Richard D. Hall debunks Simon Shack and recants his original "Ball Theory"

reply to post by NWOwned


I would just like to add something to what you wrote. Regarding the Naudet Brothers' footage, do you or anyone know of any footage that exist from before the first 'plane' supposedly impacted? The reason I ask this is because if the Naudet's were making a documentary about firemen as they claim, then surely the tape did not start rolling just before the first 'plane' supposedly impacted.

All we see of their video before the 1st 'impact' is the firemen looking down at the ground doing there inspection, surely the tape was rolling before this clip, and if it was then does anyone know where the rest of the pre-impact footage can be found? It would be too coincidental that they only just turned the tape on seconds before the first 'plane' supposedly hit!

Originally posted by kidtwist
All we see of their video before the 1st 'impact' is the firemen looking down at the ground doing there inspection, surely the tape was rolling before this clip, and if it was then does anyone know where the rest of the pre-impact footage can be found? It would be too coincidental that they only just turned the tape on seconds before the first 'plane' supposedly hit!

I believe all of the released footage is what was in their DVD. I have my copy around here somewhere if you want to look for a specific scene or if you're looking for any information?

It's worth a watch anyway, it's put together well.

Richard D Hall (or Dick as I like to call him) lost any credibility when he said on his show that
Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were killed by an American serviceman, even though the murderer Ian Huntley admitted the killings and got life, but he said it was covered up by the UK and American goverments so that the British public would be kept in the dark. Apparently if we knew the truth then there would be such an outrage that it would have ended our co-operation on the war on terror.
Did he any evidence to back this claim up, did he f**k. Dont bother about causing pain to the famlies Dick, just say what you want, you total tosser.

reply to post by NWOwned

In Richard Hall's first video, he mistakenly believed video footage of the second plane to be fake because he saw in it what LOOKED like a "ball" rather than a plane. However, the ball-like image artifact turned out to be a product of camera distance and the camera's limitations in image resolution.

The same can be said of the Naudet footage. What perhaps LOOKS fake, is likely also a result of distance and the limited image resolution. I don't think the footage can definitively be called "fake" at all. It's simply not clear enough.

(ETA) In fact, as far as I know, a first generation copy in original DV format has never been released to the public. The highest image quality we have available of that footage is the commercial DVD release.

Also, Fetzer is as nutty as Shack, IMO.

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by NWOwned

 

In Richard Hall's first video, he mistakenly believed video footage of the second plane to be fake because he saw in it what LOOKED like a "ball" rather than a plane. However, the ball-like image artifact turned out to be a product of camera distance and the camera's limitations in image resolution.

Having already established between us in the other thread that the 26 base videos of the second 'plane' all match up over the single flight path and having seen the basis for the "ball" clip by itself I can see how someone like Hall (Much like Simon and his "nose-out" interpretation) could possibly 'mistake' what looks like a "ball" for a strange ball. He corrected himself upon evidence and reflection. This I think is admirable considering the tales of Shack being shown other interpretations (presumably) and not changing anything etc.

So I don't personally have a problem with Hall and the "ball" issue (since corrected).

Except for one caveat I have and that has to do not so much with distance and resolution per se but more to do with the actual make up and look of the second hit 'plane shaped object'.

Perhaps it's a possibility that the make up of this object changes appearance, not only with distance and standard issues of camera equipment but also with angle and lighting. I make note here of the plane and cameras in closer proximity to one another, especially the side shots of imminent impact, when the 'plane' seems to be exuding a strange black non-reflective color.

It's possible, I'm suggesting, that the strange black phenomenon may be related to the strange "ball" like phenomenon and that the latter may not be completely explained by your mention of common distance and resolution difficulties.

Then again the "ball" may just be these conventional known problems and nothing more.

By that I mean I still find the black coloring a problem perhaps wholly independent of the "ball" phenomenon.

