
 
Swing Dangler said:
Unless the tail number is visible or parts identified by number, there is no empirical evidence supporting what they saw was UA175.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The claim is that NOTHING hit the building. What exactly it was, and the evidence that suggests it was UA175, is another discussion
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
No one disputes that videos can be fabricated offline.
Click to expand...
Sure. But neither have you attempted to demonstrate in any way that those videos recorded and then broadcast later were fakes.

Once again, I keep coming back to this: those of us with a good eye for detail and who are familiar with special effects in general from having read about them and watched large amounts of them can spot a special effect, sometimes easily. I can spot the CGI cars in a ad for the movie Live Free and Die Hard on the first viewing just by the way the cars look and the way they move. These ol' eyeballs of mine are not easily fooled by special effects; I'm sure there are others who are equally, if not more, adept at spotting spotting them.

Not one video I've seen of the events of 9/11 looked faked, not one. Not one showed the characteristic telltale signs of image fakery. And this was from viewing them not as grainy, low resolution YouTube videos, but as broadcast quality videos shown on news broadcasts displayed a good-sized television screen.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Sure. But neither have you attempted to demonstrate in any way that those videos recorded and then broadcast later were fakes.

Once again, I keep coming back to this: those of us with a good eye for detail and who are familiar with special effects in general from having read about them and watched large amounts of them can spot a special effect, sometimes easily. I can spot the CGI cars in a ad for the movie Live Free and Die Hard on the first viewing just by the way the cars look and the way they move. These ol' eyeballs of mine are not easily fooled by special effects; I'm sure there are others who are equally, if not more, adept at spotting spotting them.

Not one video I've seen of the events of 9/11 looked faked, not one. Not one showed the characteristic telltale signs of image fakery. And this was from viewing them not as grainy, low resolution YouTube videos, but as broadcast quality videos shown on news broadcasts displayed a good-sized television screen.
Click to expand...

Tell you what, Corsair. If you and, say, 5 others on this board promise to take a challenge, I'll promise to do the work needed to create it.

I'll present two videos of a plane flying in the air and slipping behind a building. One will be legitimate, and the other will be a composite. You'll know that (at least) one is composited, because the plane will be identical in both videos. The background and buildings will be different.

You and the others will decide which you think is which.

Game?
 
twinstead said:
Irrelevant. The claim is that NOTHING hit the building. What exactly it was, and the evidence that suggests it was UA175, is another discussion
Click to expand...

Much apologies. I was under the impression that this topic was that something hit the building, just not UA175.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom