Will The Real Luc Courchesne Please Stand Up?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pshea38

 

I emailed Simon asking if he'd consider doing a graphic representation of this thread I was working on:

letsrollforums.com...

The damage fits nicely to the theory but he dismissed it out of hand. He claims the EMP would kill all video or photos taken and that Manhattan was evacuated. I asked him if he thought the EMP weapons would also kill analog cameras, but I never got a reply. I don't think the EMP would affect non electronic cameras but I really don't know, so I think we need to take some of what Simon says with a grain of salt.

September clues is a great resource for examples of the fakery, but I think Shack is purposefully making false claims now in an effort to cast doubt on his own work. Could be just me though.

Just saying.

Thanks yankee. I will take a look at your lets roll thread. I am not sure about simon
making false claims in order to cast doubt on his own work.
That doesn't make sense to me and isn't in keeping with all i have come to learn
regarding septemberclues. The level of 9/11 fakery is overwhelming
and it is a stretch to envision any genuine footage amidst such a sea of falsity.
I think, and understandably so, that he/they have moved well beyond entertaining
any notions of any genuine footage being made available for public scrutiny.
Of course the work on septemberclues forums www.cluesforum.info... is mostly
not simons work but undeniable conclusions regarding fakery are equally validly arrived at.
My guess is that after all this time, it becomes tedious to entertain assertions of genuity and
natural to simply cast a cold eye.
regards,
pshea.

reply to post by pshea38


Don't get me wrong, I think the guy's work is outstanding...I have spent many, many hours perusing the septemberclues.info site, and it's because he pointed out the rainbow effect in the Courchesne film that I even noticed it in the Naudet film.

It just struck me as odd that the damage I'm pointing out in my threads seems so clearly left-to-right, and I am surprised thousands of people didn't notice it before. So when he brushed off my explanation and said he still thought it was shaped charges, even after he just said the videos are fake and can't be believed, it gave me pause.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by pshea38
When are we going to get it. Most/all 9/11 footage released was computer generated
imagery and does not represent the reality of the day. There are buckets of examples of
skilled photographers who happen to capture very similar shots from very similar
positions. Co-incidence, i think not. All shots generated are part of the same software
matrix and attributed to different (some non-existent) individuals.
9/11 was a huge hoax with no terrorists, no planes and few if any victims,
the lie being sold to the public by a complicit sold-out main stream media.

www.septemberclues.info

Yes, how stupid of us all. How could photographs taken of the same thing at the same time possibly look similar? That you for point that out septemberclueless.

Spot on jumping through hoops. Glad you are coming around.
That last sentence of yours is a bit sloppy. You are probably working too hard.
Take some time off man.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by pshea38
www.septemberclues.info

Anything and everything "September Clueless" has been thoroughly debunked here:

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign

Originally posted by Yankee451
letsrollforums.com...

Another link to a website where blatant and purposeful disinformation is deliberately created...

Naturally i will take a look at the link, but you will forgive me, for the present at least,
if i don't take your word for it, mr. bones. I have a feeling in my bones that you may be
the one employing blatant and purposeless disinformation.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Listen up.

I do my own work. I post my stuff where I can post it. If you've got a problem with the content of my posts, please do your best to address that content. You're weak attempts at distraction are as transparent as they are annoying. If you've got a comment about the precise match of the Naudet and Courchesne photos, please spit it out.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pshea38

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy's work is outstanding...I have spent many, many hours perusing the septemberclues.info site, and it's because he pointed out the rainbow effect in the Courchesne film that I even noticed it in the Naudet film.

It just struck me as odd that the damage I'm pointing out in my threads seems so clearly left-to-right, and I am surprised thousands of people didn't notice it before. So when he brushed off my explanation and said he still thought it was shaped charges, even after he just said the videos are fake and can't be believed, it gave me pause.

I recall, in the chatbox section i think, someone referencing his shaped charges comments
and simon responded that it was an error to include this as it was beyond doubt that
all 9/11 footage released was computer generated fakery, thus obviously rendering
critical examination and comment redundant.

reply to post by pshea38


Yes I know, and that's what he said to me too, but it was after he said that that he said he thinks the gash was caused by shaped charges anyway...why would he say that after just saying all images are fake?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by hooper

 

Care to comment on the near precise match of Naudet's footage and Courchesne's? If you have the Naudet Fimakers' edition, you can compare it to the Courchesne video yourself and comment.

Note the screen captures above.

Again, two people take photos, videos, even draw sketches of the same thing happening at the same time and the fact that they look alike is evidence of a conspiracy? Now, tell you what - you find two photos of the same thing taken at the same time and if one comes out as a picture of a bunny and the other the picture of a sailing ship - then maybe we'll talk conspiracy.

reply to post by hooper


They are identical. This is the best you can do?

Be specific.

This is another on top of a mountain of examples:

www.911conspiracy.tv...

