|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 25, 2007 15:05:45 GMT -4
What was the frame rate or shutter speed of the security camera? What was the ground speed of the plane at the point the picture was taken? www.iit.edu/~wardmar/images/photography%20original%20images/action.jpgHere's a picture of a dog's tail wagging. While the shutter was open the dog's tail moved; the tail itself is not blurry, only the photographic representation is. So, to use random numbers, let's say an identifiable curve of airplane nose occupies 6 pixels. Because it's in motion, during the time the images is being captured that spot of airplane will be recorded on, say, 36 pixels for an elongation of 6:1. Some areas, like in the picture of the dog's tail, may have "nothing" followed by "something" for the duration of exposure. Notice the strange triangular shape created by the tail where it has maximum image density. In the airplane image, the nose will be folled by more airplane, creating more density of image, but the area in front of the windshield will be "nothing" followed by "something" for the duration of exposure, and will be less dense, like the end of the dog's tail. Your answer "not a 757" creates more questions, like "how did they truck in fake 757 debris without random people noticing," and "where are the passengers of that airplane?"
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jan 25, 2007 15:54:09 GMT -4
www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgYou can see the shadow line at the bottom of the nose. It's consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon. What do you think about what Smedley Butler said? I don't know the answers to those questions. The picture is clear enough to tell that it's the nose of an aircraft and it's too pointed to be the nose of a 757. Evidently the shutter speed was fast enough to get a clear picture. It would have been easy to plant plane parts inside the building before the crash. In the last five minutes of the documentary "Painful Deceptions" an interesting theory is put forth about what happened to the passengers of flight 77. www.question911.com/linksall.htmEric Hufschmid thinks that flight 77 landed at a military base somewhere and the passengers were disposed of by the conspirators. They did what they had to do to the bodies to make them look like they'd been in a crash. Of course Barbara Olsen was probably not disposed of. She's probably living somewhere with a new identity. Please watch the end of part one of "Painful Deceptions" and tell me what you think. I think Eric's theory is quite plausible. Also, what do you think of what Smedley Butler said?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 25, 2007 16:10:17 GMT -4
But WHY would they go to all that trouble when they could have just flown the plane into the Pentagon? Why can't you understand that that extra step would have been unnecessary and therefore makes your theory look ridiculous? If they wanted to make it look like a 757 crashed into the Pentagon all they had to do is crash a 757 into the Pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 25, 2007 16:17:33 GMT -4
Sorry, dave, I'm not interested enough to bother. I think the "not a 757" theory is dumb.
Maybe you should find out the answers to these questions. Do dogs have see-through tails? The picture I linked is "proof" that they do. Isn't it?
You say "Evidently the shutter speed was fast enough to get a clear picture," but it ISN"T a clear picture. The shutter speed is slow enough that the plane moves a substantial distance during exposure.
You're obviously not qualified to carry on this conversation. I don't know why I bothered. Sorry to take you time.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 25, 2007 16:39:39 GMT -4
That is SO easy to say. What about the damage to the light posts and the generator outside? And, it's not only plane parts, it's PEOPLE parts as well. Remember just about all passengers were identified, except a small child IIRC, by DNA.
In order for this fantasy to be true, everybody from the first responders to the scientists testing DNA have to be lying. And not one of them in 5 years have grown a conscience and come forward.
There is SO much physical evidence that supports the official story of the Pentagon. How it all can be hand waved away to support some conspiracy theory eludes me.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 25, 2007 16:46:02 GMT -4
I started this thread only to answer the question asked in the Apollo hoax thread. Since I want nothing more to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories, I will now go and leave the discussion to the rest of you.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Jan 25, 2007 17:56:19 GMT -4
David, people have asked very specific, very answerable questions of you in order to better address your initial question. In response you have only posted links to other websites. Are you incapable of independent thought? People here are trying to discuss your question and your evasion makes that discussion impossible.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 25, 2007 18:07:24 GMT -4
About the only thing I agree with david on is that the white on the side of the image is not a 757, quite simply it's not a plane of any variety. Attempting to identify it as one will lead no where because it isn't one. From comparisons to the Pentagon wall, the white object is around 6 metres high, what plane has a 6 metre tall nose?
There is a 757 in this image, just not where david is directing people to look, and admittedly is is hard to see it, but then when you are looking for a plane that is completely out of focus, suffering from motion blur, is reflecting the sky on the top, making that blue, and grass on the bottom, making that green, and the only real bits that would be in any way identifiable are a rough shape, a touch of cream and a red stripe. If you can find those in the image, then congratulations, you have found the plane.
As to the white, it's quite obvious from the other images that there was white smoke coming from the starboard engine after it ingested one of the luminares from a lamppost.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 25, 2007 18:52:58 GMT -4
To amplify Apollo Gnomon's point, here is a picture of a double-decker bus:
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 25, 2007 19:38:13 GMT -4
I think we are failing to follow david's prima facie here. There is an image resembling a plane in the photograph, therefor, all further analysis or argument must proceed from that fact. Since it appears to be a plane, it must be a plane; and any reason why a plane (or a plane of that appearance) could not appear, must be solved on its own merits.
Unfortunately, it is only within the super-argument that this might not be a plane, in fact, that there might not be a plane at all in the image, that said image can be reconciled with our understanding of photography and the surrounding circumstances of the image.
David's problem is not that his arguments or perceptions are wrong, it is that he is trying to solve the problem at too fine a level. It is like the apocryphal shootout at the card game; the object is to win the card game, but the super-object is to leave the table with the other guy's money. When the other guy has four aces you can no longer win at game level; your only options lie at the super-level.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Jan 25, 2007 21:16:35 GMT -4
I hope either David or someone else can answer this, so I can get my bearings in this discussion. This this image representative of David's claims? Or perhaps someone can link me to the video itself, or images of the frames before and after this particular frame? Otherwise, I really have no idea what I'm looking at.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 25, 2007 22:56:11 GMT -4
As far as I can tell, that white thing you label is the thing David (now "Rocky") calls a plane.
Problem is, it doesn't resemble any plane I've ever seen.
If you look in front and just above the white blob, you see a blurry object, that's very slender. THAT object is the real plane. It's hard to see. It'd be easier with a "before & after" type setup.
What David ought to do is find out just how small whatever object he thinks hit the Pentagon would appear in the video if the object was as far away from the camera as the impact point. Given that most claims involve a plane that's smaller than a 757, he probably won't get a satisfactory answer.
I agree with LunarOrbit's question; why couldn't an actual 757 be crashed into the building in the conspiracy theory?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 26, 2007 8:37:56 GMT -4
It seems to me that since the video is SO inconclusive, the honest approach would be to ignore it and go on to all the other physical evidence.
The reason why CTs don't like to do that is because the other evidence supports the official story; a lot of rhetorical gymnastics have to be performed to shoehorn their pet theory into that fact.
Being a conspiracy theorist is easy. All you have to do is declare any obviously inconclusive blob on a select image to be whatever you want it to be and declare all evidence that is contrary to your theory to be faked.
Viola!
|
|
|
Post by petereldergill on Jan 26, 2007 9:58:09 GMT -4
psst....A viola is a string instrument I used to play in grade 7...HA!
Pete
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 26, 2007 11:31:05 GMT -4
psst....A viola is a string instrument I used to play in grade 7...HA! LOL I knew it didn't look right....
|
|