Friday, December 5, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(158)
-
▼
December
(14)
- Jim Lanthier / Phil Nelson, JFK Show #42
- Dennis Cimino / William Shanley & James Tracy
- Ole Dammegard
- John Stokes / Phil Nelson
- Dennis Cimino
- Jan Irvin
- Jim Fetzer / The New JFK Show #40
- Jim Mariano / William Shanley
- Jim Fetzer / Frank Salter
- Meria Heller / On the road with Dr. Fetzer
- Stew Webb, Preston James, Nick Kollerstrom
- Jim Fetzer
- L.J. Delsa / The New JFK Show #38
- Jim Fetzer
-
▼
December
(14)
Thank you, Jim, as always.
ReplyDeleteAll Fetzer cares about is the truth and if you just listen to him for two hours you will know the truth as well because he's on the cutting edge of research! He should love Simon Shack's research if that is the case.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, Jim respects part of Shack's stuff, I even more, but there are problems in parts of what he & his group are doing, in both Jim's assessment and (less so) in mine.
DeleteFYI, Anonymous: even though apsterian's comments are being taken off here, his main gripe that Fetzer & even Shack are "defending Jews" boils down to the idea that apsterian is upset at Jim because he does not think the Jewish religion as a religion is to be assessed negatively (except in certain aspects where religious tenets are used to justify political Zionism), or that all banking problems, etc., are Jewish at root. Jim goes into what some would consider extreme positions on aspects of Zionism and Jewish history, but never smears all Jews by labelling all elites and perpetrators Jewish or "Jewwy" by extension, as apsterian, in his particular brand of philosophical and historical interpretation does, thinking he is being more patriotic than Jim.
DeleteI write this not to reply to apsterian, but to leave a general consideration for you and others who might see his posts before they are taken down.
Clare, if Jim thinks Simon Shack's research is misguided then he should at least point out exactly what Shack has wrong and in detail. Simon Shack posted a very simple question for Jim on this blog about two weeks ago and there was no response. It should be very easy to debunk Shack if he indeed is as wrong as Jim believes. I honestly don't think he's studied Sept Clues in detail but just thinks the whole idea preposterous "prima facie." I have more respect for you than him on this issue. Why doesn't Jim write a VT article conclusively proving Shack incorrect? Because he can't.
DeleteClare has it right. His position on the WTC footage as a totality being faked is absurd. He makes a lot of good points in "September Clues", but I am disaffected by the rubbish that he and OBF shovel here and elsewhere.
DeleteRight. Not all real footage is directly provable, but in dovetailing from problems to real as hypotheses, certain items show likely real problems from how real footage or realtime error would occur. Positing perps do all in the easiest & most pre-planned manner is never wise, nor is it supportable as the best hypothesis here.
DeleteI have covered many times how certain things (e.g., the "Ball", the "Fade to Black", the "Fade to White" layer, the "Spire" -- corner dustifying -- & many other things) are over-simplified in the ultimate "all-is-fake" thesis, even without the other items from the event being reinterpreted as all-lies-all-the-time.
Shack won't debate us. He has stated that English is not his first language and that he isn't comfortable debating in English.
DeleteIf you want our take on Shack be sure to read our article from earlier this year on Veterans Today: Simon Shack, obf and the 9/11 “September Clueless” distractors
I've heard interviews with him and his English wasn't a problem at all. It's weird that would be the reason not to debate.
DeleteThere has been talking about a debate between Jim and Simon, so that they could finally come together in a show and slug it out. Simon refuses. As I see it, a debate would be worth while only when Jim gets serious and address's the issues as they appear within reasonable criteria of common-sense logic. Whenever Jim is cornered, he shouts nukes. He may as well say bullocks or sausage. It's a dull, non sequitur issue, no one is interested in aside from himself, his ill-mannered pocket pet Ian, and his soapy, bat-crazy alias apsterian. This alone should give Jim a penny for his thoughts, and see it just like anyone else see it on this blog. For now, I find Jim's position desperate foolish and immature, and the debate pointless.
