Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 107 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:37 am Post subject:
Presuming a straight flight path is favorable towards your argument, not mine. A straight flight perpendicular to the line of sight would offer the shortest possible time in the picture, and smallest plane. The official story would have the plane banking left, which makes the plane initially closer to the camera than a straight path, and that it would be in the picture for a longer time.
A 767 is 159 feet long, the towers were 208 feet wide, so the plane was about 72% as long as the width of a tower. Shooting into the light as Chopper 5 was, the plane would present a dark silhouette. Small, yes, but easily detectable. Even at YouTube Quality, the plane would have been about 4 pixels. Digitized at full size, the plane would have been 12 x 3 pixels or so.
The alleged plane is not alleged to have flown through the smoke. The smoke was blowing south east, the "plane" approached from the south west. From this angle, the plane would have been well in front of the smoke plume.
Presuming a straight flight path is favorable towards your argument, not mine. A straight flight perpendicular to the line of sight would offer the shortest possible time in the picture, and smallest plane. The official story would have the plane banking left, which makes the plane initially closer to the camera than a straight path, and that it would be in the picture for a longer time.
A 767 is 159 feet long, the towers were 208 feet wide, so the plane was about 72% as long as the width of a tower. Shooting into the light as Chopper 5 was, the plane would present a dark silhouette. Small, yes, but easily detectable. Even at YouTube Quality, the plane would have been about 4 pixels. Digitized at full size, the plane would have been 12 x 3 pixels or so.
The alleged plane is not alleged to have flown through the smoke. The smoke was blowing south east, the "plane" approached from the south west. From this angle, the plane would have been well in front of the smoke plume.
and the plane accelerating on the final appraoch? is that impossible to?
unlike npt'ers im pretty sure they knew speed = more damage.
Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 107 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:26 am Post subject:
Having the plane accelerate on final hurts your argument. That would mean the plane was even further in picture at frame 1. This is why Jason wondered if maybe the plane DE-celerated on final. Deceleration would allow it to be out of picture during the time no plane is seen. Unfortunately, this would involve the plane going in excess of 1300 mph, which even the huggiest plane huggers admit is strictly impossible for a Boeing 767.
Having the plane accelerate on final hurts your argument. That would mean the plane was even further in picture at frame 1. This is why Jason wondered if maybe the plane DE-celerated on final. Deceleration would allow it to be out of picture during the time no plane is seen. Unfortunately, this would involve the plane going in excess of 1300 mph, which even the huggiest plane huggers admit is strictly impossible for a Boeing 767.
ok i see your point on that bit, it certainly is'nt acceleration that is the answer.
i still disagree with previous points that the plane should be visible im going to study your video over and over and search around.
Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 107 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:11 am Post subject:
Perhaps you can join me in requesting that Eric Salter release his VHS copy of Chopper 5, in high resolution. He's released the very end of it in high resolution, but the wide shot only in low resolution.
Could that be that's he's hiding the fact that
THERE IS NO PLANE IN THE WIDE SHOT, BUT THERE SHOULD BE.
That is why they didn't replay Chopper 5. Well, that and the fact that they accidentally had the NOSE of the AIRPLANE pop out the back side.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:34 am Post subject:
Ace Baker wrote:
That is why they didn't replay Chopper 5. Well, that and the fact that they accidentally had the NOSE of the AIRPLANE pop out the back side.
Except it isn't the nose, it's been shown it's not the nose, and yet you keep on repeating it and wittering forlornly about 'alpha channels' as if your constant repetition is going to make it any more true.
You do realise that's one definition of insanity? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
eg "Can a 767 go 500 mph at 700ft I do not think so, but can a 767 descend from cruise altitude at a steep angle at full power and level off at 700ft going over 500 mph, yes it can very easily."
Just checked that out gruts, cheers.
Y'know, I'm finding it hard to believe JW/CB has even a science background, let alone is a mechanical engineering professor.
In that ATS thread she mentions (without specifying which) Newton's laws ... and that's it. A name check.
No layout of factors to be considered other than the usual NPT cliched and oversimplified terms (glide into steel), let alone a stab at calculation - just a name check for Sir Isaac.
Even poor old Prole Art * could do that.
And with all those poor-to-dreadful 'rate my professor' write-ups I'm kinda wondering if the real JW is still in a coma somewhere and the hospice cleaning woman nicked her ID.
