It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info
Mitch Matrixx wrote: 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 I geo-referenced this shot...
And after a few days researching it. it is 100% correct about the background NOT appearing in the CNN shot. I have verified all views and compared the closest I can find using angles in real life and using to scale 3D land scape.
The background from across the Hudson River SHOULD be there.
Extra Extra read all about it!!!!... CNN busted with pre-fabricated fake news… Yankees win ballgame…
Last edited by Equinox on May 11th, 2012, 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
simonshack wrote: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?
Ha mate! even the darkest of darkest pictures I could locate ...STILL looked more realistic than that deep blue 9/11 morning. Its cheap cgi imagery rush job.
Equinox wrote:I don't really understand what that picture is supposed to mean. Or why you are upset. We are giving you all the chances to prove your point.
Why is so hard to show some crappy black lines! we dont find it hard in the imagery.
Equinox, you well meaning soul you...
Perhaps you didn't read the information I have linked or quoted on these threads etc. There is no need for me to post a picture with the so called black lines. We are far beyond that as you yourself are no longer even posting pics or gifs with the so called black lines, but here's the thing. I don't need to. You already have posted many here as has Simon, so we have examples to work with for one. Second, while I am having small difficulties readily finding a "suitable" picture to use as an example, there are literally hundreds of documents discussing the matter! Another reason it is not needed is because most of us here have already experienced this problem with our very own eyes on Tv sets growing up. Most sophisticated nations have only made the transition to all on digital broadcasting within the last five years at most. So, before that point, 2009 here in the USA, anyone who owned or watched a Tv in the last 75 years or so has viewed an analog broadcasting signal being received on the Tv set. Most if not all of us here should be familiar with 'rabbit ears' or ariels, or some kind of articulating antenna that we had to move around from time to time to improve our signal. On my old UHF/VHF Zenith tv set as a kid my Tv was always ghosting, and doubling when I would try and watch the simpsons or Cops or something, so I would have to get up and twist the fine tune dial on the channel changer to get a nice clean signal. The simple explanation is that Fox and WGN and other local channels, broadcast directly from nearby downtown Chicago, where there are hundreds, if not thousands of large and tall buildings of varied size obstructing path signal. And gosh darn it, wouldn't you know, in just about all of the academic literature regarding Multipath distortion clearly point as large cities as being ideal for disrupting signal and creating - Multipath distortion. Dozens of documents state this. Maybe more. All you have to do is ask Uncle Google "What causes Ghost images in Tv broadcast" or "What is multipath distortion and Tv". Lo and behold, the information cometh in great quantity, and washes away thine doubts. What does NYC have in common with Chicago, and circa 2001 Tv broadcasting? I'll let you answer that yourself. Did I see it on Tv on Sep 11 2001 and perceive it all as real although surreal and strange? Yes, and the video feeds were flickering and the colors did seem very strange and the helicopter footage was a little bizarre, and so on. But guess what, this is America, and I've seen bad news footage before, like the L.A. riots, the Rodney King beating and the Reginald Denney footage, and the O.J. Simpson chase and dozens of high speed arial chases on Cop shows. Dude, you have to live here to understand! Even the Waco footage. The Challenger explosion. It's footage of crazy stuff back in the 80's, 90's through 2001, and beyond and you know what I watched it all on crappy 480 Tv with weird ghost images of all kinds of colors. Black, magenta, green, blue, even translucent or transparent kind. I have complete faith that everyone here has experienced this in their lifetime while watching Soccer, Football, Baseball, cartoons, "The News", courtroom dramas and all the rest. Anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about and remember it is either very very young, or hasn't watched Tv. Anyone who refers to all 911 imagery as pure CGI is blowing smoke, or doesn't understand the definition of Computer Generated Imagery. Fake planes with crazy cartoon physics? Sounds good so far, and is what drew me to this forum. Fake/Staged Tv broadcasts, and anchors acting out scripts and narrating the event to the viewer? Sure, still sounds plausible and realistic. I'm even cool with the idea of a few planted videographers in certain places or helicopters that could safely document the pandemonium from a safe distance to add credence or realism to the stock footage. (An idea curiously never mentioned here) No, in this land of the Cluesforum, nobody is satisfied unless it's all fake and CGI, taking any element of crime, or collateral death right out the window. How despicable of you all. You lose me at HERF, Virtual reality scenery and synthetic crowds, ZERO DEATHS and the overuse of "CGI everything, and these funny black lines prove all!", and last but most certainly not least, the downright preposterous, and farcical concept that people on the outlying suburbs, boats, and across the Hudson could not have shot real video. I have seen the Sears (Willis Tower) from about 50 miles away on a clear day at approx 120ft elevation from ground level. You can see big buildings from far away under the right conditions, and nobody on this earth can dispute this fact. If a few nonsensical black lines prove this to the members, or readers here than I am truly sad that I indulged in any wasted time and effort here. I don't give a rat's ass what caused the black lines. To call everything CGI and bar the concept of any real footage clearly exposes that the Emperor is wearing no clothes, and that there is an underlying mission to mislead people here.