The same can be said of the Naudet footage. What perhaps LOOKS fake, is likely also a result of distance and the limited image resolution. I don't think the footage can definitively be called "fake" at all. It's simply not clear enough.

(ETA) In fact, as far as I know, a first generation copy in original DV format has never been released to the public. The highest image quality we have available of that footage is the commercial DVD release.

My position on the Naudet 'fake' shot possibility was outlined in my previous posts but in relation to what you note perhaps I should take a crack at explaining that even further.

My concern with the Naudet surprise catch clip of the 'first hit' is primarily focussed on the building and the damage patterns displayed at the supposed point of impact. The damage pattern primarily in the area of the right wing gash is incompatible with damage that a 767 wing would do if it was in fact what actually made that gash. The video, at the building face, the damage pattern shows, that was not and could not be caused by the wing of a plane.

Consequently, whether the Naudet clip shows a plane, or a strange blurry ghost shape of a plane or a missile with either CGI inserted blurry wings or a full hologram cloak is really somewhat irrelevant to me. That is not to be flip. I just start at the building and immediately eliminate the plane. Now, that there "appears" to be some 'plane' artifact in the clip seems of a necessity to me considering the whole OS is going with that tale but it fails at the building as being actual.

So while I recognize there should be something in the video obviously to uphold the narrative, I only expect it to be there, but still, in the most fundamental way it matters not whether we can see one 'clearly' or not, a 'plane' would not make the damage WE DO SEE CLEARLY at the so called point of impact.

We also talked on the other thread a bit, or maybe I did, about faking videos. I don't know how deep the 9/11 rabbit hole goes quite yet but as I indicated before with the inflatable tanks and faking video by removing one, which would be easier than faking the massive coordination of just say those 26 base videos of the second plane. Right?

If they are fake synchronized then humanity needs to call it a day.

Contrasting this, Naudet, like perhaps the single Zapruder film, could have added a plane way way easier than making 26 other clips all "congruent". We have nothing to compare the Naudet clip to in terms of other videos, it was in his custody alone and I believe whatever version was "released" (you claim a standard DVD) I do believe we did not have it LIVE and right away like the second 'plane' on CNN.

So Naudet had more time than the 17 second delay Shack goes on about if he was inclined to fake his clip.


Cheers

Originally posted by kidtwist
reply to post by NWOwned

 

I would just like to add something to what you wrote. Regarding the Naudet Brothers' footage, do you or anyone know of any footage that exist from before the first 'plane' supposedly impacted? The reason I ask this is because if the Naudet's were making a documentary about firemen as they claim, then surely the tape did not start rolling just before the first 'plane' supposedly impacted.

All we see of their video before the 1st 'impact' is the firemen looking down at the ground doing there inspection, surely the tape was rolling before this clip, and if it was then does anyone know where the rest of the pre-impact footage can be found? It would be too coincidental that they only just turned the tape on seconds before the first 'plane' supposedly hit!

Hi, thanks for the input. Ya that would be strange. I've not really concentrated on Naudet much prior to this week, though I think I watched their film once but not at all critically.

I plan to watch it again and take lots of notes.

I think though that they were filming for a while and had plenty of firehouse footage weeks prior to the first 'plane' clip. This is what you mean right? That they were filming for weeks before etc. Or do you mean that they just got to the intersection, turned on the camera and then "Oh wow what's that!"? That too would be strange.

One thing I want to say about the popular clip though is the look on the commander's face and how he looks to a different part of the sky at first compared to the other guys, it's like he knows he's on camera and he seems petrified that he's 'in on it' and when he gets the cue maybe from Naudet, a silent 'Action' signal and what roars in roars in and he looks askew and nervous and worried.

Like, thinking to self: "Oh man it's really going down I better get a grip, there's no turning back, I hope this works out, damn, I better look NATURAL, maybe I should look up here, no wait, over here, but WAIT I don't want to look right at it I want to give the impression that I'm surprised and caught completely unaware... etc."

