9/11 SIMCITY

[Equinox]

[Mitch Matrixx]

Ok got it. I provide you with technical data and patents that clearly address my examples, and you re-show pics of low resolution images for the xxth time that show a host of blurry lines.

My first clue that the photo is a forgery had nothing to do with black lines that are easily explainable by other reasons which I (and you) have illustrated, but the lack of a background for one. Oh, and the fact that the entire scenery looks like a large and somewhat lifelike scale model similar to those used in the old "King Kong, Mothra, and Godzilla movies".

[simonshack]

Oh, and the fact that the entire scenery looks like a large and somewhat lifelike scale model similar to those used in the old "King Kong, Mothra, and Godzilla movies".

Yes - precisely, Mitch. And that is why I'd suggest we now move on - and assess other aspects of the 9/11 imagery. The black outlines (which frankly look nothing like 'ghosting' artifacts) are but one of the myriad of problems observable in the LIVE 9/11 images and the subsequently released "amateur" material.


But let me just repost this CBS shot one last time and ask you: does this look anything like the 'ghosting' phenomena that you mention/submit above? Can you see that the (rightmost) WTC contour outline isn't even a STRAIGHT line? To liken this with the halo seen in the above 'Brooks Ayola' studio shot is tantamount to comparing apples and oranges.

Aired on LIVE TV (CBS) on 9/11:



Now here is, for instance, a real video frame extracted from some post-9/11 helicopter footage:

And here are 3 successive frames of an alleged 9/11 "amateur" video:

(1,2,3,sequence borrowed from none other than CGI-debunker Yougene Debs)


Of course, such "dancing foregrounds" are also featured in the official LIVE TV 9/11 broadcasts (NBC):



Please do comment if you wish, Mitch. Hope you won't say I'm moving the goalposts - I just wish to move on to more momentous problems observed in the 9/11 imagery - and widen the spectrum of our analyses. After all, it is riddled with an entire repertoire of absurdities/aberrations. I trust you'll agree that we need to look at the 'bigger picture' - so to speak. (However, if you are to pursue your thesis that the black linings in the 9/11 imagery is due to normal, ghosting artifacts, I think you need to make a better case for it.)

[whatsgoingon]

a

[Mitch Matrixx]

simonshack wrote
Mitch. Hope you won't say I'm moving the goalposts - I just wish to move on to more momentous problems observed in the 9/11 imagery - and widen the spectrum of our analyses. After all, it is riddled with an entire repertoire of absurdities/aberrations. I trust you'll agree that we need to look at the 'bigger picture' - so to speak.

Not at all Simon.
Agreed, we should stick to the bigger picture, and I will step aside for now and leave the experts to wrangle with the issue of Sim City and Fake collapses.

whatsgoingon wrote
But the picture looks terribly green screened or cutout to me. You will counter that is the point.

So now we can discuss the black line and the thickness of the artifact. Why is the outline around the model not black then, if that is the most common error in the device? Secondly why is it not thick and heavy?

Third and least importantly why are we discussing "very early" 1990s? 10 years prior to the thick black lines above. That is not quite the right era for digital photography.

1) Yes that certainly was my point, and why I included the pic as documentation supporting my claim.
2) Ask the photographer why the ghosting is not black. Perhaps the pic was in Lightroom or PS after the fact, or perhaps this is a case of Halo-ing, rather that outlining also described.
3) Seriously? I'm a little surprised at your 3rd point and uncooperative twisting of data. I never said, nor does the article state anything about "very early 1990's data, or technology", more specifically, the "very early 90's" comment was inferring the look of the Model and the setting, lighting and shot etc., come on.
However, since you seem inclined to question the veracity of the digital photography timeline, have a look for yourself:

History
Main article: History of the camera#Digital cameras
The first recorded attempt at building a digital camera was in 1975 by Steven Sasson, an engineer at Eastman Kodak.[1][2] It used the then-new solid-state CCD image sensor chips developed by Fairchild Semiconductor in 1973.[3] The camera weighed 8 pounds (3.6 kg), recorded black and white images to a cassette tape, had a resolution of 0.01 megapixels (10,000 pixels), and took 23 seconds to capture its first image in December 1975. The prototype camera was a technical exercise, not intended for production.
The first true digital camera that recorded images as a computerized file was likely the Fuji DS-1P of 1988, which recorded to a 16 MB internal memory card that used a battery to keep the data in memory. This camera was never marketed in the United States, and has not been confirmed to have shipped even in Japan.
The first commercially available digital camera was the 1990 Dycam Model 1; it also sold as the Logitech Fotoman. It used a CCD image sensor, stored pictures digitally, and connected directly to a computer for download.[4][5][6]
The first flyby spacecraft image of Mars was taken from Mariner 4 on July 15, 1965 with a digital camera designed by NASA/JPL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_photography (The only sentence I see that should truly be investigated is the last one, that offers no citation among other things.)
I will be happy to discuss the origins of digital media, and the numerous, numerous instances of aberrations, artifacts, and problems associated in a more suitable thread, like the "living room" etc.

