Mind Bending Optical Illusion

[Ace Baker]

Analyze according to the laws of perspective, and let me know what you think.

[Mark Gobell]

That's amazing.

[chek]

[Stefan]

Whether he realises it or not, Ace Baker has hit the nail on the head here - most NPT claims are simple optical illusions as a result of camera movements and compression errors.

I was speaking to some NPT supporters at the social for Dylan Avery on Monday who were good lads actually - they asked me why I didn't pay any attention to the fact that the planes path into the South Tower looks different on different camera angles - my answer was that I went to art college and if I was drawing a still life and my chair moved even slightly the entire composition would change and it would be murder trying to find that exact angle again, eventually I started using the trick of putting masking tape markers around the four legs of my chair on the first session so as not to lose it. The slightest difference in angle on a scene completly changes all the angles - when we are dealing with a plane represented pretty small on the screen in a 3D space it is completley natural that the approach will look different from every angle.

But what about the shots that are from the same angle I was asked, the simple answer to that is there are no two shots from the same angle, if there was two cameras would have to be occupying the same space and that really does break the laws of physics.

The problem with treating Youtube videos as though they were empirical evidence is it requires a complete and accurate 3D model of new york to be created from the ground up to confirm if the angles really are "wrong" - all the "research" done by eye and instinct I have seen has shown a woeful disreard of what perspective is, or a treating of video compression artifacts as though they relate to anything real, or both.

I am willing to listen to credible arguments proposing NPT. I just haven't been presented with any yet.

[Mark Gobell]

And yet the TV stuff is fine?

[chek]

[Stefan]

[Mark Gobell]

Are you taking the piss?

[Mark Gobell]

[chek]

[gruts]

[chek]

[gruts]

well it can't be a plane because....it....just....CAN'T BE - so it must be a fleet of thermite carrying UAVs flying in formation.

obvious really!

it must be true because a friend of rick siegal apparently saw one of these duck-sized UAVs once. or something....

[Dogsmilk]

That plane just looks like it's pointing towards the camera to me. I don't even see an optical illusion. Does this mean I need glasses?

However, I'm certainly sold on the "aerosolized nano-thermite UAVs". It just sounds so cool.

[alwun]

The image on the left is flying toward the camera. It passes from light to shade, then momentarily back in to the light(shining from the left as we look). I do not recognise the image exactly, and I'm not sure of the point.

cheers Al..

[Mark Gobell]

Watch it again Alwun.

And again.

It really is quite remarkable.

[Stefan]

Can I just ask you one question - are you actually claiming this optical illusion is idicative of something relevant? If so, what?

[Mark Gobell]

You can ask me any question you like Stefan and I will try, as always to give you my best answer, honestly.

I think that clip shows just how easily it is to deceive the eye.

I think that clip teaches me a lot about perspective.

I think that clip proves to me that you cannot always trust what you see.

[Stefan]

[Mark Gobell]

Well I'm no expert of the NPT catalogue by any means.

I would say that the epithet of grainy, compressed, YouToobism is, for me, more than a little tired and worn out.

I would say that your characterisation is a long way off a fair assessment of their case Stefan.

Understandable, given your position.

But not entirely fair.

[Stefan]

[Mark Gobell]

Given your position was meant to allude to your position in NPT disbelief.

Just as you have outlined.

To reduce the NPT debate to the grainy, YouToobism epithet, I think is not a fair assessment of their argument.

That's all.

And as for not caring what brought down the towers. I think both camps agree that planes didn't do it. Don't we?

Also, I think that both camps are doing themselves a great disservice.

The dogmatic diatribe that alternative theories "will damage the truth movement", for me, is beyond any justification now.

Imagine if any alternatives were consigned to the fringes and treated with such contempt from word go.

We'd still be stuck with pods and flashes wouldn't we?

[Stefan]

Mark,
I've gone through the "just ignore them" phase and what it acheives is the appearance of a tacit agreement. The forum was getting flooded with endless spam posting of Fakery videos everday with no response and it was starting to look as though that was the consensus opinion of those that used this site. For the two or three users posting this stuff - they accounted for two thirds of the daily posts and someone had to stand up and offer a counter point, several of us did and that has continued.

No. I don't think open debate will harm the movement all that much. In a perfect world we'd all agree with each other and skip and dance through meadows of course, but in reality we have a situation and a series of choices.

We have theories which are and will be used to ridicule us, do not stand up to even gentle questioning and are generally so low on evidence a lot of us suspect they are forumulared precicley to be used to later ridicule us.

We can ignore them. Been there done that, didn't work.

We can simply ban people who propose them - this is what 9/11 Truth Action are saying right now and I am not up for that either for several reasons, the most important of being free speach.

Or we can, in the spirit of democracy, debate the ideas and see whoes ideas stand up the best.

And if you look at the threads, and properly read them, I think you might agree there really isn't much more to them than grainy youtubeism.

If you think I'm wrong, don't wax lyrical about "positions" just tell me what vital piece of evidence for Tv fakery I have somehow missed, and we'll debate it.

[Mark Gobell]

Admirable position Stefan.

One question for you then:

How could such a debate be had?

Given your position that grainy YouToobism is disallowed. . . .

[Mark Gobell]

I may be sticking my neck out here. But.

What are we to do?

Send each other certified DVDs?

[TmcMistress]

[Stefan]

Mark,
Here's what I suggest. You have a think about what you think the evidence for fakery is - you split it up into clearly defined pieces of evidence.

You then post a thread for each titled:

Debate: [INSERT ISSUE HERE]

On the 9/11 controversies board, with the piece of evidence you believe worthy of discussion. Post them all up at once if you can.

Then you wait.

Then or me or one of the other opponents to respond, if we disagree outlining why.

You then respond to the counter points, explaining why accept or do not accept them.

Then we wait.

Each response will be sourced wherever necceary with all citation possible. We won't go back and forth in a conversational manner and will respond to every point in the last post. If you or we have not responded to a question or argument in your or our post, we will repost that part in a quote.

Only when all details of the last post are answered do we move onto the next.

If we could get agreement from both sides that there will no sarcasm, baiting or ad hominem involved in any thread starting "Debate" I believe we will end up with a comprehensive review of the issue from both sides.

What do you say?

[Mark Gobell]

Stefan

Superb suggestion. It's just what this issue needs. I have, honestly tried this before but it didn't work.

I asked the question about how the debate could be had because it seems plain from experience that a debate about videographic evidence has to involve that evidence. When that evidence is dismissed under the Youtoob grainery epithet then the debate cannot be had.

I welcome your initiative. I, however, as I'm sure you know, am not the ideal candidate to debate NPT as I know very little about it compared to those more well known.

Can we get the NPT camp to participate and agree to the rules?

What happens if the rules of debate aren't adhered to?

[gruts]

[chek]

Of course, all the above is predicated on the assumption that it's all some sort of gentlemanly misinterpretation that's open to correction, when experience strongly suggests that NPT is a deliberate disinformation cult that eschews all evidence to the contrary to it as the heretical works of 'shills'.

Let's face it, the average NPT'er is none too bright and is likely to be blanked by arguments against.
'Does not compute' as Robbie the Robot used to say.