|
Post by scooter on Jun 10, 2007 19:43:52 GMT -4
for the unpteenth time, I need an annotated (paintshop, whatever) picture outlining this nose...I don't see anything resembling anything...
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 10, 2007 19:44:00 GMT -4
There is also the possibility that what is seen is instead smoke from one of the engines and the plane was moving too fast to completely register on the slow scan, slow frame rate camera. A camera that was not designed to focus at that distance or capture something at that speed so it should not be expected to do so. Rocky has been told this before but ignored it as usual. Is anyone here surprised that he ignores something that goes against his predefined world view? It was also shown by another poster that if one compares the frame before it and the frame in question, there is a very blurry object (as shown by a difference in the pixels from one frame to the next) in front of the white area. Rocky also ignored that. Again, is anyone surprised?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 10, 2007 20:34:11 GMT -4
If I'm parsing this photo correctly, it appears that the object in question is at most 4 pixels tall. How can you possibly tell how "pointy" it is? Yep, here is the region enlarged: I really have to hand it to anybody who can tell what type of aircraft that is or isn't.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 10, 2007 21:53:25 GMT -4
It's not an aircraft, it's smoke. The plane is in front of it.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 10, 2007 22:43:09 GMT -4
Rocky, you are very sneaky indeed. I'm surprised anyone here takes the time anymore to answer any of your questions. Quite a patient bunch here. Starting a thread to 'test' the members for their objectivity in the Hoax Theory Forum certainly borders on dishonesty, deception and bad manners. Just be open and honest with your questions - most members it seems to me will go out of their way to help answer them.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 10, 2007 23:13:58 GMT -4
From the above picture, it appears to be a LEGO 757. Any child could make one is about fifteen minutes...
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 11, 2007 2:34:39 GMT -4
And that folks is the photo that Rocky swears is not blurry!
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 11, 2007 6:49:01 GMT -4
There's an outlined picture of the nose in reply #175. What's the matter with you? Here's another one. www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/05-21-06/nose_cone.jpgIf you look at reply #167, you'll see this. www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Profiles/9-11/Multimedia/Pentagon_Video.jpgYou're not asking serious questions. If I'm pressed for time I'm going to skip over questions by people who are just playing games. There's one on page 4 of this thread. 0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htmLook at the first picture of the sequence. The tail of the plane was picked up by the camera. 0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htmI think it is a great idea. I call this picture the shill-detector. www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpgThis picture makes it so obvious that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon that only a very unobjective person would still believe the officiall version after having seen it. There are lots of reasons to be very unobjective. One can be so patriotic that he or she goes into denial when presented with irrefutable evidence. One can also be a government disinfo agent. www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 I don't think I should worry about offending people with fine sensibilities in a case as serious as this. It's okay to be rude. These people have destroyed their credibility when it comes to photo analysis. The credibility of the people in the Apollo section who refused to analyze the picture took a hit too. Refusing to analyze a picture when asked to do so doesn't hurt one's credibility as much as giving a silly analysis but it show that they are not objective. I don't see how anyone can take them seriously now when they analyze Apollo footage and pictures. Good grief. Any picture is going to be blurry when blown up as much as the one posted in reply #197. We have to look at the ones that are high-resolution such as this one. www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpgIt's much longer than it is tall. The shadow area on the underside is very clear. The shadow is consistent with the shadow of the pentagon. You people are trying all kinds of tricks but this is too clear. You can't explain it away.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 11, 2007 9:03:51 GMT -4
So you know for sure that that blurry white pixelated blob thingie is not the nose of a 757. Still not sure how you determined that. Did you paste over an actual nose of a 757 over that pixelated blob thingie? BTW, without blowing it up your white blob still looks blurry. Could you post some screenshots of how you determined it wasn't a nose of a 757? If you need hosting, www.maj.com is very easy to use (I prefer it over Photobucket)
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 11, 2007 10:09:56 GMT -4
