| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
 Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: Fraudulent Audio Points To TV Fakery |
 |
|
| schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | http://www.livevideo.com/media/commentmedia.aspx?cid=696E7CE2A75542258 DDAD56F24776E2B |
I was hoping someone could explain why they think the audio on these clips have been manipulated? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
where is the evidence for them being manipulated?
have they been examined by an expert who can only conclude they have been tampered with for example?
have the following been taken into consideration.
distance.
type of equipment used.
filmed from inside a building etc.
they may well be manipulated but there is so much to take into account that leaves uncertainty as to wether they are manipulated or just down to another factor.
anyone can hear a differance but are some just presuming the reasons for this differance and failing to take into account anything else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | where is the evidence for them being manipulated?
have they been examined by an expert who can only conclude they have been tampered with for example?
have the following been taken into consideration.
distance.
type of equipment used.
filmed from inside a building etc.
they may well be manipulated but there is so much to take into account that leaves uncertainty as to wether they are manipulated or just down to another factor.
anyone can hear a differance but are some just presuming the reasons for this differance and failing to take into account anything else? |
I ask you for some views and you just throw up a load of unanswerable questions. It is so easy to do that. Most of your questions I do not understand. This forum has a terrible reputation and I can see why.
*pinches self to make sure I havent wandered into a JREF forum by mistake* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | where is the evidence for them being manipulated? |
Can you not hear it, can you not hear the difference?
| Quote: | | have they been examined by an expert who can only conclude they have been tampered with for example? |
Someone with ears in good working order, perhaps?
| Quote: | have the following been taken into consideration.
distance.
type of equipment used.
filmed from inside a building etc.
they may well be manipulated but there is so much to take into account that leaves uncertainty as to wether they are manipulated or just down to another factor. |
I really do not understand what you are talking about here???
| Quote: | | anyone can hear a differance but are some just presuming the reasons for this differance and failing to take into account anything else? |
Oh you changed your mind, you can hear the difference and what exactly do you mean by 'taking into account everything else'??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | where is the evidence for them being manipulated? |
Can you not hear it, can you not hear the difference?
| Quote: | | have they been examined by an expert who can only conclude they have been tampered with for example? |
Someone with ears in good working order, perhaps?
| Quote: | have the following been taken into consideration.
distance.
type of equipment used.
filmed from inside a building etc.
they may well be manipulated but there is so much to take into account that leaves uncertainty as to wether they are manipulated or just down to another factor. |
I really do not understand what you are talking about here???
| Quote: | | anyone can hear a differance but are some just presuming the reasons for this differance and failing to take into account anything else? |
Oh you changed your mind, you can hear the difference and what exactly do you mean by 'taking into account everything else'??? |
thank you for answering the questions and proving nothing else has been taken into account or for the sound differance in certain clips.
we just hear a differance therefore must presume and pretend to not understand other factors? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | where is the evidence for them being manipulated? |
Can you not hear it, can you not hear the difference?
| Quote: | | have they been examined by an expert who can only conclude they have been tampered with for example? |
Someone with ears in good working order, perhaps?
| Quote: | have the following been taken into consideration.
distance.
type of equipment used.
filmed from inside a building etc.
they may well be manipulated but there is so much to take into account that leaves uncertainty as to wether they are manipulated or just down to another factor. |
I really do not understand what you are talking about here???
| Quote: | | anyone can hear a differance but are some just presuming the reasons for this differance and failing to take into account anything else? |
Oh you changed your mind, you can hear the difference and what exactly do you mean by 'taking into account everything else'??? |
thank you for answering the questions and proving nothing else has been taken into account or for the sound differance in certain clips.
we just hear a differance therefore must presume and pretend to not understand other factors? |
I do not know who you are or what you are tring to say. I was hoping you would clear up the last communication blur you posted on this thread. Nevermind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| you only hear what you want to hear obviously so no point clearing anything up. continue ive had my questions answered, im done with this now, thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | you only hear what you want to hear obviously so no point clearing anything up. continue ive had my questions answered, im done with this now, thanks. |
You're done, okay, but next time please bring a translator with you. I am sorry but I did not understand any of your questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i think i made my point clear enough if you want to play dumb then fine.
stick your fingers in your ears and go blah blah blah im not listening all you like, my points are still there to see, ignoring them only confirms none of what i said was taken into consideration before claiming the sound to be faked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | i think i made my point clear enough if you want to play dumb then fine.
stick your fingers in your ears and go blah blah blah im not listening all you like, my points are still there to see, ignoring them only confirms none of what i said was taken into consideration before claiming the sound to be faked. |
Still no sign of a translator.
