Image Impossible: The Evidance

[John White]

Image Impossible



Why the "No Planes CNN trickery" theory,
based on this picture,
Can't Fly

----------------------------------------

Hello All

As you probably know, recently I declared that Fred, "No Planes" documentary maker and member of www.9/11researchers.com, has used a fake image in a recent film in his latest effort to prove his theory that all the CNN footage of the second plane impact had been itself, faked: so in other words, I've stated my view that a fake image has been used to try and prove other footage fake

These seems to have caused some fuss and bother! And to be honest, I'm a little suprised that more people havnt also seen what I am going to lay out for you in the following images and paragraphs (though some have: nice one comrades!). I promise you, your going to be kicking yourself!

To start with, lets lay some ground work

This is the image, taken from fred's documentary, that has started this ball rolling

[John White]

So how to procede?

Well the answer is to consider known values

What do i mean by this? Well the towers have a known width, a known height, the impact occured in a known location. Whilst at first this may seem dificult to relate between images, it is in fact relatively straight forward to do so, especially when images are taken from the considerable distance away of battery park, where although there may be some difference in location between the CNN shot and the still shot, there is negligible impact on the view of the towers themselves.

If we know the width of the tower and how far down the tower the impact occured, we can express these values as a ratio: and the same for the overall size of the towers width against height. All we then need to do is measure the pixels along the width of any image of the tower, mulitply by the ratio, and we have a sure calculation of where the impact should be, and the relative size of the tower in that image

Heres some raw numbers for known values about WTC2:

[John White]

Next, Im going to compare to fred's shot showing the CNN impact that he has matched to the foreward buildings. The quality is a little rough as i have expanded the original image so the towers width in pixels is matching my tower extrapolated from the high res image. I've done this using irfranview with "preserve aspect ratio" ticked. In my orignal image, the towers width is 67 pixels, I want to match it to 100 pixels, so I divide the original 431 pixels total width by 67, mulitply by 100 and resize to 643 pixels. Now I can compare the images directly. I place my tower over Fred's image and match up the impact points:




Well how about that! Impact matches up nicely, tower sits in a good position relative to the rest of the scene, not bad at all! Given that we have extrapolated from known values about the WTC and totally undisputed facts about where the damage to WTC 2 occured, we can have great confidence that the CNN footage is looking genuine

But what happens when I line up to the battery park image?



Oh dear! The tower in the park image has its base below sea level!

Lets put it all together:



End Result:

There's simply not enough tower in the battery park image:

The point of damage is FAR too Low

Only possible conclusion: The image is a FAKE

-------------------------------------------

Aftermath:

When I first saw the battery park image in Fred's video, my immediate response was to call what I saw: and I have been vindicated with that call: but we are left with some complexities

After he was challenged, Fred produced his source for the image, the "big foto" site Gallery:

http://www.bigfoto.com/sites/galery/sept11/wtc_park_monument_september _11.jpg

Now, this was a problem for my original hypothesis that Fred himself had done the faking I have now exposed. In the video, the image is poorly defined, and therefore my immediate assesment was that it was a crude fake: seeing the big foto original, its obviously more sophisticated

Who put it there? I don't know. Maybe it was Fred himself. Maybe it was someone else who alerted Fred to the photo "helpfully". Perhaps its an intellegence agency placing disinformation. Its certainly hard to see what application the fake could have if it was'nt for supporting the "TV Fakery" theory. However, this one step removed means that I can't put Fred on the spot as the faker himself: though I maintain it was not unreasonable of me to initially conclude that, being as the source was not known at the time

This doesnt help Fred much though: at best, he saw this image and used it without thinking to establish its veracity. This is hardly a credit to his research, and reveals a major flaw in his reasoning process: as it does for everyone who has sworn the battery park image is genuine, and claimed to have proven TV fakery: when the reverse is now obviously the case

In this instance, I suppose I could say I forced a confrontation: its not my usual methodology to do so. I'm glad I did, but wouldnt make a habit of it. I'm certainly not moved to have a high opinion of a man, who when I challenged his work, went on to call me a baby raper! If I could be said to have "broken rules", i have broken them only in the spirit of one who values rules, and knows that if they need breaking, break them good and hard

I, and many of my collegues here at the uk campaign forum, see errors like this in "no Planes theory" all the time much of which, of course, is pouring onto the net from www.911researchers.com : stuff that a bit of critical review and backwards checking would show to be unsound: but the No Planes crew push on regardless. Whether they are the disinformed or disinformers, they create white noise obscuring the solid work put in by so many 9/11 activists, and THIS is why so many are convinced that these theories are "damaging the movement": basically because they are the product of bsresearch!

Therefore I ask all of you to do me a favour:

Watch videos by David Ray Griffen, Steven Jones, Webster Tarpley, "press for Truth": focus on the solid and concrete evidence that the truth of 9/11 is being covered up: and get out there and talk about it

Leave No Planes at home:until such time as a case can be put forward that truly is solid and well reasoned out, and not full of such cardinal errors, nor promulgated with such fanatical mindless zeal

Regards to all

John White

[Fred]

So you have ZERO EVIDENCE that the photo from bigfoto.com was created by me, and that was an OUTRIGHT LIE, correct?

