You hav'nt got a lot of choice, have you Fred? The forum will decide
I have certainly provided all I could be asked for to show my assesment is correct
Then YOU ARE indeed going to FINALLY...after MORE THAN 30 opportunities .....PLACE an "X" on a map of Battery Park where the CNN Footage was taken from... which will demonstrate the correct camera angle/distance displacement?
Is the US Government and/or CNN going to be able to provide a better answer than a subset of you all AS TO THE correct camera angle/distance displacement?
I mean I must have asked this question close to ten times now.
Perhaps a fitting end to this discussion would be this:
Every single poster who has been asked to respond yes or no to the following has ignored or dodged the question. Why? Because when what they are actually claiming is taken apart and laid down in plain words, even they realise how ridiculous it is. They say "we can prove the CNN shot is faked" (even though they can't) and base this claim on a "missing building" (behind a tree). So what are they actually claiming here?
Let's see if they'll confirm it for us.
I want a yes or no answer from every single poster who has defended or proposed Fred's "theory":
Are you claiming that:
CNN created the whole of New York on computer, and forgot to include a building, rather than super imposing an image of a plane on top of an existing shot of New York.
-?-
Yes or No. That's all I want,
Funny... you were among the subset who was asked almost 30 times to provide the correct camera angle/distance dispalcement AND NOW you are asking for a "yes" or "no" answer.
But to answer...
No... I'm claiming that the CNN shot is "video fakery" since FOR almost 30 posts NO ONE has been able to mark with an "X" on a map where the correct camera angle/distance displacement is WHICH WOULD bring the CNN Footage into alignmnet.
That is what I can indeed say for sure.... anything beyond the INITIAL LIE can be adduced from questioning CNN or the US Government
With this in mind, what continues to confuse you about the CNN footage? Please use the large satelite photograph provided by flamesong to mark the buildings you consider to be out of place in the CNN footage. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
With this in mind, what continues to confuse you about the CNN footage? Please use the large satelite photograph provided by flamesong to mark the buildings you consider to be out of place in the CNN footage.
So the missing lamp post when the CNN Video footage pans back and missing 19 Rector Street buiding are where then?
It's just sockpuppets and shills here. The point has already been proven. From the water you can clearly see 19 Rector Street. Case closed. The only ones left arguing are FAWNING MINIONS OF AGENT OF INFLUENCE JOHN MARKY 54 WHITE, who, strangely enough, can't spell.
Video from the water which proves the case is here.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject:
Fred wrote:
It's just sockpuppets and shills here. The point has already been proven. From the water you can clearly see 19 Rector Street. Case closed. The only ones left arguing are FAWNING MINIONS OF AGENT OF INFLUENCE JOHN MARKY 54 WHITE, who, strangely enough, can't spell.
Video from the water which proves the case is here.
At the end of last week I called your research deluded and addlebrained (as you quoted on your blog)
What I have to be amazed at is the level you are going to backing me up with my assertion
Your not a government plant sent in to infiltrate and discredit www.911researchers.com, are you?
I'm not saying I think you are, but the alternative is that you are oblivious to the self destruction of your own "reputation"Whatever that's worth...
Words out of the mouth of the "totally different angle" progenitor WHO SUBSEQUENTLY in 30+ postings FLED FROM THOSE very same words by REFUSING TO PROVIDE the correct camera angle/distance dispalcement to bring the CNN Video footage into alignment
If you want to see what 19 Rector Street looks like, instead of circling a clump of trees and pretending it's a building, look at some actual video. First he claimed "that's not 19 Rector Street". Then he claimed it shouldn't be in the CNN video, then he said I filmed from the wrong location, and now he circles a clump of trees and claims it's a building. lol
Everyone is laughing at you John. Look how easy it is to see 19 Rector Street in an actual video as opposed to a fake one. It's 37 Storeys tall, John. It's not hiding behind some trees.
If you want to see what 19 Rector Street looks like, instead of circling a clump of trees and pretending it's a building, look at some actual video. First he claimed "that's not 19 Rector Street". Then he claimed it shouldn't be in the CNN video, then he said I filmed from the wrong location, and now he circles a clump of trees and claims it's a building. lol
Everyone is laughing at you John. Look how easy it is to see 19 Rector Street in an actual video as opposed to a fake one. It's 37 Storeys tall, John. It's not hiding behind some trees.
