Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Is the plume in this photo from Flight 93 crashing?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 129 90.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Total voters
    142
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mercutio said:
The analysis you are currently doing is a necessary part of what you must do in order to honestly make the claims you do on your blog. You are not done with the current analysis. You have, therefore, made those claims before you could do so honestly.

I take you at your word, that you would change your blog and apologize to Val if you are shown you are wrong. That is admirable. But the point is, you have not yet been demonstrated to be right, yet you still make the claims. Your default assumption seems to be "if I am not proven wrong, I can make the claim", which places the burden of proof on the wrong party. Until you demonstrate that the official story is incorrect (the "plume color" argument has been tried and rejected, and the "plume size" argument has not yet been completed), you cannot make the claims you do (honestly, at least).
Click to expand...

Quite. KT is demonstrating argumentum ad ignorantiam at its finest.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Find a photo from West Texas/Eastern New Mexico on a sunny day with Lots of puffy clouds in the sky.
Click to expand...

azazal said:
Case in point, Second Picture
Click to expand...

Wow. That's cool. I'm sorry, that doesn't contribute much. I just find stuff like that really cool. I love landscape photography.



Buckwheatjones said:
I seriously doubt that the image was retouched. Killtown on his blog stated that because the cloud was against a clear blue sky, it would have been easier to fake in the cloud. That's indicative of his ignorance right there because the opposite is more than true.
Click to expand...

Could you do it by chromakeying?

I know in the film industry we love a cloudless blue sky because you can key in any background you want - it works like a giant blue screen.

This is, of course, for motion picture, in which one would be less likely to see small imperfections.

Could you key in an entire new sky including the mushroom cloud? Or would that also be easily detected in a still image?

-Andrew
 
Killtown said:
That's what I just said.
Click to expand...
There's a subtle difference between what you wrote and what I wrote.
You wrote that the color could be used to prove anything.
I wrote that the color could not be used to prove anything.
 
Mercutio said:
The analysis you are currently doing is a necessary part of what you must do in order to honestly make the claims you do on your blog. You are not done with the current analysis. You have, therefore, made those claims before you could do so honestly.

I take you at your word, that you would change your blog and apologize to Val if you are shown you are wrong. That is admirable. But the point is, you have not yet been demonstrated to be right, yet you still make the claims. Your default assumption seems to be "if I am not proven wrong, I can make the claim", which places the burden of proof on the wrong party. Until you demonstrate that the official story is incorrect (the "plume color" argument has been tried and rejected, and the "plume size" argument has not yet been completed), you cannot make the claims you do (honestly, at least).
Click to expand...
Well all I can say is feel free to do things differently on your own blog.

Now, do you concur with the new estimates?
 
Focus people.


Does everybody concur with these new estimates? (A "yes or no" is all that's needed.)

-------------------------------
Your minimum:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 50m/164ft (39ft

wider than the wingspan)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo:

600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

--------------------------------
Your maximum:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 860m/2,822ft (9 1/2

football fields)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo:

1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

--------------------------------
 
Well, Killtown, no one can really answer, because most of us are on ignore. However, assuming you actually find a pair and realize that running away from those who disagree and point out the errors is the act of a dishonest coward, I'll say this:

gumboot's post above (with the further few clarifications of stance) gives a fair summary of our position. It is, essentially, the "experiment" you are claiming to do, but already done by those of us who care enough to actually look for the truth.
 
Killtown said:
Focus people.


Does everybody concur with these new estimates? (A "yes or no" is all that's needed.)
Click to expand...


Killtown I have already demonstrated that we have addressed the three points of fireball size, plume size, and smoke colour.

Therefore, please explain the intentions behind the continuation of your "experiment".

I believe it is standard practise in science to make clear the steps involved in an experiment and the likely outcome BEFORE you actually do it.

-Andrew
 
Killtown said:
Well all I can say is feel free to do things differently on your own blog.
Click to expand...
This is why we were surprised to see you admit you were wrong about the color issue.

