• 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.

Pentagon Security Videos Update

gumboot said:
You would need to know the frame rate as well.
Click to expand...

I assume you would.
Even if the frame rate was such that not capturing a passing-by plane was highly probable, the camera might have recorded at least some effect of the fly-by or crash, such as poles clipped, dust whirled, people ducking, flame balls shooting up...
 
BCR said:
Any evidence that they were not? This is a skeptic forum, right?
Click to expand...

Not claiming they did, or did not. Asking for evidence, of your claim!
It's a skeptic thing...


Sad that you have such anger here. Your other work was was well done.:(
 
Dog Town said:
Not claiming they did, or did not. Asking for evidence, of your claim!
It's a skeptic thing...


Sad that you have such anger here. Your other work was was well done.:(
Click to expand...

Excuse me. I respond with exactly the same argument you used and it's 'anger'? All of my work is well done and evidence that they were recording has already been presented. Conclusive no, but a heck of a lot more than the alternative hypothesis.

The FBI pulled the files for the security system of interest to them. I just have issues with the 'not recording' B.S. that people are pulling out of their a... with no evidence what-so-ever. That is the same irrational and delusional BS I get from some in the 'truther' quarters and I've had my fill of it.
 
BCR said:
Excuse me. I respond with exactly the same argument you used and it's 'anger'?
Click to expand...

You might want to reflect on some of your answers,and accusations, in this very thread over said topic.
Then give your final answer! Cuz you may end up looking silly, if that is indeed the story you are sticking with. Just saying...
 
Dog Town said:
You might want to reflect on some of your answers,and accusations, in this very thread over said topic.
Then give your final answer! Cuz you may end up looking silly, if that is indeed the story you are sticking with. Just saying...
Click to expand...

Do you even read the crap you write?
 
BCR, Dog_Town,

calm down.
Security cams are often hooked up to recorders, and are often not hooked up to recorders. Can we agree on this so far? Fine.

This follows for each cam:
- It is reasonable to assume that the cam might have been recorded
- It is reasonable to assume that the cam might not have been recorded
In the absence of evidence for a particular cam, or on the general policies of those running the cam, we can't exclude rationally one of the two possibilities when we form our conclusions.

Can you agree on that?
 
No. Passive CCTV systems are by design set up to record the camera inputs. Unlike the 'googleinvestigators' I have worked with such systems for about 35 years. I have talked to the people who operated the systems in the area. I have talked to many of the individuals who actually had contact with the FBI and they were only collecting video systems which captured aspects of the event (such as Ft Myers which did not and thus was not taken). The DoD has never asserted that the exterior cameras did not record, only that the FBI had the videos. Indeed, we now have a record of that transfer of custody.

Now, what the cameras recorded is another matter. I doubt seriously that there is additional imagery of the plane itself. None-the-less, sometimes what is not shown can be as important as what is.

Now, there can be exceptions to every camera recording. In every case where I've seen that happen in the 100's of such systems I've worked with, that has been because a new camera was brought in and the number of multiplexer inputs was exceeded. Cameras are relatively cheap, but a multiplexer can run into big bucks. That is more common in older systems, but still rare.

So no, I can't agree to asserions based on no evidence, especially when the agencies involved do not even make the assertion.
 
BCR said:
...
So no, I can't agree to asserions based on no evidence, especially when the agencies involved do not even make the assertion.
Click to expand...

That's why I wrote "In the absence of evidence for a particular cam, or on the general policies of those running the cam, we can't exclude rationally one of the two possibilities when we form our conclusions."

What I said of course applies to cameras for which you ave no evidence (compelling arguments). But for each cam where you have, of course my statement does not apply anymore, and one would be forced to prefer one assumption over the other.
(I haven't looked into this issue in detail and do not know what particular cams you have what evidence about. I was just trying to stop the bitching :D)
 
Oystein said:
BCR, Dog_Town,

calm down.
Click to expand...

I'm not the upset one here. Read the thread. I asked a legit question. BCR went into some strange attack mode.

I can agree we have no evidence of there being video recorded. What is possible has no bearing.
BCR has a real wound over this one. Sad, really.
 
Dog Town said:
I'm not the upset one here. Read the thread. I asked a legit question. BCR went into some strange attack mode.

I can agree we have no evidence of there being video recorded. What is possible has no bearing.
BCR has a real wound over this one. Sad, really.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there: This is not what I said! Absence of evidence either way would be a condition to stay undecided.