Let me leave on my surely final post with the following question to you genius' and so called Fakery experts: Given your "airtight theory", No-planes, Synthetic crowds, Virtual reality, VicSims of 2977 people, Black masking lines, Pat/No Pat the helicopter, a cross dressing Michael Moore, no Satellites, and CGI Anders Breivik, you guys sure have a lot on your plate here. Better get crackin' no? Yes, you have a forum, or basically a glorified sycophantic echo chamber, you have some funny gifs and animations, and clever little comparisons, and all this good and fully backed and provable research right? So, wtf are any of you planning on doing with it all now that you've so skillfully figured it all out, aligned all the pieces of the puzzle and have put the nail in the coffin on "these umpteenth psy-ops"?
Not long ago on here someone posted that they would elect Simon to take this so called research (backed by super low res MPEGs JPEGs and gifs no doubt) to a court of law... So, I ask, what are you going to do to take this out of the realm of speculative chat forum and to the courts of law and public opinion, let alone true and honest peer review? Let's say for the sake of argument here, that you get to appear in front of a UN war crimes tribunal, or a Supreme Court hearing, or in front of a US or Global Congress? Who will be your attorney(s), Mother Hen (cough) I mean Fred Benario? Who else? What will be your opening statement? What evidence will you point to and exhibit to explain your case to an honest court of law? What witnesses do you have lined up, and what video and photography experts etc. have you contacted who must ultimately show up for the defense at court? How will you fund this epic trial of Global proportions that will surely last years from start to finish? How will you get the names of all the people and agents, and politicians, and news actors that you will have to subpoena? How will you get Robert DeNiro and the others to admit their involvement and corruption? Here's a funny one, what about proving the non-existence of all of the business entities in the twin towers like Cantor Fitz and all the others? For those who just got all excited imagining all this - relax because it's never going to happen because you have nothing. Kinda messed up to actually consider, isn't it?
Do any of the hopefully still sane and free thinking people on this forum actually see the problem here? This whole entire forum is a waste of Terabytes of space on the web. Like a once in a lifetime condo time-share opportunity, everyone here has also been entered in a raffle to win a free boat... But there is no free boat, and the Time-share condo is outdated and falling apart. You've all been sold a dream, a dream that in a well timed, and lucid state of curiosity I wanted to buy into also. The problem is that you ultimately cannot own what is not real, and this place is a walled garden of hedge mazes, not a beachfront time share. Good luck getting out. More importantly good luck proving your case, not to me of course as you can't. But you know, prove it where it counts.
Like in a court.
One final thought: For those of you who think I am a shill of some kind, you're absolutely right. I am a shill for opening your eyes, having common sense, and doing some reading instead of staring at overly compressed looped videos and gifs. How's that for a 'Reality Check'
Did I see it on Tv on Sep 11 2001 and perceive it all as real although surreal and strange?
what make you think the stuff we use is recorded of TV.. The Demonstration used before came from the actual TV studios (allegedly) Allot of the stuff used comes from uploaded from the actual 9/11 "filmers". themselves. I don't think ANY of the stuff we use was from recorded home TV.
doing some reading instead of staring at overly compressed looped videos and gifs.
Wrong again.
Second, while I am having small difficulties readily finding a "suitable" picture to use as an example,
Im really suprised you can not find a picture.
