CNN TV Fakery Proven

[Fred]

So far no evidence has been brought forth to debunk the work presented here. There's no reason this should be in the "Controversial Theories" section.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/414324/cnn_fake_footage_blasted_impossib le_camera_angles_impossible/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/533907/cnn_fake_footage_blasted_when_whe re_and_how_did_they_film_th/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/542884/cnn_hoax_if_by_land_cnn_hoax_if_b y_sea/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/541194/cnn_fake_footage_blasted_more_pro of_for_the_hard_headed/

[gareth]

http://www.visibility911.com/cointelpro.htm

[Stefan]

Fred,
EVERYONE has demonstrated you wrong on this, through your cypher david before you even got on board, most people, like me gave up since he simply did not listen when people explained why they didn't buy the argument.

What I liked about the boat video was the very end of it actually shows the right angle (but wrong distance) to give the spatial relationship between the buildings in the CNN shot.

I have pointed this out several times but you can in fact see the tip of the building in question just behind some foilage. To locate where, refer to the final shot of the boat video for the spatial relationship and then go frame by frame through the CNN shot- and there it is, the very tip of the beige building, through the tips of some foilage exactly where it should be.

Fred. You are clearly spamming. We have numerous threads on exactly the same topic and you and your foot soldiers post more every day. Stop it.

If people want to discuss this with you, there are existing threads to do so in, a new one every day is not going to convince people you are right (especially when you are so comprehensivly wrong) it will just annoy people.

[ian neal]

No it is not proven. The failure (to date) of John to prove that you have photoshopped footage in your youtube clip does not then mean that it is proven that you didn't. I don't know you or your background so I have no reason to either trust you or distrust you. Plus there can be a host of other reasons beyond your integrity as to why other campaigners may find the case unproven.

So interesting research that deserves further investigation, certainly. Proven beyond any reasonable doubt, I don't think so.

As I have explained many times, the inclusion of a subject within 9/11 controversies does not mean anything other than a topic is particularly controversial and devisive within the movement. TV fakery still definately falls within this area.

[Fred]

So your Virginia Tech Mind Control belongs in the Main Forum, because that's not "Controversial", whereas the 20+ videos showing that the CNN camera angle isn't possible is controversial?

Really now, it would appear that your main forum is fine for anything that can't be proven, and when someone comes along with hard evidence, he gets attacked by your moderators and shunted over here to the ghetto of "truth controversies". You're passing judgement without examining the evidence, and it's a disgrace that your Mr White is still a forum moderator when he's produced no evidence at all.

Look at what's posted in the Main Forum, vs the evidence over here. You've got mere assertions up in the main forum, and what's the controversy regarding the CNN video? Did you even look at the evidence?

If you were handed a program that compiles and runs, would you say "this program won't compile"? Saying "no it's not proven" doesn't do anything to further your cause. There is no place in New York City that someone can go and replicate the CNN Ghostplane shot. Photographs taken on 9/11 show that the CNN video wasn't even taken on 9/11.

Does something only become proven when John White, Stefan, and Chek decide to go attack something else? "Not Proven" is a load of *, along with your assertion that the segregated ghetto here is just as good as the main forum. You're casting aspersions on the theories you don't like by moving them here, and you know ithat very well.

[Fred]

Let me work on this "Not Proven" claim from Mr Neal.

Let's just summarize a subset of the evidence, shall we?

We have a CNN video that I claim is fake for a variety of reasons, including that there is no place one can go in New York City where the video could have been shot. I have posted video which matches the angle of the buildings in the CNN footage, proven by an overlay and shows that the CNN footage was either a composite made up of multiple camera angles (fake), or else that Manhattan Buildings have moved around a lot since 9/11 due to (presumably super-natural) forces that are not readily explained.

Because of taunts and jeers and lies from the moderator of this site, I posted video from over a dozen different locations showing how the alignment does not match with CNN, and in addition to that, I showed conclusively that the footage could not have been taken from the Staten Island Ferry (as asserted here) or from the Tour Boat (as asserted here).

As supporting evidence, I have posted links to photographs taken on 9/11 which show that certain features of the buildings were present on 9/11 and not in the CNN video.

Now I'm being accused by the Moderator, John White, of having faked photographs at bigfoto.com, the source for the photograph I used from Battery Park.

So I've provided over 40 pieces of evidence, and your Moderator John White responds by accusing me of faking a photograph on another website.

If in fact this is a "truth" site at all, complaining about YouTube videos and "conjurers" is not going to cut it.