However, BCR in his reply to me hinted at several kinds of evidence for several classes of cameras, that seem to make the "was recorded" conclusion more plausible, although of course not definitive.

You are correct: What is possible has no bearing. It is possible that the cams did not record, but that has no bearing.
 
Oystein said:
I see what you did there: This is not what I said! Absence of evidence either way would be a condition to stay undecided.
Click to expand...

I did not claim you said that! I said, that's what I could agree on. Jeeze Louise what's going on around here?

If you noticed I am undecided. Would like to see evidence, to judge!
See, it's a skeptical thing...
 
Oystein said:
I was just trying to stop the bitching :D)
Click to expand...

Oh, no offense taken. I confess it is a sore spot with me because of the labor and money put into this singular issue. When I joined the fray back in 2007, Scott Bingham had already invested thousands of his own money and untold hours pursuing these videos. He gave up in frustration, settling on the videos you are all familiar with, the Citgo, DT and gate camera footage. They were not released because of the goodness of heart by the FBI. Judicial Watch joined him late in the process and then took credit for the release. They however dropped to the wayside afterwards. Then I filed suit for the remainder, but without solid evidence (as we now have) of the FBI's possession of the remainder of the DoD footage, it was essentially their word against mine so I settled the case after they released the remaining known footage. So now I have invested thousands of my own money and 4 years of my life pretty much alone trying to find these darn things and/or develop evidence that would stand up under judicial review so that I could take them to the mat again. Now Erik Larson is joining me in the fray so at least I'm not fighting alone anymore.

So if you think for one minute that I'm going to let forum junkies promote some cock-eyed 'not recording' nonsense without challenging it quite aggressively, then you don't know me very well.
 
Dog Town said:
I did not claim you said that! I said, that's what I could agree on. Jeeze Louise what's going on around here?

If you noticed I am undecided. Would like to see evidence, to judge!
See, it's a skeptical thing...
Click to expand...

Hm I am sure BCR has some on his website.
 
BCR said:
Oh, no offense taken. I confess it is a sore spot with me because of the labor and money put into this singular issue. When I joined the fray back in 2007, Scott Bingham had already invested thousands of his own money and untold hours pursuing these videos. He gave up in frustration, settling on the videos you are all familiar with, the Citgo, DT and gate camera footage. They were not released because of the goodness of heart by the FBI. Judicial Watch joined him late in the process and then took credit for the release. They however dropped to the wayside afterwards. Then I filed suit for the remainder, but without solid evidence (as we now have) of the FBI's possession of the remainder of the DoD footage, it was essentially their word against mine so I settled the case after they released the remaining known footage. So now I have invested thousands of my own money and 4 years of my life pretty much alone trying to find these darn things and/or develop evidence that would stand up under judicial review so that I could take them to the mat again. Now Erik Larson is joining me in the fray so at least I'm not fighting alone anymore.

So if you think for one minute that I'm going to let forum junkies promote some cock-eyed 'not recording' nonsense without challenging it quite aggressively, then you don't know me very well.
Click to expand...

And all for nothing in the end. Sad really.
 
funk de fino said:
And all for nothing in the end. Sad really.
Click to expand...

Nothing? There is a story that remains untold. I won't spoil it for you because I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle yet. However, there remains one additional player in the sky over the Pentagon during the minutes before/after impact. For some reason, the 'powers that be' did not want it in the press (a military historians claim, not mine). I am hoping the video record can confirm an amazing story of courage and futile heroism. Maybe not.

Historical details are not 'nothing', I am not an 'inside jobby' kind of guy, but I don't like lose ends either.
 
BCR said:
Nothing? There is a story that remains untold. I won't spoil it for you because I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle yet. However, there remains one additional player in the sky over the Pentagon during the minutes before/after impact. For some reason, the 'powers that be' did not want it in the press (a military historians claim, not mine). I am hoping the video record can confirm an amazing story of courage and futile heroism. Maybe not.

Historical details are not 'nothing', I am not an 'inside jobby' kind of guy, but I don't like lose ends either.
Click to expand...

No it is all for nothing. The obsession while claiming not an inside jobbie is even worse.

Loose.
 
funk de fino said:
No it is all for nothing. The obsession while claiming not an inside jobbie is even worse.

Loose.
Click to expand...

No sir, sitting on your butt at a computer and talking trash about other peoples productive efforts without contributing any original work of your own is sad. I am 'retired', but instead of going fishing I actually go out and get the data and documentation so folks like you can sit and ponder what it all means. Someone has got to give you something to moan about :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom