The Hunt For Skinwalker - Twin Towers Footage Analysis.

originally posted by: wylekat

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
a reply to: wylekat

It wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

Why, exactly?

Someone has already pointed out the reasons earlier in the thread. I agree with their assessment.

a reply to: ctj83

I suppose you didn't see my previous post, so I'll ask again: at what time can we see that footage on the documentary?

a reply to: ArMaP

Sorry about that, I did miss it somehow. Try 01:10:45

When I did this originally, it was from the trailer.

It's went too far and I have so lost interest and now believe it's bollocks

Great post OP. Would have been a lot easier to read if it was not for the 12 adverts in the first opening post.

a reply to: markymint

Not my term, it’s what it was called by Jeremy and George.

a reply to: ctj83

Thanks for clearing it up.

With the poor quality of the video, looks more like Greek columns than the World Trade Center towers:

a reply to: ArMaP



01:10:50

a reply to: ctj83
Thank you for your detailed and fascinating OP posts.

Just a couple of things I'd like to comment on, relating to the moonrise/moonset and sunrise/sunset details that were posted in the thread here by a couple of members. This seems relevant to me, as the amount of available natural light could be a useful factor.

The moonrise/set data link posted by a member (on page 2, IIRC) takes us to a page for April, 2004, and the sunrise/set data provided by another member a couple pages later also seems to correspond to early April of that year.

I am puzzled by this, because the dating info in the video is displayed as 07-04-04. As this video is allegedly from Skinwalker Ranch and also a security camera, I'd expect it was set up to display dates in US standard format, namely mm-dd-yy. In other words, July 4th, [20]04, and not dd-mm-yy, which would be 7th April, 04.

However, it seems that neither the members providing sun and moon data or anyone else has noticed that the video cannot be construed as from 7th April, 04, for the simple reason that the display also shows the actual day as a 3-letter abbreviation: SUN. A quick check of a calendar for 2004 tells us that 7th April was a Wednesday, not a Sunday. It also shows that July 4th was a Sunday.

This means that the data provided for sunrise/set and moonrise/set are wrong, because they should have been for July 4th. On that date in 2004, sunset time in SLC, Utah was 21:02. The ranch, being east of there, would have seen the sunset fractionally sooner. But assuming the time shown on the video is correct, there was still daylight.

Also, on that day, the moon had set at cca 8.22 am and did not rise again until around 23:27 that night. Not that it matters an awful lot as the sun was still (just) up, though surrounding terrain could cause deep shadows by then.

Of course, the fact that the video is supposedly from July 4th raises a few questions of its own, considering the importance of that day for Americans. It also makes me wonder about the apparently heavy cloud formations and even the question of fog or mist. So I accessed some data for the weather at SLC Intl Airport for July 4, 2004 and the high there was 87, the low was 64 and the day's average was 75. Dew point was 44.

Even allowing for the ranch being some miles from SLC, I would expect the temp that day could've got into the 80s F. Even in the early evening it should have been above dew point. Pretty unlikely to see fog in the early evening on a warm summer's day, in other words. Not saying it can't happen, but July in Utah is not the place and time I'd expect it.

a reply to: JustMike

Thanks. A great addition.

So, it could be normal daylight recording, not IR!

Isn't this just before NIDs closed down?

I keep telling you guys. Desert micro cloudburst:


EDIT: Found a better example.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Do cloudbursts work their way up?

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Blue Shift
Do cloudbursts work their way up?

Optical illusion created by variations in density. Also, you'll notice that the footage toggles back and forth forward and backward, which may suggest that the burst is moving "up."

a reply to: ctj83
I'd expect it was a normal daylight recording, which also goes along with your opening post, when you said it appeared to be early evening.

Re your final question: yes. NIDs disbanded in October of 2004, though geocities.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">this article (wayback machine archives) suggests they were basically defunct by July as they no longer had any investigative staff. (ETA: "Quote" my post so you can see the full link, then copy and paste into a new browser window. I've tried to fix the coding but no luck. It goes to a Wayback Machine archived Geocities page. END ETA)

That might explain why this odd video (if genuine) was not studied more thoroughly at the time.

a reply to: JustMike

I’ve not done my second part yet, but I’ll add that Jeremy has told us he got this footage from a sort of related third party.

However, if you can examine the edges, you can see it was shot on a similar analogue video format to the rest of George’s original documentary.

At the least, a very similar camera was used as George’s team had...

a reply to: ctj83

Thanks.

a reply to: ctj83

If the video is playing backwards, yes. As we don't have any other sign of movement of passing of time we cannot rule out that the video is being played backwards or in slow motion.

a reply to: JustMike

When posting Wayback machine links you can remove the "http://" (that's the part that breaks the link) and the link still works.

Article (wayback machine archives)

a reply to: ctj83
I appreciate your analysis of the (so-called) towers is still to come (and I know you didn't come up with that name for the whatever-it-is), but I have an argument against the hypothesis that it was recorded at 30 frames/fields per minute. It's not based upon technicalities, but mentalities. It's only my opinion, though. I'm not saying I have to be right.

Simply put, we need to consider the purpose of these security cameras and their related video recordings. They were not set up to keep watch over (eg) a shop in case of burglars or robbers, but for one reason: to try and capture any possible paranormal or at least hard-to-explain phenomena. That's the mentality behind them being set up.

In that case, it would be pretty pointless to have a recording system that only takes a frame every two seconds; if anything was going on -- like a moving object or whatever crossing a camera's field of view at any speed -- the best they would get would effectively be a few "stills" of the "whatever" and probably blurry ones at that.

They wanted video that they could analyse, not a few images they'd have to guess over and which would have diminished credibility with outside parties. Therefore, they wanted good-quality video. You've suggested their recording equipment was reasonably high end. It makes sense, then, that they had an adequate supply of tapes, and also would not be averse to changing them for fresh ones as needed. Heck, I had vid recorders back then that could record 8 hours in reasonable quality and I'd expect they had better.

I suspect it's more likely that the footage shows only a few seconds at maximum, rather than the hypothesized three minutes. Of course, if it does only show a few seconds, that almost kills any cloudburst idea as rain would not fall that fast -- unless there was a very serious gravity anomaly.