The top of 19 Rector Street is CLEARLY visible above the treetops encircled by John White, as is the edge of the building next to it in the line of sight. Given a point of observation that was far enough away, even a 37-storey building can be hidden by trees. You are pretending that it is not visible in the picture because you realise that its actual presence in the image refutes your thesis that the CNN footage was faked. People here don't believe you were born without a normal sense of perspective. Rather, it is the same old story: you ignore what your eyes are telling you because you don't want to lose face by admitting that you were wrong in your claim that the CNN footage was faked. We realise that you are in dishonest self-denial as to what your eyes are telling you in this picture. That is why we don't take seriously your posts any more whilst you childishly resort to ad hominems and bluster because you know you have lost the argument.
"There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see."
If you want to see what 19 Rector Street looks like, instead of circling a clump of trees and pretending it's a building, look at some actual video. First he claimed "that's not 19 Rector Street". Then he claimed it shouldn't be in the CNN video, then he said I filmed from the wrong location, and now he circles a clump of trees and claims it's a building. lol
Everyone is laughing at you John. Look how easy it is to see 19 Rector Street in an actual video as opposed to a fake one. It's 37 Storeys tall, John. It's not hiding behind some trees.
Micpsi wrote:
The top of 19 Rector Street is CLEARLY visible above the treetops encircled by John White, as is the edge of the building next to it in the line of sight. Given a point of observation that was far enough away, even a 37-storey building can be hidden by trees.
But NOT WHEN the CNN Camera angle must be highly elevated enough to clear the TREETOPS of the esplanade tree set at the water's edge.
The TREETOPS of the Whitehall Bldg Tree Set are not ALL THAT different in height from the esplanade tree set.
Again, The 19 Rector St Bldg sticks out like a sore thumb...
If one shot from above the TREETOP LEVEL of Whitehall Bldg Tree St THEN 19 Rector St Bldg is UNHIDDEN...
Well, SINCE THE treetop level of the esplanade tree set IS APPROXIMATELY the same height as the TREETOP LEVEL of the Whitehall Bldg Tree Set....
...then the treetops are NOT obscuring 19 Rector St. Bldg.
Quote:
You are pretending that it is not visible in the picture because you realise that its actual presence in the image refutes your thesis that the CNN footage was faked.
...as evidenced by YOU ALL having 30+ opportunities to provide an alternate camera angle/distance displacement AND ALL OF YOU refusing to do so?
Quote:
People here don't believe you were born without a normal sense of perspective.
Oh, my gosh!
Less than two paragraphs after yours AND John White's "tree blockage" motif has been annihilated... you're talking about "perspective"
..and again...
...as evidenced by YOU ALL having 30+ opportunities to provide an alternate camera angle/distance displacement AND ALL OF YOU refusing to do so?
Quote:
Rather, it is the same old story: you ignore what your eyes are telling you because you don't want to lose face by admitting that you were wrong in your claim that the CNN footage was faked.
...and again... you could ALL PUT AN "X" on a map OR explain whyy...
... YOU ALL had 30+ opportunities to provide an alternate camera angle/distance displacement AND ALL OF YOU refused to do so?
Quote:
We realise that you are in dishonest self-denial as to what your eyes are telling you in this picture. That is why we don't take seriously your posts any more whilst you childishly resort to ad hominems and bluster because you know you have lost the argument.
"There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see."
No...the dishonesty of moderator, John White, Fallious, chek, you Micpsi, Stefan, Rodin...
...is evidenced by YOU ALL having 30+ opportunities to provide an alternate camera angle/distance displacement AND ALL OF YOU refusing to do so?
Scuse me, scuuuuse meeeee! Ya'll realise you're all been pointlessly driven off target for no real reason at all, other than to distract yerselves? Good, just checking :)
Perhaps a fitting end to this discussion would be this:
Every single poster who has been asked to respond yes or no to the following has ignored or dodged the question. Why? Because when what they are actually claiming is taken apart and laid down in plain words, even they realise how ridiculous it is. They say "we can prove the CNN shot is faked" (even though they can't) and base this claim on a "missing building" (behind a tree). So what are they actually claiming here?
Let's see if they'll confirm it for us.
I want a yes or no answer from every single poster who has defended or proposed Fred's "theory":
Are you claiming that:
CNN created the whole of New York on computer, and forgot to include a building, rather than super imposing an image of a plane on top of an existing shot of New York.
-?-
Yes or No. That's all I want,
Funny... you were among the subset who was asked almost 30 times to provide the correct camera angle/distance dispalcement AND NOW you are asking for a "yes" or "no" answer.
But to answer...
No... I'm claiming that the CNN shot is "video fakery" since FOR almost 30 posts NO ONE has been able to mark with an "X" on a map where the correct camera angle/distance displacement is WHICH WOULD bring the CNN Footage into alignmnet.
That is what I can indeed say for sure.... anything beyond the INITIAL LIE can be adduced from questioning CNN or the US Government
That, this is exactly what you are claiming.