Of course this is merely my hasty interpretation of his body language and not scientific at all.

But I will say he 'looks like' he might be in on it lol and so when I get to studying the entire film I'm gonna have my eyes on that little captain guy!

If you happen to dig up anything of interest related to my current area of investigation or if you think of something be sure to throw it in a post I'd appreciate very much any original input.

Keep asking questions.

One question I wanted to ask you that I'm curious about is what you think Simon Shack is right on the money about?

Like I can maybe see your position as it pertains to exponent's opinion of Shack, but you've read my stuff, I too have reservations about Shack, and like you can tell from my posts what side of the fence I'm on.

For instance, I think his "nose-out" interpretation as a video overlay carried too far is incorrect.

I think what came out of the backside of the tower was an object/energy/force which can clearly be seen from the videos of the opposite side Shack uses, the south sunny side etc.

Looked at from that side it's very clear there is something there, it just coincidentally is in the approximate shape of the roundish front of a plane. I believe it is something real but not necessarily SOLID. I believe this because there is a photo of the exit area and the windows are all blown out and most of the cladding is gone and some slight bending outward of steel is observed.

What came out of the South Tower was a real thing yet to be adequately defined IMO, though I have a fairly good idea and even a theory that might blow your mind that is HIGHLY SPECULATIVE I admit freely. And that is the idea that the second plane is not so much a Hologram in the projection sense like cloaking a missile for instance, but is rather, the 'Energy Weapon Itself' and this may also explain in part why the second tower hit was the first to 'collapse' etc. Again, HIGHLY SPECULATIVE - CRAZY SPECULATIVE and what emerged was not the nose of the plane nor a 'video fakery' overlay gone too far.

I also disagree with Shack concerning the different trajectories of the various clips meaning that some are fake and a plane inserted, even Hall, who lunarasparagus says makes bad videos goes a long way to show Shack is incorrect about that.

These are just two ways that even I differ from Shack even as I may also to the same degree differ from the views of others.

What do you think?

I'm very interested to hear your specific take on Simon Shack.


Cheers

Originally posted by NWOwned

My concern with the Naudet surprise catch clip of the 'first hit' is primarily focused on the building and the damage patterns displayed at the supposed point of impact. The damage pattern primarily in the area of the right wing gash is incompatible with damage that a 767 wing would do if it was in fact what actually made that gash. The video, at the building face, the damage pattern shows, that was not and could not be caused by the wing of a plane.

Your conclusion, in my opinion, is speculation based on very tenuous (inadequate) evidence. Your assessment of the damage pattern hinges on a blow-up of one or two frames of video taken from a significant distance while the camera's lens was in a wide position. The original video was taken in standard res DV format which has a native compression ration of 1:5 (compressed IN camera)--already relatively poor image quality as compared to film or HD video formats. Additionally, the image has been compressed further when converted to DVD format which has a compression ratio of 1:20. So 3/4 of the original DV image data has been discarded. The quality is still good enough for general viewing purposes, but woefully inadequate for examining fine detail from zoomed-in blow-ups. Pixels have been interpolated and/or removed, colors smeared, etc. The image is merely an impression of what it once was.

This is how you end up with stuff like this:

So to say the Naudet video "shows an inconsistent 'damage pattern' on the building face, proven not to be caused by that of a right wing from a or any passenger airplane etc.", is just like saying that the missing wing in the above video, an impossibility, proves that there was no real plane--when, of course, the wing is there, but was erased by the compression process.

reply to post by NWOwned

Notice in this video of the Hezarkhani footage the producer points out what some have called the "self healing" building. The impact gashes from the wings seem to be missing just after impact. But also notice the poor quality and resolution of the video. It's been butchered through heavy compression. Impossible to see real detail:


Here's a higher quality, less compressed version. Though still very compressed, more detail of the impact hole can be seen:


The Naudet clip was filmed from much further away and is heavily compressed. Compare the detail to the other two:




I just don't believe you can draw definitive conclusions from such low-resolution, greatly compromised footage.