You're so lazy over here that you cannot even put an X on a map. Not ONE person here has even bothered to indicate what the "correct" camera location was for the CNN video. But you're all happy to march along like Hitler Youth and call me names and say that I was a "moron" who filmed in the wrong location. Please don't tell me that this isn't a "name calling" site when your own moderators do it with impunity. Hitler Youth is probably a compliment, since at least they were young and naive.

You ought to be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

[flamesong]

I just set out with the intention of suggesting that the CNN footage might have been shot from somewhere hitherto unmentioned, Governors Island. However, as can be seen here, I was mistaken.

The Best shot I could obtain from the CNN DVD, America Remembers 9/11 which could be used as a reference is shown below. The two markers indicate positive alignment points which can be transferred to an aerial photograph.

The orange marker is the coincidence of the top left corner of the right hand building with a point on the South Tower which is approximately 55% accross the face of the South Tower and approximately the same elevation as the roof of the right hand building, though as the edge of the South Tower is virtually parallel to the line of sight, this is not critical.

The yellow marker is the coincidence of the edge of the left hand building's roof and the level of the second floor down on the building in the foreground, again, as the edge of this building is virtually parallel to the line of sight, the floor level is not critical.



The following images show the yellow line of sight, the orangel line of sight and where they cross. I reluctantly conclude that the footage was taken within the red circle.





P.S. No erratic jumping camerawork, patronising text or distracting music was necessary.

[flamesong]

I just took a bit of a flier and thought what if the upper roof edge is aligned with the left edge of the North Tower, it isn't exactly clear that it is the edge of the North Tower - but worth a look. The coincidence marker is in pink.

And guess what!

[Micpsi]

Flamesong, I think the lines you chose were too thick for purpose. There is a certain margin of error introduced by both their thickness and where exactly one draws them that would - if they were drawn slightly differently - allow them to cross over on land. Unfortunately, the allowed margin of error here is so small that whether they intersect on land or over water is dependent on the subjective decision of where exactly to draw them, making any inference from their intersection unreliable. I believe it is perfectly possible to make the lines cross over land and terminate at the points you specified.

[Micpsi]

The pink dot does not lie on the left edge of the North Tower.

[Fallious]

That looks about right to me, would be nice with thinner lines - but I think they demonstrate the extent of the possible degree of acuracy if you consider any point where the lines are touching to be a possible location. I'd perhaps have it just a tad further to the right, to be exact.

Good detective work indeed! Solid confirmation.

Fred Might it have been a good idea to do this BEFORE running around all over the park with your video camera?

[flamesong]

Thin lines...

And just after I posted the images with the pink dot/line, I had another look at the CNN video frame. Sorry, Micspi, but I disagree with you. The fact that the face of the North Tower extends left to a point directly below the dot and the sky extends right to a point directly above the dot proves that the dot is on the edge.

You can start a distraction discussion about this if you want - it is immaterial - its projected line of sight acts only to confirm the intersection of the other two.

And I'd like to point out that this was done blindly in that the lower part of these lines was off the page - the ends of which were somewhere over Governors Island). I was working in Photoshop and was zoomed in as far as possible so that only the two alignment points were visible - for accuracy - and nudged the lower end of the line without being able to see it. It was only when I zoomed back out that I could see that the intersection was not over Governors Island{/i]. That in itself satisfies me that where thye lines cross [i]is a fairly accurate triangulation of where the CNN camera was situated. But it further satisfies me because it actually proved what I was originally trying to establish to be wrong.

The first image is a 10% scaled representation of my workspace. The white rectangle represents what I could see and the blue circle is where the end of the orange line was which I was nudging (I had already shortened the yellow line). Actual size in pixels: 2819 x 3852.

[david carmichael]

So the missing lamp post when the CNN Video footage pans back and missing 19 Rector Street buiding are where then?

[Fallious]

[Fred]

Fortuntately we have footage from the water which shows conclusively that if that is indeed the spot, the CNN video is totally fake.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/8C1F9CC2735F49EC91A8D5BB953612D9/disinf o-in-the-uk-150-replies.aspx?lastvcid=173963

[Fallious]

[Fred]

The building is 19 Rector Street. I don't suppose one of the shills on this forum will go post video from the "spot" and show that it matches the CNN video. Fortunately I already posted video from there.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/8C1F9CC2735F49EC91A8D5BB953612D9/disinf o-in-the-uk-150-replies.aspx?lastvcid=173963

Andrew Watson already showed you the missing building. David Carmichael already showed you the missing building. I already showed you the missing building, but since you're used to sock puppets Like John Marky White 56, here it is again. Now all you have to do is post a video from the spot you indicated showing that it matches up with the CNN video. Of course, that's impossible, since the tops of the buildings won't line up properly because you're too far away from the shore. But never you mind about that. It's a simple matter to do what I did and post some videos. Good luck! You'll need to move the skyline around a little bit, but that should be easy, after all, CNN did it.