Last edited by Equinox on May 11th, 2012, 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
So basically, you choose to completely ignore what you see with your own eyes (I know you see it), and focus on collateral deaths and all that made-up nonsense? Good luck on that one - Have you seen the shit you have, to work with? I don't think you buy your own BS for a second. You are full of it. I was a kid in the 90's, with a relatively cheap television set, and there was nothing like what you described on The Simpsons, or any other show, that looks like that thick black, interactive line featured in the 9/11 production. Sounds more like the experience of a kid in the 60's, watching Bonanza.
sublimity wrote:So basically, you choose to completely ignore what you see with your own eyes (I know you see it), and focus on collateral deaths and all that made-up nonsense? Good luck on that one - Have you seen the shit you have, to work with? I don't think you buy your own BS for a second. You are full of it. I was a kid in the 90's, with a relatively cheap television set, and there was nothing like what you described on The Simpsons, or any other show, that looks like that thick black, interactive line featured in the 9/11 production. Sounds more like the experience of a kid in the 60's, watching Bonanza.
Mitch Matrixx wrote:Let me leave on my surely final post (...)
Not so fast, Mitch! I thought you were on a mission to school us and help us return to reality? Are you now just going to leave us all drifting in the vacuum of our sycophantic echo chamber? You cruel boy, you!
In any case, before you go, do please make the effort to at least respond to ONE question of mine. Will you please?
Mitch Matrixx wrote: I don't give a rat's ass what caused the black lines. To call everything CGI and bar the concept of any real footage clearly exposes that the Emperor is wearing no clothes, and that there is an underlying mission to mislead people here.
If you googol "Chroma Key Artifacts", this is one of the first posts.
"I'm always getting a doggone black outline around my subject when keying out a background using a green screen and using a magenta hairlight. I'm using an ancient DSR250 with 4:1:1 compression (not great). Anyway, messing around with all the controls in keylight I can't get any satisfaction in getting rid of the black outline. Shrinking the matte makes the talent look really unnatural. I tried using Adobe Ultra, which does a great job of keying. The lighting is even, the whole thing keys out fine except for that crummy black outline. Any suggestions? Thanks, Lisa"
I recall this post fondly, and I don't feel any need to take back what I said. The NASA video in question looks very fake, and that's why I said it does. In this case in particular it seems that it was likely done using CGI, and possibly CGI alone. However, if we examine the early NASA footage, for example the moon landings; I think we can all agree that the videos of the "moon" landings could not have been achieved in the 1960's using any kind of reliable, or realistic computer imagery right?
Ok, now reel.deel and others here have made some excellent posts illustrating how video projectors, and mirrors, and front projection, and scenic backdrops have been used to great effect to help create some of these movies. So, having said that, I think we could agree that movie directors in Hollywood and the like certainly have an arsenal of video fakery and camera tricks etc at their disposal.
As kid that was the two generic explanations I remember the most: Camera tricks, and Special effects. In summary we may conclude that professional videographers, and production experts have had about 100 years to create, and utilize an entire myriad of these special effects, and I think we would find that no one director would use only one effect on the whole.
I guess what I've been trying to suggest here for the last couple days, is can anyone here at least open their mind to the idea that CGI cannot explain every and all of the imagery from Sep 11 2001? Can anyone, but especially you admit that maybe, just maybe there were some other video production means used to create their movie as it were? Does this make sense? It has bothered me for a year, that every time a piece of imagery is scrutinized here it seems to ultimately be written off as CGI... While in 2012 this would be more and more likely and common place as we have such powerful computers and video tools that almost all we see on Tv is tainted with digital pixel fakery and production.
However, although we had some impressive CGI capabilities in 2001 (see lying with pixels in link :http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/12115) I personally don't think that we had the ability to fake the events of the entire day using CGI. I believe it was suitable for some aspects, but not good enough for other aspects, therefore the directors would have to call on their trusty arsenal of other techniques. Green screen, REAL Actors, some real video clips from in NYC with scripted characters, and even real fleeing and confused anonymous crowds. Perhaps sets were used in far off Hollywood locations or even abroad. Maybe for some "arial shots" and the like, scale models of NYC and burning buildings were used along with backdrops and analog color filters. Better yet maybe real helicopters (or boats) were employed to take real footage at some points. I'm almost certain in some imagery that a combination of composite real-life photography was cutout and pasted into a mixture of sceneries. And yes, certainly Chroma key.