That's my two cents.

Cheers

reply to post by lunarasparagus


I'd like to point out here at this point that in the last 2 consecutive posts of yours you make basically the same point, which really makes at least one of those posts somewhat irrelevant.

Now you're just getting like me.

I'd also like to point out that I got the point of your argument and position, your "opinion" etc., the first time you made the same point, way back in the Hall strange "ball" post.

Respectfully, your argument is a very 'well worn one' in here and somewhat ridiculous IMO.

To paraphrase etc.

"Oh the videos are so bad we can't even examine them for any kind of evidence!"

HOGWASH.

You think/believe, or should I say portray, that the videos are bad, that the videos 'suck' more or less and that that's primarily for the reasons you have just related to me in your 'opinion' piece argument above etc.

Namely:

1. The camera equipment is amateur and not professional, 2. The object is too far away, 3. The resolution is insufficient, 4. The angle or lighting is inadequate, 5. The object is out of focus and blurry, 6. When transferring the bad videotape to digital format for the likes of Youtube there is the dastardly problem of video compression and missing wings and such... and so on and so on.

I get that part, really I do.

But there's one MAJOR thing that you just don't seem to get.

So I'm telling you right now, I'm telling you that all those reasons you cite for the videos being bad and hard to determine anything from is not the REAL REASON that all or MOST of the video footage 'sucks'.

No, the REAL REASON all the video material 'sucks' is because THE PERPS DIDN'T REALLY WANT YOU TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THEY WERE REALLY UP TO!!

Naudet-FRAUDet

Let me put it to you this way, suppose you were pulling off 9/11 and the plan was to shoot a missile at the North Tower. You get your man down on Church Street with a camera to accidentally "catch" the 'Money Shot'.

Let me ask you... Exactly how hard are you gonna slap camera angle Jules when he gets back to the station and you look on his lousy vhs tape coverage and it very clearly shows the actual missile?!

Hard, I would expect.

No, the videos are not really lousy (and difficult to decipher) for all the reasons you cite they are lousy ON PURPOSE so that NOBODY EVER CATCHES ON.

I'll add that though it's your 'opinion' that these difficulties make garnering 'evidence' from them difficult and an arduous proposition, or in YOUR VIEW - IMPOSSIBLE, it is my conclusion from closely studying them that it is still possible to do so.

Also, at the risk of repeating MYSELF, the "compression artifacts" that you claim can make half a wing disappear is like your current favorite interpretation of what you think that video is showing you.

Which to me is much like Simon Shack, and his "nose-out" interpretation, sure he's SURE that's what he's looking at, that that's what it is...

Look, it may well be that the missing wing part, for instance, is the result of video compression and THEN AGAIN it may not be.

So like my caveat with the "ball" and the "exuding a strange non-reflective black surface" reservations I may not agree with you (don't in fact) that that is the actual cause of the portion of missing wing seen in that really substandard video.

Why is it substandard? Not for the merely 'technical reasons' you currently seem to think.

Not even close.


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

I'd like to point out here at this point that in the last 2 consecutive posts of yours you make basically the same point, which really makes at least one of those posts somewhat irrelevant.
Now you're just getting like me.

Same point, but added illustrations for support. I guess you didn't like it. Sorry.

I'd also like to point out that I got the point of your argument and position, your "opinion" etc., the first time you made the same point, way back in the Hall strange "ball" post.
Respectfully, your argument is a very 'well worn one' in here and somewhat ridiculous IMO.
"Oh the videos are so bad we can't even examine them for any kind of evidence!"
HOGWASH.

Can't examine them for any kind of evidence? Hogwash indeed. Of course you can. I never said you couldn't—depends on the kind of evidence.

You think/believe, or should I say portray, that the videos are bad, that the videos 'suck' more or less and that that's primarily for the reasons you have just related to me in your 'opinion' piece argument above etc.