The main thrust is CNN left a building out, meaning you aren't claiming, like most fakery nuts that the plane was added to an image of new york, but that new york itself, buildings and in another thread birds were all added.
If that isn't what you are claiming then you need to check with fred- thats exactly what hes saying, and has claimed several times that the shot is 2D because he speculates the back ground should move differently.
If your going to be abusive over a hundred threads on this, at least call a spade a spade and define for us WHAT you think is faked in this video and what isn't.
As I have said to you many times, it is impossible with just a map and a pen and a photo to work out exactly where a camera shot it.
To demonstrate I asked you to show us on a map where a photo of london was taken from the image alone.
I took your ignoring of that as an admission that your "tell us the co-ordinates" * was just that. _________________
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: New York New York
Stefan wrote:
I want a yes or no answer from every single poster who has defended or proposed Fred's "theory":
Are you claiming that:
CNN created the whole of New York on computer, and forgot to include a building, rather than super imposing an image of a plane on top of an existing shot of New York.
-?-
Yes or No. That's all I want,
Stefan - Your question is stacked, like government referendums, or like asking “Have you stopped beating your wife - answer yes or no!”
In fact I have already answered you: The faker of the Ghostplane shot didn’t recreate New York "from the ground up" or "the whole of New York", they took images of a few building tops from a couple of already-existing shots and composited them to get the image they wanted.
Perhaps a fitting end to this discussion would be this:
Every single poster who has been asked to respond yes or no to the following has ignored or dodged the question. Why? Because when what they are actually claiming is taken apart and laid down in plain words, even they realise how ridiculous it is. They say "we can prove the CNN shot is faked" (even though they can't) and base this claim on a "missing building" (behind a tree). So what are they actually claiming here?
Let's see if they'll confirm it for us.
I want a yes or no answer from every single poster who has defended or proposed Fred's "theory":
Are you claiming that:
CNN created the whole of New York on computer, and forgot to include a building, rather than super imposing an image of a plane on top of an existing shot of New York.
-?-
Yes or No. That's all I want,
Funny... you were among the subset who was asked almost 30 times to provide the correct camera angle/distance dispalcement AND NOW you are asking for a "yes" or "no" answer.
But to answer...
No... I'm claiming that the CNN shot is "video fakery" since FOR almost 30 posts NO ONE has been able to mark with an "X" on a map where the correct camera angle/distance displacement is WHICH WOULD bring the CNN Footage into alignmnet.
That is what I can indeed say for sure.... anything beyond the INITIAL LIE can be adduced from questioning CNN or the US Government
Quote:
That, this is exactly what you are claiming.
The main thrust is CNN left a building out, meaning you aren't claiming, like most fakery nuts that the plane was added to an image of new york, but that new york itself, buildings and in another thread birds were all added.
The "totally different angle" thesis was made in reference to Fred's "water's edge" video footage BY MODERATOR John White...who got tripped up in his own lie.
That "water's edge video shot" IS THE CLOSEST one can come to the CNN Video footage WHILE maintaining the relative HEIGHT perspective BETWEEN the WhitHall Bldg and the Red Buiding behind it.
That establishes the ANCHOR OF "LINEAR DISTANCE".... the FORESHORTENED LENGTH of the RIGHT SIDE of the WhiteHall Bldg...which represents THE ANGULAR/AXIAL component of the CNN footage is the ANCHOR of ANGULAR DISPLACEMENT.
So now ...Fred's footage shows us.. we have the esplanade tree set to deal with at water's edge to contend with......
.. obviously it is the TREETOP LEVEL of WhiteHall Bldg tree set that is providing the obstruction to viewing the 37-story 19 Rector St. Bldg. since the camera pans back at the end of the CNN footage....
...so the Camera Elevation MUST RISE above the TREETOP LEVEL of the esplanade "water's edge" tree set WHICH WOULD APPROXIMATE the TREETOP LEVEL of the WhiteHall Bldg tree set.
It's simple "line of sight" "poor man's trig" for Andrew Johnson to perform that shows AN ELEVATED camera height sufficient to clear the treetop level of the esplanade tree set WILL MEAN ALSO that the treetop level of the Whitehall Bldg tree set will not even come close TO BLOCKING view of 19 Rector St.
If the sycamores are the same height in the two tree sets (Zero degrees of camera angular elevation) THEN THE Whitehall Bldg tree set only blocks the portion of 19 Rector St. equal to the height of the sycamores(50 feet maybe?...7o foot high trees, maybe?...not 37-stor high trees at Zero degrees angular elevation)
So.. this MEANS the CNN Video footage must be taken IN FRONT OF the esplanade tree set...
...which contradicts the GRAPHICAL Straight/Intersecting LINE(s) analysis performed by one of you which places the camera about 15- 50 feet BEHIND Fred in the harbor...