] Wonderful idea about blind patriotism, fits in nicely that most of us aren't interested in discussing the political viewpoint and comments made by a depression Era Pre Second World War American. I'm In the UK, Views on US Imperialism started to go downhill, about the same time someone threw tea into the harbour. Just Falls Down for those of us that Have NOTHING in any way shape or form to do with the US. My Personal Politics would make most Britons Europeans and Americans, and Free Market Theorist, Curl into a corner, sooo how would my comments which where actually on the the physical properties and attributes of the picture and not on content be Apatriotic to a country I am not a patriot of, or being supportive of a political and economic system I am against, Just a thought Good grief. Any picture is going to be blurry when blown up as much as the one posted in reply #197. We have to look at the ones that are high-resolution such as this one. www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg[/quote]It had to be blown up, My visual acuity is not suffiecient to determine a 8x16 pixel area in any great depth at a 1280*1024 resolution, Blurry is the incorrect term, it is of Insufficient resolution to make any definate claims on geometry, as the size each pixel would represent is too great, Make a Plane out of Standard unit Height Lego and see how smooth the nose is I cant even make out any real surface detail on the pentagon (remember I am colourblind) to irrefutably state what this small group of pixels IS or ISN'T, it is irresponsible to state what it OBVIOUSLY is, you can however state that evidence does not that prove that it IS a 757, it is INCONCLUSIVE what the object is based on this evidence alone. So Far we have tried Logic and Reason, but I havent yet tried Homogenising a Plane Full of Passengers and spreading them around a populated office building along with calculated Fake Crash Debris during operational hours in readiness for this great event. I still haven't worked out why if you are going to fake crashing a plane into a building, why use a different type of plane, Your military plane and associated hardware would be more expensive. You stated earlier that it was to reduce damage. So instead of apparantley just Crashing one plane, They destroyed 2, and then made the damage appear as if they had just destroyed 1 Oh and Please Please Please read up on objectivity and think of it that just because you can see something in a picture and someone else can't does not determine them as unobjective or unqualified for example I am Sure many people see this poster very very diferently, If you happen to see anything that dissagrees with my opinion, measure your OBJECTIVITY by the same stick you measure others. store3.yimg.com/I/colorblindness-testing-poster_1789_149842
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 11, 2007 11:18:22 GMT -4
So the white thing pointing into the ground is the nose? Then in the "visible tail" pic, the color has changed dramatically, it's dark there. I really don't see anything identifiable other than a "something". The camera doesn't tell us very much. That, and I'm not a trained photoanalyst, so I won't try to make claims here.
Nonetheless, the physical evidence from the crash scene points unquestionably towards an AA 757, and the idea of it being planted at the time of the event is in-credible.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 11, 2007 11:20:21 GMT -4
Earlier in this thread, I asked rocky if this interpretation was correct, but I don't think he ever responded. It's only correct if it's consistent with rocky's beliefs. Is it? Rocky stands by this interpretation of the photo.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 11, 2007 11:25:33 GMT -4
There's an outlined picture of the nose in reply #175. What's the matter with you? What's the matter with us is that we're being objective and you aren't. We're saying the image isn't clear enough to determine what kind of plane it is, but you're pointing to one blurry blob and magically you know it's not a 757. What you see as the nose could be anything. Troll. You will not ignore questions or you will be banned. You'll notice in that first picture (the one showing the plane's tail) that there is a trail of smoke that extends all the way to the right side of the image... right to the same spot where you claim to see the pointed nose of the plane. So I think that what you see as the plane's nose is actually smoke. And what is the opposite of that, Rocky? It's being so unpatriotic, hateful, or paranoid of the US government that you will ignore any evidence that contradicts your claims. Calling your blob in the security camera footage "irrefutable evidence" is a joke. The others here are being far more objective that you could even hope to be. Go review the forum's rules, Rocky. If you are going to make accusations against members of this forum then be prepared to prove them. If we are government disinfo agents then prove it (show us a pay stub, telephone records, etc.) or withdraw the claim. Any more unfounded accusations against members of this forum will lead to your permanent banishment from the forum. Only if you're looking to get banned. Consider this a warning. Most of the people in this forum (I haven't seen anyone taking your side, not even other 9/11 conspiracy theorists) understand that 9/11 and Apollo are unrelated. They also understand that being objective doesn't mean "agreeing with Rocky". Ha ha! A 400x200 pixel image is NOT high resolution. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 11, 2007 11:41:02 GMT -4
The tail is very tall for a fighter, a few stories high it looks like to me. Also, there is a definite smoke trail leading to the impact, and that white area right of the "tail" is consistant with where smoke from a damaged engine would appear. Big turbofans, when the ingest FOD, tend to put out a lot of smoke due to the disrupted airflow and fuel/air mixture breakdown from the damage. If that's the tail, it's too tall for a fighter.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 11, 2007 16:46:21 GMT -4
Taken by a different camera so the results are not directly comparable. But it is worth noting that the tail in that frame is against the sky giving it more contrast where the other frame mentioned, if the white is smoke, which is likely, the location of the plane is against a darker background giving it less contrast. Add to that the previously mentioned slow scan and slow frame rate of the camera and you are lucky there is anything on the camera.
Also worth noting is that Rocky once again is accusing the members of this forum of working for the government. That is at least 3 times that I've noticed it in the last 2 days and I know he has done it before. Show some proof or drop it.
|
|