POST YOUR VIDEO FROM THAT LOCATION SHOWING THAT THE CNN SHOT IS POSSIBLE FROM THERE! (Hint: It isn't)

http://www.911researchers.com/node/438#comment-3197

[Fallious]

Lets start off by correcting your own comparison. The CNN frame you've posted and your own shot from a boat are clearly vastly different, so a worthless comparison.

In your shot the black building is up and behind the closer large building on the right, when in the CNN film we can clearly see the black building slightly lower and clear to the right of the large building. Helpfully, you provide a photo from the perfect position to demonstrate that the CNN shot is at a genuine horizontal position...



The black building and 19 Rector street can be seen lower and clear to the right of the large building in the foreground. Very helpful! I'm a little disappointed you've not provided this still in high resolution, as has been requested from you a few times now.

Rodin has marked out 19 Rector street in white. It's appearing slightly higher than the black building behind it. This is because we are on the ground, and 19 Rector street is much closer than the black building.



I re-created the horizontal position of flamesongs shot in google earth. Obvously one can't boast utter perfection considering the slightly arbitrary heights of custom buildings however it does all lines up nicely.

Here we see the black building apears taller than 19 rector street; that’s because we are much higher up off the ground than your original shot.

Oh yes, and here's 19 Rector street in the original CNN footage marked with a red outline. Exactly where we expect it given the altitude of shot. It's a little lower in relation to the black building here, because the filming position is HIGHER than your shot location.



Oh yes and: 19 Rector Street, no towers, no mast. In other words, the mast was added after 9/11.



I think we can agree, with the understanding that boats dock along this bank, it's a perfectly reasonable, particularly on 911, to expect a person to be filming from a boat very close to the shore here, flamesong has demonstrated the exact position very clearly. I think this is now beyond debate given the validation of height (amusingly as a result of your own pursuit of the 19 Rector street building), and horizontal position that we have the correct location.

[John White]

[david carmichael]

[Fallious]

[david carmichael]

[marky 54]

so can i ask the obvious just to be clear???

is 19 rector street the building that was missing but also in the photo it was meant to be missing from? or am i missing something about missing buildings that were not missing but just appeared to be missing?

[John White]

[marky 54]

michael, whos to say they was on a ferry that didnt leave untill a certain time?

there are surely more boats than just ferrys that leave at 10a.m

maybe the ferrys were dispatched early incase needed in the emergancy
to transport people away from the area?

so now we are left with a lampost unless we can prove the camera man was not on a boat.

why would they fake one lampost? what would the point be?

[EmptyBee]

Hmm nearly there Fred, but not quite lined up. You're much better off using a wide-angled shot from the CNN footage if you want to draw comparisons.

Your video, with 43 seconds left on the clock:



The CNN video, at its absolute widest angle:



You can see the blue roof of World Financial Centre 1 to the left of the Whitehall building on both shots. This is tighter in on the CNN footage, implying the camera must have been further to the right. The distant buildings on the right are about correct however, and 19 Rector Street is indeed completely obscured by trees. Now of course the trees may have grown even higher since 9/11 but from a lower angle (such as gained from the road you pass in front of) you might just get the right perspective. The thing to focus on isn't so much the trees as the relative position of buildings on the skyline. Once you have those correct any issues should resolve themselves.

With a bit more luck and determination you might be able to place yourself on the fabled spot where the CNN footage was filmed! Assuming, at this point, you actually want to find it, that is.

[chek]

[david carmichael]

[Fred]

And just what exactly IS the view from the water? Are the buildings hidden behind the trees? Watch the video and see for yourself. It's nice that Rodin published computer graphics to go with CNN's computer animation, but here is actual video shot with a camera that shows you what the REAL WORLD looks like when shot with a VIDEO CAMERA. Oops!


Link

[EmptyBee]

Fred the only relevant parts of your video start with about 55 seconds remaining on the clock (3m32s in), as the boat comes in to dock. The relative position of WFC1 to the Whitehall building is important here.
The blue roof of WFC1 is visible only in the very last few frames of the CNN footage, and it appears to be at roughly the correct angle of elevation from your barge trip. If the boat had docked a few metres to the east (right) I suspect you'd get much closer to the correct angle, as well as having the trees in the foreground where they should be, so that 19 Rector street all but disappears from view.

The fact that you get so tantalisingly close to the correct angle but continue to assert that your video proves fakery makes me wonder if you're really trying.