Are you sure you booked one and gave him/her the right website address? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: Re: Fraudulent Audio Points To TV Fakery |
|
|
| schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | http://www.livevideo.com/media/commentmedia.aspx?cid=696E7CE2A75542258 DDAD56F24776E2B |
I was hoping someone could explain why they think the audio on these clips have been manipulated? |
well i was that somebody explaining that they may not be manipulated and asking if other points had been considered.
you ignored them then result to ridicule.
leaving me no option but to dismiss the possibility of faked sound alltogether as it has become apparent what im dealing with here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sidlittle
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 61
Location: A13
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: Fraudulent Audio Points To TV Fakery |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | http://www.livevideo.com/media/commentmedia.aspx?cid=696E7CE2A75542258 DDAD56F24776E2B |
I was hoping someone could explain why they think the audio on these clips have been manipulated? |
well i was that somebody explaining that they may not be manipulated and asking if other points had been considered.
you ignored them then result to ridicule.
leaving me no option but to dismiss the possibility of faked sound alltogether as it has become apparent what im dealing with here. |
Marky 54, your questions regarding 'distance ' and 'type of equipment used' are irrelevant if we are considering the first hit footage at the start of the video. Namely, why is the audio different on the released naudet film so different from the initial naudet footage broadcast on CNN. Does it prove no-planes? No. but does it warrant discussion? yeah , why not.
_________________
'To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.' Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 10:57 pm Post subject: Re: Fraudulent Audio Points To TV Fakery |
|
|
| sidlittle wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | http://www.livevideo.com/media/commentmedia.aspx?cid=696E7CE2A75542258 DDAD56F24776E2B |
I was hoping someone could explain why they think the audio on these clips have been manipulated? |
well i was that somebody explaining that they may not be manipulated and asking if other points had been considered.
you ignored them then result to ridicule.
leaving me no option but to dismiss the possibility of faked sound alltogether as it has become apparent what im dealing with here. |
Marky 54, your questions regarding 'distance ' and 'type of equipment used' are irrelevant if we are considering the first hit footage at the start of the video. Namely, why is the audio different on the released naudet film so different from the initial naudet footage broadcast on CNN. Does it prove no-planes? No. but does it warrant discussion? yeah , why not. |
where did i say it should not be discussed? can i asked questions regarding the evidence? yes i think so.
why do you expect sound to be the same in both clips?
i have more than one stereo and the sound differance playing the same tape is obvious. does that mean my tape is faked?
the news network has differant equipment to run the tape on compared to the camera, theres is also a thing called settings that could of been set differantly on the camera compared to how cnn set them to air the footage.
has anything along these lines been tested before claiming they are simply fake because they sound differant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I actually already responded directly to Andrew when he first posted this himself: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8450&postdays=0&post order=asc&start=30
| Quote: | Andrew,
That was a very well presented argument, thanks.
Unfortunatley, as ever with NPT, I can think of quite simple reasons for everything you flagged.
With the Naudet brothers clip:
The first one you showed was straight off the film and mic.
The second, it had been amplified. The same sounds are there, faintly, in the first, the news had amped them up to make it more dramatic.
With the third, it had been mastered to isolate and amplify all the plane sounds and lower the background noises.
The Ginny Carr recordings
Were through thick double glazed windows which would no doubt cut out most of the sound. There really is no comparrison between sound recorded which has passed through air and sound recorded which has passed through two layers of thick glass- only the loudest of the sounds would make it through.
The Three Comparisons of the same footage
One has been amplified, the other one is played slightly slower, and you can observe this with the visual as well. That stretches out the noises a little as well.
Generally with all the images we have microphones in different places, with different sensitivities, with the film played at ever so slighly different speeds. Of course what we will hear will be ever so slightly different.
But I do maintain that the same basic set of sounds are there in all.