That's your own extrapolation. I have never said the videos are bad or suck. I don't think they suck at all—especially regarding the Naudet film which contains amazing footage. All I said was that the poor resolution and compression artifacts of the available footage render it inadequate for discerning fine detail in the images, at least when it comes to making definitive conclusions about what's there or isn't there. But that doesn’t mean the footage is worthless.

Namely:
1. The camera equipment is amateur and not professional,

Again, I never said the camera equipment was "amateur". The Naudets used the Sony PD150 which at the time was a great camera, what would be considered a "prosumer" class camera. It was used often by professionals because of its small size, pro features, and fantastic picture quality.

2. The object is too far away, 3. The resolution is insufficient, 4. The angle or lighting is inadequate, 5. The object is out of focus and blurry, 6. When transferring the bad videotape to digital format for the likes of Youtube there is the dastardly problem of video compression and missing wings and such... and so on and so on.
I get that part, really I do.

Yes, the truth can be a downer. Or are you saying you don’t believe in compression artifacts and resolution degradation?

But there's one MAJOR thing that you just don't seem to get.
So I'm telling you right now, I'm telling you that all those reasons you cite for the videos being bad and hard to determine anything from is not the REAL REASON that all or MOST of the video footage 'sucks'.
No, the REAL REASON all the video material 'sucks' is because THE PERPS DIDN"T REALLY WANT YOU TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THEY WERE REALLY UP TO.

I disagree. I think a lot of the video footage "sucks" because a lot of it was not taken from original sources (such as VCR recordings for example) and most video footage on the web has been compressed and trans-coded. Why? It HAS to be done to reduce band width so it can be posted on the internet to sites like youtube. Additionally, some of the videos you see have been copied and trans-coded multiple times by people re-posting the same clips.

Let me put it to you this way, suppose you were pulling off 9/11 and the plan was to shoot a missile at the North Tower. You get your man down on Church Street with a camera to accidentally "catch" the 'Money Shot'.
Let me ask you... Exactly how hard are you gonna slap camera angle Jules when he gets back to the station and you look on his lousy vhs tape coverage and it very clearly shows the actual missile?!
Hard, I would expect.

I don't get your point here. If I was going to use a missile and try to pass it off as a plane, I wouldn’t video tape it in the first place. Or I would show a low quality surveillance tape like at the Pentagon.

No, the videos are not really lousy (and difficult to decipher) for all the reasons you cite they are lousy ON PURPOSE so that NOBODY EVER CATCHES ON.
I'll add that though it's your 'opinion' that these difficulties make garnering 'evidence' from them difficult and an arduous proposition, or in YOUR VIEW - IMPOSSIBLE, it is my conclusion from closely studying them that it is still possible to do so.

Twisting my words again. I never said “impossible”. More like--the poorer the image quality, the greater the margin of error in one’s interpretation of the images. But you’re contradicting yourself here. You say that the video record is “lousy ON PURPOSE so that NOBODY EVER CATCHES ON”, BUT that you (and others) HAVE caught on. So either the video evidence is NOT so lousy—or—you believe that evidence which is intentionally corrupted can, in good conscience, be relied on in finding truth.

Also, at the risk of repeating MYSELF, the "compression artifacts" that you claim can make half a wing disappear is like your current favorite interpretation of what you think that video is showing you. Which to me is much like Simon Shack, and his "nose-out" interpretation, sure he's SURE that's what he's looking at, that that's what it is...
Look, it may well be that the missing wing part, for instance, is the result of video compression and THEN AGAIN it may not be.

The disappearing wing has been shown quite conclusively that it is due to a compression artifact. It’s a perfect example of how compression artifacts can be very misleading. If you can provide good evidence to the contrary, please do. I’m open to changing my opinion.

So like my caveat with the "ball" and the "exuding a strange non-reflective black surface" reservations I may not agree with you (don't in fact) that that is the actual cause of the portion of missing wing seen in that really substandard video.