Check this out (I am lacking the clip from this movie to make an example) http://www.scifitv.com.au/Blog/2010/07/inception-its-all-real-the-most-amazing-behind-the-scenes-you-will-ever-see// Are you picking up what I'm putting down? It seems rather ignorant (meaning, to ignore other data or possibilities) to assume that it's all a CGI hoax, and that any imagery that we have come across in the last 11 years should be discarded as such. There are lots of details in the overall imagery that are real, most importantly people, cars, crowds and more. Does this make the Caroline Dries "home movie" any more believable? NO! However, to reiterate, it is rather naive to think that not one soul in NY or NJ could have obtained real footage, be by land, sea or air. Have we seen any of that "real footage", who knows...Maybe?
I appreciate the passion from yourself and other members of this forum, but passion is a blinding emotion that funnels energy away from scientific and objective research and thinking. In fact, this area of study reminds me much of another passionate subject, God. There seems to be tons of documentation and research and devotion in the world on the subject of God. Some people are all for it, and others quickly discard the idea due to a lack of evidence. Ultimately, no matter how passionate we are about the idea of a "Spiritual God", or what scientific approach has been applied in search of God, humankind has no real answers as to the validity of God. Realizing the dilema at hand, I have forced myself in my lifetime to take a simple and agnostic approach. Not because I don't want to believe in an all powerful, omnipotent and benevolent spirit. Rather, because I have no way to prove God exists, but I can not disprove the existence of God either. I only have an opinion, based on experience and educated guesswork. I "think" God exists, yet at the exact same time, I have to accept that the opposite holds true at all times. In quantum physics it's known as Schrodinger's Cat.
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4
To tie this in, I "think" NASA fakes tons of video and possibly even a great deal of the spacecraft imagery and missions etc. I won't lend myself to any presumptions however, as I don't work at NASA. I haven't been in their laboratories, I haven't worked on their crafts. I haven't done the requisite calculus, and trigonometry to determine flight paths and schedules etc. I haven't been into space, to test weightlessness and other experiments. Is it possible that the spacewalks are filmed entirely underwater, in an environment that is neither weightless, or anything like a vacuum? Sure. It's equally possible that the missions are filmed in space though. Agnostically, I cannot determine this. Scientifically I really can't either, because I'm not there. So I remain open to possibilities and entertain ideas, and theories. Sir Richard Branson is promising "Consumer Space Trips" within the next few years. Granted it will be too expensive for any average consumer, but just how do you suggest Richy and Virgin will fake this? To make an assertion that it's all fake is a fool hearted mistake in my opinion, inviting doubt from skeptics. I would be more inclined to say that NASA launches and space exploration are not a hoax so to speak, but rather a distraction for the public, while Star Wars programs and advanced Global tracking apparatus are being further developed in LEO, and GEO... But, now I'm making the mistake of speculating, and I don't want to do that in this case.
Similarly, none of us (that I know of) were in NYC on 9/11. I have seen your excellent videos, and compilation of work put forth herein, and there are some very strong, even un-ignorable points made. Showing some lines that purport to be Chroma key mask linings is fine, and a fair explanation for some of the artifacts we see in the imagery. However, it is not a likely scenario that every image we are given, or have tracked down is subject to the same Chroma key distortions. It is possible yes, but then there is the possibility that some errors are from multipath broadcast disturbances, and other times Chromatic Aberration, and even other cases bad recordings, or even bad compression and re-compression from being passed around the web, and archived on multiple hard drives. Kind of like making photocopies of old photocopies. Do you see what I mean? The video that Equinox has posted of the boat on the Hudson is real in my opinion. Go ahead, call me names and misquote my past statements against me. Doesn't change my mind here. Real boat, with real water and real people, real smoke and real buildings etc. Has it been altered, and edited? Very likely, but I think the video on a whole is real. I watched it, and that is the conclusion that I came to. In a sense, you cannot sell the fake crap without mixing in some real, lest some astute observers catch on. Even Hollywood films have some easily spotted fake sceneries, actors, and effects in today's day and age... But with the real actors, the lighting, the music, the overall package makes it believable for the viewer.
