It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Just like you will never have evidence or proof that it is a shadow of a 757 I will never have evidence to prove it was added so why are we sitting here making this a focus of conversation as if it is even remotely relevant to 9/11 justice since the evidence is invalid anyway?
This is the crux of it. I don't want to argue about whether the video is manipulated (in the inserted shadow sense).
1)Your case for video manipulation is compelling but not proven
2) even if the overall screen was re-arranged and views removed, this is not proof anything was altered within the camera views.
3) Neither would the overall screen left as-is proof that nothing was altered within the camera views present.
4) All alteration questions must therefore be kept open, and the evidence looked at in its proper ambiguous context, not dismissed. It's either
a) evidence of the plane
b) evidence of fakery to that effect, or
c) something else.
So far a has not been disproven, neither has b, and c has not been argued effectively yet.
It is impossible for us to prove what was manipulated in that video.
This only serves to deflect from the real issue and that is EVIDENCE TAMPERING which is a federal offense and directly implicates the suspect in a cover-up.
The real issue in this thread is that, considering as you say we can't prove what was (and wasn't) altered, or I'd add that ANYTHING was altered, we must look at what's there and see what that evidence lines up with. In this case, the 'official story.' Your 'real issue' serves here only to clarify this ambiguity - which is fair. It's not cause to ignore the evidence entirely.
But I do know they manipulated out those relevant views AS WELL AS manipulated out Robert Turcios since his story is backed up by his manager and all the other witnesses who were at the station so I have no doubt they would throw in a few flashes and shadows to add confusion.
Out? I thought he was just at the wrong pump from where he did the interview?
And again, why remove views that would only show what the witnesses saw? They were fooled, why not a crappy camera?
And is it proven the cameras in question were pointed towards an area that would've caught anything? I'd like to see some analysis on the probable views for each removed camera. I can find it but if you have one good link that'd be great.
This is 100% invalid evidence in support of the official story and all of the witnesses are 100% valid evidence that prove the official story a lie.
See... 100% invalid, 100% valid, prove. This is not the language of reason, even if you were at more realistic figures like 80%. Unfortunately for you, you're closer to ass-backwards than correct in your math here.
EVEN IF they did not have to manipulate the data (hypothetically speaking) to remove the extremely relevant and critical view in question the fact that they withheld this view implicates the suspect in a cover-up.
This is a fact.
No legitimate investigator would accept data controlled and provided for solely by the suspect as valid evidence in support of the suspect's innocence.
Him and his cart were manipulated out completely.
The notion that he was at a different pump is disinfo from Farmer based on nothing.
No maintenance cart can be identified at the back pump.
Plus the manager already TOLD US that it DID have a view of the Pentagon wall!
The camera was on the north side so naturally it would have caught the plane flying there if it had a view of the Pentagon wall.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
..this is car you're looking at here, but the shadows I showed are not. Point attempted and failed.
[edit on 28-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
The main thing is despite any possible errors in actual shadow correlation, it still fits the 'official' model perfectly:
- Its sudden appearance and disappearance,
- the 2.167 sec lag before evidence of explosion matches the FDR speed,
- the altitude/location nexus indicated by sun angles shows the oficial path and an altitude that works.
Originally posted by scrapple
..."still fits the 'official' model perfectly"????
A 757 was a pretty big piece of the official model - no?
I dont see 757 shadow geometry anywhere.
I do see two dots spread way too far apart, appear and dissapear at the right time and place - but that does ZIP ZERO to support the 'official' model - as you may have in error wrongly suggested above.
-IMO anybody supporting this video evidence as legit - had better start hedging any love they may have for the offical 'story'.
PLEASE NOTE: The solar angles I had used for my original detailed analysis were not accurate. My presumption of steady change during the day seems to be at fault. Steady change would create a triangle waveform of change - /\ - which is not how the sun moves. In reality the pattern is curved, and so degree change minute to minute changes in a steady non-linear pattern that I don't know how to calculate, so I've used a solar calculator as recommended by helpful comments from a knowledgeable reader (please see comments section below). I've found, as the commentator did, an altitude of 32°, not 25, and an azimuth of 113°, not 126. I have update ALL my math, graphics, and text to reflect this. Distance/speed has not changed at all, but my original altitude of 72 feet above the shadow has been increased to 115 feet, and pitch issues have been raised. See below for details. All other findings stand as is.
BUT - most curious of all is how you back project plane position from an 'estimate’ of an 'incomplete' shadow...
The P4911T guys last I checked had proven how bogus the ‘Official” Flight Path is - but since youre trying to reverse shadow-4support-Official Story , why not take the Official FDR altitude of 239’ over CITGO, which when applied to Google Earth Elevation puts 'Official Story' Flight 77 at around 185’ not your 115’.
Can you image what happens to your dots when altitude over CITGO gets in-line with 'Official' black box flight data???
You may as well assume ALL of the 'Official' data shouldn’t you
Originally posted by scrapple
and the lower ‘enhanced black' pixel image cant be taken as legit - until you reference where you got a clean hi-res, other than what is now avail on the web.
I have completed my initial analysis of the AAL77 FDR end of file. Using documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act from the NTSB and 84 RADES, a number of irrefutable facts emerge.
1. The FDR data was terminated to correspond with the time of the last RADES radar return.
2. The NEADS clock which created the time stamp for this return was off by 25.3 seconds.
3. The last RADES return is NOT associated with the impact object (LT: the Pentagon west wall, I assume, however I would have typed "impactED object, so he can mean AA77, but then how did he conclude that -NOT- remark ?).
These three facts result in the FDR data stopping prematurely at a position 4-6 seconds prior to the impact position. The full analysis is available in pdf format for download and all supporting data and files are referenced and downloadable.
911files.info...
Data Tampering Proven
Filed under: Flight 77, NTSB, Radar Data— BCR at 6:07 pm on Saturday, October 6, 2007
I will be posting my EOF analysis of AAL77 either late Sunday or early Monday morning. I have been awaiting the radar data to verify what I already suspected, that the Flight Data Recorder is missing the final 6-8 seconds of flight data. I’ve learned it is hard to be dogmatic about much in this mangle of information/misinformation, but this is something I can be about.
The final two returns attributed to AAL77 in the RADES data are somewhat misleading since both are not associated with AAL77 and in the discussed time frame should be post-impact.
Comparison of this image from the beginning of the video with later frames indicates that the rising fireball and smoke column are moving slightly to the southwest. The most likely explanation for the last RADES return for AAL77 is the rising fireball from the impact. Certainly no other airborne phenomena can be observed in the vicinity of the return (10 seconds into the video).
This also further reinforces the time difference between the AAL77 FDR time stamp and the RADES time stamp. The FDR places impact at or later than 13:37:47, which clearly with the RADES time stamp is well post impact.