It is. And can be easily demonstrated.

Why is it substandard? Not for the merely 'technical reasons' you currently seem to think.
Not even close.

It’s substandard because it’s not the original format. The data size was reduced for internet viewing (below the standard size), which means data was lost—a lot of it. So, yes, it’s due to technical reasons.
For some reason you don’t seem to believe in data compression.
I guess it is kinda spooky.
Cheers

reply to post by lunarasparagus


You know you may be right, my characterization of the clips i.e. 'lousy' and 'sucks' may have been too much simplistic sweeping generalizations of what I perceived your take to be and not at all specifically what you described them as, this I concede.

I'll be sure to watch that in the future, that over generalizing leap etc.

My impression though, from your '2 cents' point which I got earlier and which was reinforced by your later examples, I tended to view at the time (last week) as an attempt at 'prediscounting'.

In that claiming that the various 'technical difficulties' (resolution, artifacts, blur, distance etc. The Naudet clip being filmed further away resulting in much less detail etc.) obviously make discerning 'evidence' from the available footage more difficult. (Which I agree with, more difficult, but not impossible, as I clarified, and to which you seem to agree.)

And therefore, as a result, though not stating directly, such arguments were soon to be levied against my primary focus of late, that being that one screen shot frame of the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' seen in my killer avatar pic slide show above left. (That I made myself with Irfanview and Microsoft Gif Animator.)

This of course remains to be seen.

But allow me to now make the prediction, that when we do get to analyzing this particular screen shot something akin to that argument is likely to be made. I'm just guessing. Just taking the old college try shot in the dark here.

Also, I'm not so concerned with the second hit, referenced in your indistinct/distinct detail example.

That is YET. I know you included that shot of the second 'plane' to illustrate the level of detail and certain problems with the video record, but in doing so it was looked upon by me (Jaded as I am and on ATS too long) as a sort of 'preamble to discounting' to include it when my primary concern is that of a frame or a few frames of a 9/11 video clip but, as it turns out, of actually another 9/11 clip of another different 'plane' etc.

Though I do find it curious that you would include a blow up screen shot of the Naudet clip right at the time I indicate something funny is going on with the particular frame in relation to the "official story" and yet you never gave it a serious go but rather a mere hint having to do with distance and lack of detail etc.

Hey it pays to be jaded, there's a real lack of surprise.

I leaped to characterizing your stance, and it meaning 'impossible' (to garner evidence) perhaps somewhat hastily.

And so I appreciate your clarification. Of course I must confess that I expected such a clarification due to the fact that your position cannot be that all the difficulties mean we can't derive any proper evidence from the available materials for then how could anyone, even the 'hustled masses', see anything in it to even back up the OS as it is and was presented to all of us?

This is in part why I like the Naudet screen shot evidence. It's an official video.

Not only that, the screen shot I used where you can clearly see the damning anomaly I discovered is not even from a very good resolution clip.

I've since gotten the best video of the Naudet clip available and the same thing very clearly appears on it.

So no one from the OS side, no 'debunker' can come along and say like: "Well, that's interesting what you point out about the wing bump thing but maybe the video is faked and that bump isn't really there anyway - ever think of that!" What? You mean Naudet faked his video!! lol

My God, and they claimed they shot that whole sequence in one take. Amazing.

I have a lot more to say about all this but we're like way off the Hall subject by now and I plan on starting my very first thread ever on ATS on this very Naudet anomaly (plus I have ideas for 4 more solid threads all 9/11 related but all very different that I'm collecting evidence on and writing up as well) so I'd like to just stop discussing it in here and take up more specifics in the new thread if you don't mind.

Just so you know I personally don't think evidence is only in the details. Or that if I casually say a video is 'lousy' that by that I mean therefore no good evidence can be derived from the viewing of it.

Quite the contrary.


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned

I look forward to reading your thread on this topic.