[simonshack]

Mitch,

I find it a bit rude of you to dodge/fail to address my very simple questions.

So here we go again:

Can you see that the (rightmost) WTC contour outline isn't even a STRAIGHT line?



I trust that you can. So the entire discourse of photographic "ghosting" or " haloing" should be discarded.
What you need to do now, in order to pursue serious, scientific research, is to find a similar instance.

The similar instance should be supported by a certifiably real and legit video which shows THICK BLACK AND SKEWED OUTLINES around a given building - just the way we see it in the above CBS broadcast.

[whatsgoingon]

a

[simonshack]

This was aired on NBC - on 9/11. Take a good look at it. Does it look real? I mean, be very very honest about it. Have you ever seen such an image in your lifetime? Does this image look like anything you have seen before? Do you own a video camera?

[Mitch Matrixx]

Look you said very early 90s. So I have to assume that is the date of the picture as well. That is your caption pal. Do not dodge the issue. Are you trying now to argue that an early 90s picture was taken on a 1975 prototype camera or what? Or are you trying to argue an early 90s shot was taken on a late 90s camera?

Either way. You are not making sense.

BTW. I was not saying the timeline of digital photography in the sense you claim. I was saying you are posting early 90s digital photography to make a case for late 90s digital photography. Why not use images from circa 2001? Of course I know CCDs existed long long ago. I used them in the 90s in fact when they were becoming commodity items.

Oh, I see what you did there, how you... flipped that...
You can cherry pick with silly remarks all you like. I included the picture as an example, it was the best one available on the real photography forum I linked to. Do a little web digging for yourself, you just may find the specific black ghosting, pre-echo, halo, ringing etc. All of which I am about to school you in over at the more appropriate thread found here: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1222&p=2369988#p2369988

Please bring your thinking cap, and your reading glasses if you intend to have a genuine discussion.

[whatsgoingon]

a

[Mitch Matrixx]

Mitch,

I find it a bit rude of you to dodge/fail to address my very simple questions...

Dear Simon,

I'm getting there...

[Mitch Matrixx]

You have absolutely nothing. So we all now can move on. In a few months come back with something I guess. For now there is nothing to talk about. Bye for now.

Yeah, so, I'll keep posting my mounting heap of documentation in the other thread... In the meantime there is enough there to keep even such a smart person as yourself occupied as you learn the basics, and then the advanced physics with regard to our evolving digital (and some cases analog) technology.

[lux]

Please bring your thinking cap, and your reading glasses if you intend to have a genuine discussion.

[Mitch Matrixx]

No problem lux,

You don't have to ask me twice. Even being the dumb dickhead that I am, you know, citing science and reason and logic and all that other crazy new age mumbo jumbo. Have fun repeating your cyclical experiments with low res gifs and cropped pics and video clips within your self created vacuum.
I'm sure it will be much easier to get on around here without all of the text getting in the way of photohunt.
Thanks for the fun times.

Enjoy.

[Equinox]

With all due respect, Matrix... I hope you don’t consider us to look the photos.. and point at some random thing and go “Ah-ha Cgi! Busted” .

Few of us here have spent years ( and I do mean years) looking this imagery I for one ( and Im sure am speaking for a few others here ) Would not be getting online and saying something its fake... unless it really was.

We know about ghost edging. we know about artifacts. All we are saying is this shit black lines that show up in the 9/11 imagery... are masking lines they are BS. And are not artifacts from normal imagery…


I have not seen these lines nor others ANYWHERE… Seriously would they make cameras that even did a major flaw like that?

We are not bullies dude we are being more than fair here… Just demonstrate these THICK BLACK LINES ANYWHERE else in REAL imagery. ( and they have to be like the ones we demonstrated)