...again..the harbor shot from a water taxi, tour boat or ferry HAS THE SAME esplanade tree shot limitation BUT PRESERVES the apparent relative height manifestation between the WhiteHall Bldg and the red building behind it...
I don't know how deep the water is in that harbor is at Battery Park... but Fred went as far back as he could on dry land.... to most CLOSELY APPROXIMATE the apparent relative height between those two buildings(WhiteHall and Red Bldg).
Neither of those two distance locales CLEAR THE esplanade tree set.
So to get the necessary "view occlusion" of 19 Rector St... one must MOVE CLOSER to the WhiteHall Bldg. in front of the esplanade tree set.... PLUS one must move close enough to NOT HAVE that lamp post come in view when the CNN Video footage pans back.
...but then we quickly lose the apparent RELATIVE HEIGHT between the WhiteHall Bldg and the Red Bldg behind it.
One of you has shown GRAPHICALLY that it must be shot from a harbor vessel(tug, ferry, tour boat, water taxi) to maintain THAT RELATIVE POSITION....
The ONLY THING that could POSSIBLY validate the CNN Video footage would be that the ESPLANADE TREE SET of sycamore trees was not planted in 2001...
yet, we'd still have the missing lamp post to contend with that IS NOT SEEN in the CNN Video footage when it pans back
Quote:
If that isn't what you are claiming then you need to check with fred- thats exactly what hes saying, and has claimed several times that the shot is 2D because he speculates the back ground should move differently.
The "water's edge" video footage was where John White stated "totally differnent angle"
Quote:
If your going to be abusive over a hundred threads on this, at least call a spade a spade and define for us WHAT you think is faked in this video and what isn't.
There is NO place in Battery Park or that harbor where the CNN Footage could have been taken from YET PRESERVE the placement of the variuos "physical artifacts".
That has been clear from the beginning AS EVIDENCED BY the mention of objects moving in-and-out of perspective AS MOVEMENTS ARE MADE in any direction.
You're also the last person on this forum, in light of your demonstrated conduct, who should be using the phrase, "call a spade a spade"...you fled from this topic TWICE...once at the treetop level AND PERCENTAGE of space on the Black Building that was visible...and then a "hit-and-run"... I'll say this and then skedaddle posting!
You don't moralize to anybody about anything, stefan--- I'm not the one who has been "intellectually dishonest" ....
....and a spade-is-a-spade... you YOURSELVES in over 30+ postings/opportunities SHOWED YOURSELVES all to be a bunch of "spineless little pukes" the VERY instant that...
...John White realized he'd tripped himself in a lie he was caught in AND THEN to wiggle out of it called someone ELSE a "fraud" and a "faker"
Quote:
As I have said to you many times, it is impossible with just a map and a pen and a photo to work out exactly where a camera shot it.
It is the camera angle/distance displacement from Fred's "water's edge shot"...there is also one of you who performed the straight/intersecting line graphical analysis WHICH PLACED the vertice in the harbor itself behind where Fred shot
Quote:
To demonstrate I asked you to show us on a map where a photo of london was taken from the image alone.
I took your ignoring of that as an admission that your "tell us the co-ordinates" * was just that.
ummmm ...hmmm... Well again... at LEAST ONE OF you seemed to have no problems POINTING TO 3 intersecting lines in the harbor from a map of Battery Park and its surrounding Manhattan environs.
I do like the word" *" though...we never use it here in the States..."*"..."*".."*"
However...once in a while at BOOK SIGNINGS or Celebrity Events... we Yanks do get to see fauxSean Connery...and when we ask him about how the subset of posters known as the "911UK denial monkeys" have behaved...
...in getting TRAPPED IN A LIE that there Moderator could not wiggle out of EVEN BY POINTING A FINGER away from himself to CALL SOMEONE ELSE a "fraud" and a "faker"...
...fauxSean Connery chimes in IMMEDIATELY about the conduct of you all and shezzz...i mean... fauxSean "says".... "Itzzhhh patently obvioushhh to even a blind man whose deef azzzhh well as dumb!...The 911UK Denial Monkeys crrrrapped their panties..."
"Did they do anything else, Mr fauxConnery!"
"aye, laddie...they most shhertainly did; they got doon on all fourzzz and began shhwealing like a bunch of wee pigs!"
Thank you, Mr fauxConnery..can us Yanks buy you a cocktail from the bar?
"Martini..very dry...shaken nott shhtirred!"
We're a little short of funds to pay for your martini, Mr Connery
Do you expeck m'to tokk AND pay, Goldfinger?... I demand my "shhpeaking fees and royalteezzzhhh!"
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