That would also explain her way less than clueless interview with Jenkins.
Did anyone notice she didn't use one scientific term in that either?
Just her made up nonsense words.
did you check out those boeing 757 clips from various airshows?
this one for example, which shows a boeing 757 flying at 350 knots, 100 feet above a runway at an airport that is 23 feet above sea level, and then ascending rapidly to 8000 feet with consumate ease.
amazing what a big boeing can actually do, despite what some people might tell you....
or are those who claim that such things are impossible just frauds? like that "boeing engineer" and his gullible admirers....
as for judy brooklyn - if she told me that the sun came up this morning I'd ask for a second opinion. it's difficult to believe that anyone could possibly take her seriously. mind you - can you think of anyone with an ounce of integrity or intelligence who does?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject:
Ace Baker wrote:
So what is your explanation for why there is no plane in the wide shot of Chopper 5?
It's invisible. Point out something else in the longshot with a15ft width resolution, and we'll talk further.
Ace Baker wrote:
What would it take to falsify that view?
Some supremely dastardly plan that yet would be no match against an inept pretend video technician who waffled about 'alpha channels' claiming the perps accidentally let the nose out show, when the size and shapes aren't even close ? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 107 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject:
OK. What would falsify your hypothesis is a control case.
On a clear day, in the morning, shooting eastward, we try to video a plane from a distance of 4 miles, zoomed out so as to make the plane no more than 12 x 3 pixels. Video is captured and reduced to a resolution comparable to known copies of Chopper 5.
A separate video is simultaneously shot from the same location, zoomed in to record the event more closely, for comparison.
Does this sound like a reasonable scientific way to settle the matter?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject:
Ace Baker wrote:
OK. What would falsify your hypothesis is a control case.
On a clear day, in the morning, shooting eastward, we try to video a plane from a distance of 4 miles, zoomed out so as to make the plane no more than 12 x 3 pixels. Video is captured and reduced to a resolution comparable to known copies of Chopper 5.
A separate video is simultaneously shot from the same location, zoomed in to record the event more closely, for comparison.
Does this sound like a reasonable scientific way to settle the matter?
Not if your previous 'control cases' are anything to go by. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 107 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject:
Now you refer to the fact that Eric Salter attempts to dismiss my control case in Chopper 5 saying it is of higher quality. Recall that Salter directs our attention to the detail in my building, which is perfectly irrelevant.
In any case, scientific claims must be falsifiable.
What would it take to test your hypothesis that a plane could be indiscernible under those conditions?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject:
Ace Baker wrote:
Now you refer to the fact that Eric Salter attempts to dismiss my control case in Chopper 5 saying it is of higher quality. Recall that Salter directs our attention to the detail in my building, which is perfectly irrelevant.
In any case, scientific claims must be falsifiable.
What would it take to test your hypothesis that a plane could be indiscernible under those conditions?
I saw your previous 'control case' and it was laughable.
Can you duplicate even the same approximate conditions?
No you can't.
So stop pretending - or is that all that pretend video technicians can do? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 107 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject:
chek wrote:
Ace Baker wrote:
So what is your explanation for why there is no plane in the wide shot of Chopper 5?
It's invisible. Point out something else in the longshot with a15ft width resolution, and we'll talk further.
Ace Baker wrote:
What would it take to falsify that view?
Some supremely dastardly plan that yet would be no match against an inept pretend video technician who waffled about 'alpha channels' claiming the perps accidentally let the nose out show, when the size and shapes aren't even close ?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject:
Ace Baker wrote:
Aren't even close? OK genius, which are which?
Despite your tweaked and exaggerated outtakes which are so manipulated and artificial as to be worthless, nose in on the left below does not remotely match nose out on the right.
It's also grown from 15ft diameter to 24 ft.
Did you "research" that bit yet "ace"?
_________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 107 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject:
Chek, you began by saying that the size and shape of the nose and the "nose out" were "not even close".
I've simply enlarged and cropped 6 examples, and rotated them for convenience.
The statement that they are "not even close" is a lie. They are, in fact, indistinguishable, to me at least. Perhaps a blind test could be arranged where people are shown them in various orders and asked to guess whether they are noses or dust explosions.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:39 pm Post subject:
Ace Baker wrote:
Chek, you began by saying that the size and shape of the nose and the "nose out" were "not even close".
I've simply enlarged and cropped 6 examples, and rotated them for convenience.