Care to comment specifically on anything, or will you defer to your imaginary sister?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pshea38

 

Yes I know, and that's what he said to me too, but it was after he said that that he said he thinks the gash was caused by shaped charges anyway...why would he say that after just saying all images are fake?

Yes. I guess he can't have it both ways.
Faked shaped charges on faked footage or
Real shaped charges on real footage.
Pointing out the shaped charges to people who believe the footage is real is
maybe a first step in getting them to recognise that all is not as it seems.
That's all i can think of.
It does beg the question, why the need for the shaped charges on the faked footage?
Perfectly understandable if the footage was real, but otherwise....???
I have no answer to that.

Originally posted by Yankee451
If you've got a comment about the precise match of the Naudet and Courchesne photos, please spit it out.

I did on the first page. You completely ignored it.

Originally posted by Yankee451
They are identical.

Again, they are not identical. You ignored what was posted by me on the first page. Both videos were shot with different cameras and/or different media types. Both cameras were from slightly different locations.

Please pay attention to the two different images before calling them the same when they're not.

Apology accepted. Please comment.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5b2566aa6c27.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e95727ff4c99.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Yankee451
If you've got a comment about the precise match of the Naudet and Courchesne photos, please spit it out.

I did on the first page. You completely ignored it.

Originally posted by Yankee451
They are identical.

Again, they are not identical. You ignored what was posted by me on the first page. Both videos were shot with different cameras and/or different media types. Both cameras were from slightly different locations.

Please pay attention to the two different images before calling them the same when they're not.

I still disagree.

Top picture
Look at the building on the far right. Count the number of window along the edge.
I count 12 and a partial windows.
Bottom has 5 and a corner.

Look at the building on the left. Count the windows on above the architectural line.
I count 6 windows as well as you can see the top of the building.
Bottom has 3 and you can’t see the top of the building.

Look at the undamaged WTC. Find the thin line of light colored windows. It’s to the right of the ‘e’ in ‘Exclusive’. Check the distance of the right edge to the bottom of the frame.
Bottom is half the distance to the edge.

Look at the distance between the top of the WTC and the top edge of the picture.
Bottom is half the distance.

Look at the architectural line mid building on the left. It turns the corner of the building and continues. This visible continuation is the same length in both pictures.

I say this is the same camera, same location. But the bottom picture is zoomed with a small change in vertical angle.

Originally posted by samkent
I say this is the same camera, same location. But the bottom picture is zoomed with a small change in vertical angle.

The clouds are in slightly different locations. Also, notice the slightly different color/contrast between the two images. As far as the "rainbow" in the second image, that is from a VHS recorder and you cannot get rid of that in the original tape. You would have to make a copy and do some serious, professional editing to attempt to remove that "rainbow".

The "rainbow", the different color/contrast, are automatic signs that two separate and different cameras were used.

reply to post by samkent


The two screen shots were taken less than a second apart. When you watch the videos, you can clearly see the same footage, as well as the same rainbow.

This is a Naudet all the way, even including the fake "surprised pan" away from the action after the explosion.

Originally posted by Yankee451
The two screen shots were taken less than a second apart. When you watch the videos, you can clearly see the same footage, as well as the same rainbow.

Then what you need to do is take a screen shot of the exact moment in both videos. You also should make a Youtube video with both videos in it for comparison. What you've provided does not match.

The "rainbow", the different color/contrast, are automatic signs that two separate and different cameras were used.

No one was CBC's aired version of the origional. Same source just a video tape copy with graphics overlayed.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


What you need to do is try a little intellectual honesty.

What, you'd have us believe two French guys (total strangers) were filming with their heads together, or one was sitting on their shoulders?

It is clearly the same film, even the photographer's exaggerated "pan" matches.

I think it speaks volumes about you too.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

What you need to do is try a little intellectual honesty.

What, you'd have us believe two French guys (total strangers) were filming with their heads together, or one was sitting on their shoulders?

It is clearly the same film, even the photographer's exaggerated "pan" matches.

I think it speaks volumes about you too.

booom! you nailed it dead on Yank! Both about Bonez and this Naudet/Luc C fakery shot.

bonez along with the usual deniers like hooper, have been desperately trying for years to debunk Sept Clues and all the overwhelming evidence (thats proven Tv fakery and NRP beyond a doubt), with the same out-dated tactics and links that barely address the actual evidence in full context if at all... in the end, they either disappear from threads, or just post links like the ones they claim debunk SC etc, and the extent of their "intelligent" discourse is claiming that unless you have the video's analyzed by "professionals", that they're worthless as evidence of fakery or the NRPT.
Of course what they refuse to address, is their double-standard of using the same unverified videos (even though they've been taken from "original sources) as PROOF of real planes. Its quite sad really... yet they persist in their campaign hoping it will steer seekers away from researching all the evidence and using basic critical thinking skills.

You've made some great new discoveries that only further demonstrate the depth of the plane/fakery hoax.

well done my friend. Always remember when coming across these duhbunkers, the 3 stages of truth which NRPT and tv fakery are based on.