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]

Here are some more instances of photographers in forums questioning and answering the 'ghosting' phenomenon that I have been referring to. Just so there is no dispute about me creating this idea myself for the sake of arguing.
From photography website forum ModelMayhem: http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=502311

JeF Briguet wrote:
Huh some of you have quite a wild imagination!

It is ghosting.
Word.

It's a slight version of what you see on the left of this image caused by the camera or subject moving during a slow shutter to burn in the background light. The main light being a strobe, the background being a hot light.


Very early 90's! :-)

And, explaining that this artifacting occurs in the Analog and Digital photography realm.

Tim Summa wrote:
The lighting that you are creating is classically referred to as ‘axis’ lighting. ...
Monito -- Alan wrote:
Yup. Well done, Tim.
DarkSlide wrote:
+1

Tim explained it best.
while what tim described in axis lighting is correct in possibility, axis is typically fairly flat low shadow lighting producing a more flat image. the particular image has some high contrast with more concentrated light which doesn't follow typical axis light solution to high contrast problems.

it goes to what i suggested earlier in how it was described to me by kodak in their early entry into the digital slr release with how the sensor reacts to sudden change in contrast.

with the arrangement of the red, blue green, as well as depth, the sensor can become restricted in what it stabilizes in the image process and it must compensate in some form to account for high contrast based on how the pixels are overlayed. in other words, rather than being exact in accurate change of contrast it is compiling the pixels based on best estimate, in essence creating mud due to reaction time in processing which in turn creates the line. again, take note of the areas of low contrast on either side of the model and there is no line...the sensor was able to distinguish the subtle change unlike the areas of greater contrast difference.

fuji made an attempt to rid this with its super-ccd honeycomb sensor rather than a square pattern and for anyone using the s2 it was a noticeable difference under similar lighting conditions. their problem was more in marketing the concept of getting twice the count with half the sensor, but the imaging did show improvement over other "square" patterns for this problem. it (super ccd) still remains a pretty stellar approach in both color and depth.

also, this actually isn't just a digital problem, as scattering ions in film reacts much the same way. the best way to solve the problem is to either throw some overhead or back light onto the subject to force a more subtle change in contrast. when doing so the line will disappear with more light on the subject but then one runs the risk of blown highlights...similar to using a sledge on a finishing nail. finding the balance is key.

For the record, let me be clear. I am not disputing the possibility of Hollywood fakery, news hoaxes and media complicity. I am stating for those who were not in the know, that photoshop masking, and 3-D modelling composite masking is not the ONLY possible answer to some of the anomalies and artifacts that we see in the low res, and even high res videos out there. As with many things on this earth, there are two sides to every story, and not one possibility to answer all we see.

This was the only point I was trying to make.

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.

[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]

1) Yes that certainly was my point, and why I included the pic as documentation supporting my claim.

Right so a bogus looking picture must be evidence that good photography in the day is flawed the same way we see on 9/11. But why use model pictures which are notoriously photoshopped to make your argument?

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.

Ah, so it was photoshopped. Your argument is weakening. But the point of this thread is Black haloing which you have failed to address in any meaningful way in any posting so far. And Simon has a question for you about the nature of the Haloing as well. So set the haloing straight. 9/11 engineers could not of course. I am still shocked the best you can do is show this model without a black halo and really a shoddy background & evidence of photo tampering to boot.

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.

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.

So to make sense of your early 90s comment I traced your link. It was informative.

GHOSTING, it's a byproduct of your x-sync and flash setup.

Your flash is faster than the 1/200 x-sync you used. As the ambient light wasn't low enough, it registered for the full 1/200s, resulting in a ghosting effect.

If you want to avoid that you have a couple of solutions:
-Try to avoid any movement of the model
-Use a faster x-sync, if not possible with your camera, check the new PW TT5
-Make sure the ambient light is two stop darker than your model
-Align the moving parts of your model on a darker part of your background
-Add another light behind the model to light her contour (i use this all the time with sport photography in bright daylight)
-Etc, etc...

Some comments claim the ghosting is an artifact of flash and lighting. Not the camera at all. It seems furthermore analog print film could do the same.

So where is the digital photography thick black haloing effect again in Natural lighting like on 9/11 outside in New York City?

Some Flickr account.
NYC 1999 Where is the thick black halo around the building?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26003188@N06/4525482100/

[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]

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.

Mitch, we are done in this little conversation. I'll bring my reading glasses ...

You question Black haloing and now you ask me to do YOUR research to find that artifact when you say it is commonplace. How very funny. 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.

[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)