The statement that they are "not even close" is a lie. They are, in fact, indistinguishable, to me at least. Perhaps a blind test could be arranged where people are shown them in various orders and asked to guess whether they are noses or dust explosions.
The actually useful larger images I have posted clearly demonstrate just how desperate you are in making that statement "ace".
The two images are not even close, and all your verbal squirming does not obviate that fact.
Quite apart from the fuel/dust cloud ejection not matching the nose profile, it shows your 'alpha channel' * up for what it is.
Your own delusional and self-contradictory invention. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 107 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:28 am Post subject:
Compare two different frames that are both of the airplane nose. They will not look identical. This is due to several factors:
1. The viewing angle changes.
2. The limitation of the resolution of the original video.
3. The loss of horizontal resolution from VHS recording.
Of course one frame of "nose" and one frame of "nose out" do not look identical. We would not expect them to. The key is look at many frames, and see if, in general, the "nose" can be distinguished reliably from the "nose out".
I explained this patiently to Anthony Lawson, as he was making the absurd claim that the nose should look "exactly the same" from frame to frame. Evidently you are now making the same claim.
So what is your explanation for why there is no plane in the wide shot of Chopper 5?
It's invisible. Point out something else in the longshot with a15ft width resolution, and we'll talk further.
Ace Baker wrote:
What would it take to falsify that view?
Some supremely dastardly plan that yet would be no match against an inept pretend video technician who waffled about 'alpha channels' claiming the perps accidentally let the nose out show, when the size and shapes aren't even close ?
Aren't even close? OK genius, which are which?
A. dustcloud
B. dustcloud
C. dustcloud
D. dustcloud
E. dustcloud
F. dustcloud
the plane crashed into the side of the tower at great speed and in one direction, it is not suprising that debris from the plane and debris gathered along the way were ejected out of the opposite side of the towers in the same direction.
the only error of course is that it was a "nose out".
i see a explosion which takes on the form of a dustcloud before the orange ball of fire emerges, which also had debris within it and exiting the fireball and landing in the street.
the dustcloud goes through the windows, meaning when the dustcloud first emerges it is shaped like the windows because the airflow is moving forwards at great speed, it then vanishes as the dustcloud and explosion take on the appearence of a cauliflower once outside the towers.
blow some flower through a straw as hard as you can it will emerge in the same shape as the straw nearer to the straw before emergeing into a ball of dust.
take note of how exhaust fumes come out of the back end of a car, nearer to the exhaust in takes on the shape of the exhaust exit hole.
no suprise then the emerging explosion nearer to the towers first takes on the shape of the windows its emerging from giving it the appearence of an object emerging due to windows having a typical square/flat sided shape that the airflow is pushed through.
examples can be found anywhere, they might not be the exact same situation but they demonstrat the shape and appearence things take when pushed through with enough pressure, in every case the item or object things are pushed through dictates what shape the emerging substance first takes.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:27 am Post subject:
Ace Baker wrote:
Compare two different frames that are both of the airplane nose. They will not look identical. This is due to several factors:
1. The viewing angle changes.
2. The limitation of the resolution of the original video.
3. The loss of horizontal resolution from VHS recording.
Of course one frame of "nose" and one frame of "nose out" do not look identical. We would not expect them to. The key is look at many frames, and see if, in general, the "nose" can be distinguished reliably from the "nose out".
I explained this patiently to Anthony Lawson, as he was making the absurd claim that the nose should look "exactly the same" from frame to frame. Evidently you are now making the same claim.
It is a false claim.
No - yours is the false claim of 'masking' and 'alpha channel pasting' and now you're trying to gloss over that by claiming it would behave as an object in the outside world.
Doesn't work and doesn't fool anyone "ace". _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
ace - I really don't know why you're still playing this game because it's just confirming your contempt for the truth.
they're not the same and you know it. the best you could say is that for a fraction of a second they look similar - which proves what exactly (other than the fact that you're wrong)?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:47 am Post subject:
[quote="Ace Baker"]Marky has failed the test. I at least commend you for taking the test honestly. Thank you for making the point. They are indistinguishable.
Would anyone else like to guess which are "nose" and which are "dust explosions"?
Guessing games?
You're a joke "ace".
But just as with Salter, all you have left is to keep repeating your garbage claims because after all, this is your claim to "researcher" fame hence your misguided attachment to it. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