One step up, another step back.

Before I sign off on the new estimates....what is your null hypothesis in this experiment?
 
gumboot said:
I believe it is standard practise in science to make clear the steps involved in an experiment and the likely outcome BEFORE you actually do it.
Click to expand...
I'm a rebel.

Do you concur with the new estimates so we don't have to stall any further?

I'd like Buck and Gravy to concur too.
 
Killtown's null hypothesis is elegantly simple: This worthless, photoshopped photograph, created days after 9/11, provides definitive proof that ordnance was exploded within five seconds of the putative crash time of Flight 93. Oh, and plus: anyone who says otherwise is a poopyhead.

Absent definitive proof to the contrary (and even in the presence of powerfully suggestive proof to the contrary) the null hypothesis stands--and does a little dance on the graves of the victims of 9/11.
 
Killtown said:
I'm a rebel.

Do you concur with the new estimates so we don't have to stall any further?

I'd like Buck and Gravy to concur too.
Click to expand...

You know, he keeps coming back to this with a persistance that is as stubborn as it is infuriating.

Methinks he wants us to sign on to something and then he is going to spring his "big surprise" (my guess is it will be pictures of the site and his saying "well, where is the sign of the fireball when the grass isn't even burnt" but I could be wrong) that will confound and befuddle us and make him look like the hero and us the bumblers (I think Jack Chick did the same thing in one of his anti-evolution cartoons once...).

So I would suggest that while I agree with Gumboots analysis, we make it clear that any agreement by us is based upon the limited data we have available for calcuation and the even more limited information that KT is providing us (while waiting to pull his big surprise).


IMHO as always.

Press on.
 
gumboot said:
Wow. That's cool. I'm sorry, that doesn't contribute much. I just find stuff like that really cool. I love landscape photography.





Could you do it by chromakeying?

I know in the film industry we love a cloudless blue sky because you can key in any background you want - it works like a giant blue screen.

This is, of course, for motion picture, in which one would be less likely to see small imperfections.

Could you key in an entire new sky including the mushroom cloud? Or would that also be easily detected in a still image?

-Andrew
Click to expand...

This is exactly why you need to see something better than the tiny little photo that appears all over the web. You need to see the original file off the flash card.

Assuming that one could get a look at it, one could check the metadata for the time stamp to see if it correlates to the crash time.

Also, if you could get a look at the source/original file you could then determine if this was different from the print file which would be helpful to see.

Now assuming both source and print files are identical, and both files show the cloud, the discussion has reached the end of the road. It's real. If all you have is the print file, or if Val says the print file and the source file are the same, then careful examination at 3-400% magnification of the color channels, as well as the combined RGB view, will reveal evidence of cloning or other artifacts brought into the cut and paste. Since we are on a seamless background, and we are dealing with a nebulous shape in which the edges would be unpixelated, smooth and at varying degrees of opacity, it's extremely unlikely that this could be believably pulled off.

Also, in looking at the print file, one can check the creator code. While the file might be called EndofSerenity.jpg, if the creator code is BIM then that means it is a Photoshop file.

Regarding chromakeying or green screen, that is possible, but that's why you need to look at the original file. The movies can do Titanic all day long using this technique and it looks really good, but anything will work at 70 frames per second, or whatever standard they use. That's why you can take a 1 megabyte file and blow it up for a billboard. Nobody is going to notice that it looks like crap as they are blowing by at 70mph.

Now since kt has probably ruined his chances of getting Val to show him the file, the next best thing would be to get a print from her and study that. But he told me that it was just "a paper printout" and he assumed that equalled "garbage."

Well, it may be garbage or it may not, but it's a certainty that the webshot IS garbage, so a serious investigator would at least take the matter as far as he possibly could by getting a print to look at, rather than use assumption for the foundation of his entire argument.

Once you've let it out that you didn't bother to take that extra step it calls everything else down the line into question and that's essentially what we've seen here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom