Image Impossible: The Evidance

[Stefan]

Why is this thread still going?

David, Fred, it's over. You've been debunked. The fact that you will not accept that the CNN shot is perfectly fine, and that you can see the tip of the building in question in it, yet still persist means you consider your egos to be bigger than the truth.

There is nothing unusual about the CNN shot.

CNN did not create new york on computer from the ground up, however much you might want that to be true.

Move on.

[ian neal]

In response to this post from David

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=68757&highlight=#687 57

David

Don't go posting off topic posts in threads which have nothing to do with the discussion of fred's evidence and this forum's moderation. If you are banned it will be because of your rudeness and failure to heed advice and not because of your beliefs.

I have already said John should not have called Fred a faker. Instead John should have said he thinks that one of the photos Fred used has been faked. Important difference and one that I have already pointed out. If you expect further admonishment of John, you won't get it

I've already said that Fred's evidence is interesting and warrants further investigation, but I am not going to declare a definitive position on a subject I have only looked at fleetingly and that I am not qualified to know about.

Unfortunately with TG and JW taking a strong positions against TV fakery and AJ strongly supportive, the moderation of the site has come to be seen as overly political. In light of this, how the site is moderated will be reviewed, but it will be done in private and won't be driven by you.

I don't tell you how the researchers site should be moderated so I'm at loss why as a very new member who clearly has only a passing understanding of who we are and where we have come from that you think it is your duty to lecture me and others about this forum and its moderation. Why not ask Andrew Johnson to fill you in on our background

Thanks

[david carmichael]

[John White]

If the best the 911 researchers crew can hope for is to create "the problem" so they can have "the reaction" of being able to declare to their own little crowd "we wuz banned!" to cover up the decimation of their ill concieved theories, then they confirm their own irrelevance in the feild of 9/11 truth and can be safely ignored from here on in: as 911bloggers and loose change have already done

I'm hardly suprised to see the likes of Mr Carmichael agitating for just that to avoid taking his share of responsibility: but there is some satisfaction for the community here to see that we were all absolutely right about him

[MadgeB]

[david carmichael]

[John White]

*Yawn*

[david carmichael]

[marky 54]

[MadgeB]

[marky 54]

[Stefan]

This "is this photo fake" issue has become a side show.

John said he thought they were fake, several agreed, several didn't. Both made their cases, the silent majority have no doubt made their own minds up. End of story.

There's no "lie", just a difference of opinion. To be honest I'm kind of getting sick of the fakery corps calling everyone who doesn't swallow their beleifs a liar. You haven't convinced us. OK? That doesn't make anyone a liar, stop blaming your deficiencies on others.

The real issue is that the CNN shot which some people here claimed has been proved to be fake has been proved to be real.

And that really is that. I'll request again that the rational among us leave this lot to stew, and abandon these threads post haste.

[John White]

If Madge B is still having comprehension difficulties, she only has to read my post carefully to find all the answers she seeks. I've even outlined my methodology so my conclusions can be checked by anyone, and provided the reference material needed. Stil, if folk don't want to put the work in themselves...

[ian neal]

What would prove this one way or the other is simple trigonometry in order to pinpoint the location of the camera and the direction it was pointed towards if some one can be arsed to do find the data and do the maths.

If you had the data on the height of the two main buildings concerned (and we of course have a height for where the 'plane' entered on the tower) and a map pinpointing the location of the building corners and the distance between the two points, you would soon be able to calculate the precise location of the camera and know whether shot is fake or genuine.

[Fred]

The footage has already been shown to be fake. But if you'd like to spend your time looking up heights of buildings go right ahead. Perhaps your time would be better spend looking at the video frame by frame and figuring out how an explosion manages to stay frozen in time while the supposed cameraman pans down. Is it possible that something exploding can come to a standstill for 20 frames? Of course not.

Stop being lazy, download a copy of virtualdub and check out the CNN footage. It's fake.

It's amazing that your moderator here is attacking me when I went and posted 40 videos actually demonstrating that the CNN shot itself wasn't even possible. If you did some actual research instead of attacking people, perhaps your campaign would have had some success by now.

[John White]

40 X addledheaded calculations = 40 X addleheaded video's + 1 giant ego falsley prideful of its folly

You can claim what you like Fred, you and I both know the real answer, as your rage showed clearly last weekened

911blogger and Loose Change forum certainly have a clear view of the "value" of your work

[MadgeB]

[John White]

[Fred]

Your "complete taking apart" amounts to nothing more than lies and ridicule posted from your many accounts.

http://www.911researchers.com/node/459#comment-3394

You never did produce any evidence of your original complaint that I shot footage from the wrong angle and wrong location, and then when asked to justify that lie you cowardly attacked me and claimed that I faked a photograph on bigfoto.com. You also lied and claimed that I misrepresented a still photo as live video. Finally you backed off and chose to attack the photographer with your "evidance" thread. It would appear that you engage in little more than a smear campaign designed to discredit anyone who dares question the media's complicity in selling the War on Terror.

Shame on you!

[John White]

Fine.

Its not going to work Fred

[Witchfinder General]

Can anybody explain John White's below sea level theory in simple english (no rocket science please).

If nobody answers this I will assume that nobody understands his theory.

[chek]

[Fred]

Hogwash. There is no evidence whatsoever that the photo is fake and John does not calcluate any better than he spells. The CNN video is fake with or without that photo anyway. It simply shows that there were trees and lampposts in Battery Park on September 11. It is not a fake photo, and even if it were, it does not make the CNN footage any less fake.

THE CNN FOOTAGE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SHOT FROM ANY LOCATION. It depicts an impossible event, including explosions that stand still, planes that disappear into buildings, cartoon animated figures in the smoke. It is completely fake.

The John White Clone Team is merely trying to muddy the waters by making ridiculous counter-accusations.

[chek]

[Anthony Lawson]

Do the Shadows Know?

The shadows, in the foreground of the contentious picture, seem to indicate that this section of it was not taken at the time that the South Tower was struck; 9:03 and 11 seconds AM, Eastern Daylight Time.

According to calculations that I have made, using a sun-angle calculator which can be found at (http://www.susdesign.com/sunangle/), the sun would not have been as high as is indicated by the shadows on the statue and on the building on the extreme right of the picture. (New York is situated at: Longitude 73 degrees 58 minutes West, and Latitude 40 degrees and 47 minutes North.)

There are two areas where strong shadows indicate that the angle of the sun was at about 44 degrees from the horizontal: 1) the shadow made by the elbow of the large figure in the statue, and, 2) the shadows on the building which appears above the trees, to the right of the picture.

However the sun-angle calculator indicates that the sun would have been a lot lower at 9:03 AM, EDT, that day: 27 degrees and 22 minutes. Even if I am out by an hour, due to the daylight-saving shift, the shadow angle should still be only 37 degrees and 44 minutes.

Because I often get time zone-calculations wrong, when daylight saving times are involved, perhaps someone else should check this.