I have respect for you Simon, and any other member here, even the vociferous and blatantly abusive members. I respect your opinion, effort, time and such. I feel that some scientific method is lacking here is all, in addition to sometimes careless assumptions, and frequently misused terminologies. It may be well serving for your ecosystem here, to have some guidelines, technology timelines, a glossary, some truly scientific comparative analyses of video editing techniques and the like. And I mean for real, from the manufacturers of cameras, video editing equipment, ELA tools, movie producers, 3-D modeling experts etc. Forgive me for saying so, but that doesn't seem to be considered here. How can anyone doing research, create sound and scientific conclusions without having a basis of comparative parameters in place? A language, that you could take to experts in the field and speak in a clear and understandable manner. Perhaps illustrate the differences and nuances between say, green screen, composite photography, pure 3-D modeling CGI, 2-D composite, 3-D motion capture, Vs. real video in one clean and streamlined Sticky thread? This forum has a wide variety of some very complex and even sensational subject matter. Not everyone thinks the same, and may not find some of the purported viewpoints and claims to fit with that of the everyday real world in which we must coexist. This can be daunting and off putting, and it may be beneficial for the forum to adopt a demonstrable scientific method, rather than just forum rules and regulations alone.
This is a suggestion, and opinion. This is not my website, and many of you are pleased about this I'm sure, but these could be some handy considerations for the future. On a whole I think this website's information does more good than harm.
Oh, nevermind...you probably don't care about it. Mitch Matrixx wrote: I don't give a rat's ass what caused the black lines. To call everything CGI and bar the concept of any real footage clearly exposes that the Emperor is wearing no clothes, and that there is an underlying mission to mislead people here.
I definitely do care, which is why I took time to write back. FWIW, regardless if I ever posted here again, or was no longer allowed to post here, I would still continue to visit this virtual place daily as I have for over a year. This is one of the last URLs on the entire WWW that I even feel is worth typing in anymore, regardless if the views here represent my own. 99% of the internet could otherwise disappear and I would be content with that.
Mitch Matrixx wrote:I have respect for you Simon, and any other member here, even the vociferous and blatantly abusive members. I respect your opinion, effort, time and such.
You obviously don't have any respect for the forum, Simon, or the other long-term members. If you did you wouldn't be so arrogant and dismissive in so many of your posts. I'm glad I don't know you personally, and I pity those who live with you. You might try using a constructive tone of voice in life; you'll find people are much more open to what you have to say.
Simon, why are you still subjecting us to his bad attitude?
brianv wrote:If you googol "Chroma Key Artifacts", this is one of the first posts.
"I'm always getting a doggone black outline around my subject when keying out a background using a green screen and using a magenta hairlight. I'm using an ancient DSR250 with 4:1:1 compression (not great). Anyway, messing around with all the controls in keylight I can't get any satisfaction in getting rid of the black outline. Shrinking the matte makes the talent look really unnatural. I tried using Adobe Ultra, which does a great job of keying. The lighting is even, the whole thing keys out fine except for that crummy black outline. Any suggestions? Thanks, Lisa"
"stubborn black outline artifact on chromakey by Lisa Inserra on Feb 21, 2010 at 3:05:03 pm"
Still having that problem in 2010, eh?
Edit to add:
Oh, and it's definitely worth reading all the posts to see just how numerous & complex the software problems can be when manipulating film imagery! e.g.
Dave LaRonde Re: stubborn black outline artifact on chromakey by Dave LaRonde on Feb 22, 2010 at 6:25:46 pm
[Daniel Christie] "The key is fine, that is until I apply Colour Finesse at which point the grey parts of the matte turn dark in the key. "
So try precomping the chroma key layer(s), and THEN applying Color Finesse. Sometimes effects simply don't play nice together. I was reminded of this just today when I tried to use the Levels and Auto Color effects in the wrong sequence.
Dave LaRonde Sr. Promotion Producer KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA
e.g.