Your use of the passive voice to say that the still photo was wrongly labeled is intriguing. Was it wrongly labeled BY JOHN WHITE? Please show us all where I "wrongly labeled" the still photo.

I have posted videos from the park and the ferries which completely discredit the CNN footage, and your flawed analysis has done nothing to show that the photo taken on Septemeber 11, 2001 is fake. You haven't even been able to solve a perspective problem and show where CNN photo was taken.

I stand by my work and I stand by my assessment of John White as a liar.

Finally your assessment of the base of the towers being below sea-level made me laugh. That's a gem. Please draw a red line on the photo to indicate "sea level" to us all so we can see what you're talking about.

[rodin]

I always thought the 'statues' photo looked well suspect! Those two guys just acting normal...

[Fred]

The only thing below sea level is the level of analysis here. There's nothing in John's paste-up job to show where sea level is, and moreover, nothing in his analysis that discredits the photos taken on September 11, 2001 and posted at bigfoto.com

[Fallious]

[John White]

We're quite used to members of 911researchers thinking de-nile is a river in egypt fred. I'd withdraw peacefully if I were you. But its your hole to dig yourself

btw, any posts on this thread asserting that a completely different video "proves" it will be split off onto another thread. As a moderator, I will moderate this discussion to concern itself only with the battery park photo fake

[Fred]

You're still a liar, you haven't debunked my work, and you haven't debunked the photo taken on September 11. Moreover, you haven't justified your conclusion that the base of the tower was below sea-level. You're still a liar and a fraud, John White of Malvern Hills. I stand by my work.

[Fred]

Abusing your position as a so-called moderator to censor and misdirect is old hat for you John. You've now attempted and failed to debunk a photograph that wasn't even taken by me. I don't need that photograph to prove anything at all. Even if the photo were fake, which it isn't, but even if it were, I've already proven that CNN aired fake video tape

YOU FAILED TO IDENTIFY A CAMERA LOCATION WHERE THE CNN VIDEO COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM!

Oops! Nice try though. I'm sure the guy who took the photo will be amused.

[John White]

[marky 54]

yea agree i thought that to about the people in the park, an major event is unfolding around them and they are just acting like you would on a normal day having a stroll in the park. i dont know if its significant though but you look and wonder if they have even noticed whats going of ahead of them.

the points about the park photo highlight why its important to stick to known fact, there is so much disinfo and fakes out there that when proving the how even with good intensions you cannot trust all your sources to be fact/real even when the are claiming to be.

imagine the shame if it got a court case and then you were told that you were basing your whole argument on a fake photo etc, it would get thrown straight out and i think that is the purpose of fakes being put on the net. researchers pick them up use them to prove their case which is then debunked by exposing the photo as fake, making it look like you were faking evidence to fit your argument even if that wasnt the case.

[Fallious]

[Fred]

"people in the park"

That's rich. The guy has posted an entire photo series, first of all, and secondly, there is a STATUE and one guy with his back to the camera.

That's what you're calling "people in the park"??

It's one guy probably trying to call his wife, you idiots. What do you expect them to be doing? Taking their clothes off? Running around naked?


You've done no debunking whatsoever.

John White is still a liar, and frankly nobody cares that much what he thinks about anything. If you want this site to remain a cesspool of disinformation, so be it.

[Fallious]

[John White]

A reminder: my case is based entirely on rational extrapolation from known values

"People in the park" dont feature into it

There are many aspects of the battery park still fake that could be further questioned: in particular the smoke issuing from the top of WTC2 that obscures the top edge of the tower, not the case in many other images. However, I have found no need to stray into "maybes" to establish it is "image impossible"

[John White]

In addition, I have no need to establish exactly where the CNN footage was shot from when viewing a tower such a large distance away. A few yards or feet horizontally or vertically would make no appreciable difference, especially when I am criticing work that Fred himself has presented as worthy drawing comparison between the CNN footage, showing every sign of being genuine, and the battery park still fake

[marky 54]

[andrewwatson]

John's White's 'analysis' is ludicrous.

Can't people admit it when they have been proved wrong?

[andrewwatson]

compare this with this. Both are on the net.



now with this from the CNN video.



Which is the odd one out?

[John White]

Totally irrelevant Andrew

[telecasterisation]

Can someone just explain what is gained by lowering the damage on the tower, who is suspected of doing this and when was it done?

Since the topic has deteriorated into a personal issue, things have gotten very convoluted.

[John White]

[Stefan]

I think it's best just to leave it now.

Virtually every one (in the world let alone on this board) has seen nothing in Freds claims (which he labels "research"), every point he has raised has been answered.

He's clearly not going to change his position because he see's being "right" as more important than the truth. I could buy a camcorder, a ticket to New York (possibly a
camera van with a platform if neccesary), go and find the exact shot and show it - he'd say I'd faked it using advanced black ops trickery doo-dahs: What's The Point?

Guys, he's a lost cause - as long as we fan hs fires by responding to the new post he starts on this topic every day the more webspace we give his nonsense.

Don't feed the troll. Leave him be.

[Witchfinder General]

Game Set and Match for Fred and Andrew over John White

[Stefan]

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,

[John White]

[gypsum]

[iro]

[Dogsmilk]