What I found most interesting was the "sense of releif" you attested to at finally knowing the truth. This is what is behind theories like NPT in my mind, they take a part of the theory which no one can ever really know the answer to:
Were they commercial boeings, military jets, remote controlled strengethen planes, piloted planes, did they fire missiles, where did the flashes come from, was there a hijacking or was this all staged, what about the phonecalls, what about the passengers, where did the real planes go?
And provide a seemingly simple answer. But one that on further inspection is not simple at all, as attested to by your not wanting to think about how it was done.
Andrew I've actually met someone who watched the second plane hit from their appartment, you know that in our culture everyone gets their camcorders out at events like this, how could all of these be controlled?
But most of all, despite the compellingness of low-res youtube videos, I really haven't found anything which stood up to scrutiny in this theory. And I'm not closed minded, I did at first think it was compelling, but as I looked into it, there was nothing there which held me.
But thank you again for a refreshingly lucid and well mannered argument on this issue, which is all too rare in these parts these days. |
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: Fraudulent Audio Points To TV Fakery |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | sidlittle wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | http://www.livevideo.com/media/commentmedia.aspx?cid=696E7CE2A75542258 DDAD56F24776E2B |
I was hoping someone could explain why they think the audio on these clips have been manipulated? |
well i was that somebody explaining that they may not be manipulated and asking if other points had been considered.
you ignored them then result to ridicule.
leaving me no option but to dismiss the possibility of faked sound alltogether as it has become apparent what im dealing with here. |
Marky 54, your questions regarding 'distance ' and 'type of equipment used' are irrelevant if we are considering the first hit footage at the start of the video. Namely, why is the audio different on the released naudet film so different from the initial naudet footage broadcast on CNN. Does it prove no-planes? No. but does it warrant discussion? yeah , why not. |
where did i say it should not be discussed? can i asked questions regarding the evidence? yes i think so.
why do you expect sound to be the same in both clips?
i have more than one stereo and the sound differance playing the same tape is obvious. does that mean my tape is faked?
the news network has differant equipment to run the tape on compared to the camera, theres is also a thing called settings that could of been set differantly on the camera compared to how cnn set them to air the footage.
has anything along these lines been tested before claiming they are simply fake because they sound differant? |
why carnt anyone simply answer the question?
has any of what i have said been explored to rule out other factors? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Q: I was hoping someone could explain why they think the audio on these clips have been manipulated?
The reason the audio was manipulated was because what was actually recorded contradicts the official story. Real video and audio recordings do not contain fake plane crashes. Since the lie is that a plane crashed into a building, the video and audio record must be fabricated to support that lie.
The reason so many posters on this forum defend the video and audio record of 9/11 even after it's been completly debunked is that their real mission here is to defend the 9/11 Lie. Why aren't they spending time attacking the official story? They are only here to waste the resources of the people debunking the official story.
Andrew Watson is debunking the official story. I'm debunking the offical story. Chek, Stefan, John White, and Craig W are attacking the people who are debunking the official story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fred wrote: | Q: I was hoping someone could explain why they think the audio on these clips have been manipulated?
The reason the audio was manipulated was because what was actually recorded contradicts the official story. Real video and audio recordings do not contain fake plane crashes. Since the lie is that a plane crashed into a building, the video and audio record must be fabricated to support that lie.
The reason so many posters on this forum defend the video and audio record of 9/11 even after it's been completly debunked is that their real mission here is to defend the 9/11 Lie. Why aren't they spending time attacking the official story? They are only here to waste the resources of the people debunking the official story.
Andrew Watson is debunking the official story. I'm debunking the offical story. Chek, Stefan, John White, and Craig W are attacking the people who are debunking the official story. |
no fred i would'nt call ignoring questions you dont like debunking.
i would'nt call just claiming something debunking.
it has to stand up to questioning and so far since you came along non of my concerns or questions have been answered, so i sit wondering if you are on to something why carnt you answer a few questions so i can see how strong the evidence is.
all i know is when and if you have to stand up to questioning from the media you will fail, and 9/11 truth will fail as a result! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry. When I said "John White" I meant to say "John White, Iro, and Marky 54 and any other accounts that talk about Nonseance and Evidance." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fred wrote: | | Sorry. When I said "John White" I meant to say "John White, Iro, and Marky 54 and any other accounts that talk about Nonseance and Evidance." |
Iro = John White
I twigged that only yesterday. Good observation as usual, Fred!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Fred wrote: | Q: I was hoping someone could explain why they think the audio on these clips have been manipulated?
The reason the audio was manipulated was because what was actually recorded contradicts the official story. Real video and audio recordings do not contain fake plane crashes. Since the lie is that a plane crashed into a building, the video and audio record must be fabricated to support that lie.
The reason so many posters on this forum defend the video and audio record of 9/11 even after it's been completly debunked is that their real mission here is to defend the 9/11 Lie. Why aren't they spending time attacking the official story? They are only here to waste the resources of the people debunking the official story.
Andrew Watson is debunking the official story. I'm debunking the offical story. Chek, Stefan, John White, and Craig W are attacking the people who are debunking the official story. |
no fred i would'nt call ignoring questions you dont like debunking.
i would'nt call just claiming something debunking.
it has to stand up to questioning and so far since you came along non of my concerns or questions have been answered, so i sit wondering if you are on to something why carnt you answer a few questions so i can see how strong the evidence is.
all i know is when and if you have to stand up to questioning from the media you will fail, and 9/11 truth will fail as a result! |
Go and listen to this 'Rosalee Grable' (Web Fairy) interview with Jim Fetzer which Andrew Johnson posted and stop wasting everybody's time with your nonsensical questions, Marky54!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Fraudulent Audio Points To TV Fakery |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | sidlittle wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | http://www.livevideo.com/media/commentmedia.aspx?cid=696E7CE2A75542258 DDAD56F24776E2B |
I was hoping someone could explain why they think the audio on these clips have been manipulated? |
well i was that somebody explaining that they may not be manipulated and asking if other points had been considered.
you ignored them then result to ridicule.
leaving me no option but to dismiss the possibility of faked sound alltogether as it has become apparent what im dealing with here. |
Marky 54, your questions regarding 'distance ' and 'type of equipment used' are irrelevant if we are considering the first hit footage at the start of the video. Namely, why is the audio different on the released naudet film so different from the initial naudet footage broadcast on CNN. Does it prove no-planes? No. but does it warrant discussion? yeah , why not. |
where did i say it should not be discussed? can i asked questions regarding the evidence? yes i think so.
why do you expect sound to be the same in both clips?
i have more than one stereo and the sound differance playing the same tape is obvious. does that mean my tape is faked?
the news network has differant equipment to run the tape on compared to the camera, theres is also a thing called settings that could of been set differantly on the camera compared to how cnn set them to air the footage.
has anything along these lines been tested before claiming they are simply fake because they sound differant? |
why wont anyone answer this? its a simple question, has anything ive mentioned in this thread been considered before claiming the clips are faked?
YES or NO or I DONT KNOW will do.
this will help determine if actual research has been done or if somebody just heard a sound differance then claimed they had been manipulated.
also has an expert had a listen to these and concluded the same?
im just trying to understand why i should just believe they are manipulated other than just being told by someone i dont know simply on the basis they sound differant whilst no other factor has been considered as far as i can tell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't waste your time, Marky, with the Rosalee Grable interview with Jim Fetzer. It was a shambles. She proved herself to be what many of us suspected: a woolly-minded individual who does not seem to be able to understand that finding on the internet different versions of a certain video of a plane hitting a tower does not mean that the original was faked, only that versions can be found that have been manipulated by disinfo agents so that they ARE either different or contain unexplained anomalies (or both). The sad truth now is that little video footage available on the internet can be trusted because one cannot be sure it has not been altered. Yet no-planers like the 'web fairy' and their clones love to spam forums with faked variants, claiming them as proof of TV fakery by the media.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | Don't waste your time, Marky, with the Rosalee Grable interview with Jim Fetzer. It was a shambles. She proved herself to be what many of us suspected: a woolly-minded individual who does not seem to be able to understand that finding on the internet different versions of a certain video of a plane hitting a tower does not mean that the original was faked, only that versions can be found that have been manipulated by disinfo agents so that they ARE either different or contain unexplained anomalies (or both). The sad truth now is that little video footage available on the internet can be trusted because one cannot be sure it has not been altered. Yet no-planers like the 'web fairy' and their clones love to spam forums with faked variants, claiming them as proof of TV fakery by the media. |
I had thought the Fetzer/Wood interview was the most embarrassing interview I'd ever heard, but the Fetzer/Grable one comes a close second.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