ReplyDeleteThese are stupid comments, Simon, completely unwarranted and irresponsible. Why don't you find other ways to spend your copious free time?
DeleteYou won't go anywhere with it, aside from stubbornly dodging the sound theory developed by SS. The towers were covered in smoke and detonated. I don't really care if ALL imagery was faked. This bickering is going nowhere. Faked was what was needed to pull it out. This includes the collapses which in real time would have had to be obscured.
ReplyDeleteI have and have read Jim Fetzer's books Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK , The Great Zapruder Film Hoax Deceit and Deception in the
ReplyDeleteDeath of JFK and Murder in Dealey
Plaza: What We Know Now That We Didn't Know Murder and I am confident that Dr Fetzer has never claimed anywhere
in any of those books that the
Zapruder film was totally faked.
Jack White who devoted his life time's work to the study and research of the Zapruder also never claimed that the Zapruder film was totally faked and always conceded that parts of it were genuine. By totally faked I mean TOTALLY faked: Everything from start to finish. This "totally faked"- view-of-the-
Zapruder nonsense is a ruse and a ploy on the part of those who would discredit and consign not only the Zapruder film but also discredit and consign those individuals like Jim Fetzer, Jack White, John Costella et al AND their sterling work on the Zapruder film to the trash can of history. It's a weak and disingenuous ruse and ploy which has not and will not
wash. To claim the Zapruder film is totally fake is a cop out. The same applies to the WTC debate. It is the cop out merchants
busy with their "total fake" hooey all over again. As regards the Zapruder film, it is the faked parts of the Zapruder film which stand out from its overall genuineness like sore
thumbs which indicate that there is
something radically wrong with the
Zapruder film as we see it today.
The fakery within the Zapruder film
is like the proverbial turd in the punch bowl: it is blatantly obvious and it just doesn't belong.
Nice punch bowl - shame about
that darn turd.
Right, Zapruder was not totally faked, but it is a total fake to work from in the other sense, in that it is not merely cut & edited in that sense, & must therefore be totally reconsidered.
DeleteThere are truly fake elements added; there are items moved, there are things left out even within frames.
It's fake. It is not "totally" fake. To say that it is "totally" fake is to say that it it has no probative or evidentiary value whatever and therefore can be
Deletedismissed as totally worthless. Of course there are elements of complete fakery in the Zapruder film but these are contained within its overall authenticity. It is the Zapruder film's inherent genuiness which, in fact, highlights its
barely concealed and, indeed, blatant fakery. Frames are missing and frames have been manipulated.
Note:
DeleteThe "barely concealed" fakery becomes "blatant fakery" to the trained observer
who knows what to look for. Most casual viewers of the Zapruder film will accept it at face value.
Tarquinius: it is based on real footage but it is not simply missing & repositioned frames; whole segments are reconstructed from elements (i.e., fake frames, in the result) & the film itself is a composite reprint, not an original in any way literally.
DeleteThere are original frames intact in the beginning, but even in that sense, it is remade because reprinted with the major edit in the turn onto Elm not being a literal splice in the extant film: it is a copy.
"Tarquinius: it is based on real footage but it is not simply missing & repositioned frames; whole segments are reconstructed from elements (i.e., fake frames, in the result) & the film itself is a composite reprint, not an original in any way literally.
DeleteThere are original frames intact in the beginning, but even in that sense, it is remade because reprinted with the major edit in the turn onto Elm not being a literal splice in the extant film: it is a copy."
I am fully aware of the history of the Zapruder film. Of course it is based on real footage. Why don't you tell me something I don't know? Why do you insist on stating the obvious?
Everything you have written above is common knowledge. You write that the Zapruder film "is a copy" as if that was some sort of new and exclusive piece of information. Who the hell do you think
you're preaching to? Of course it's a
copy! Having read all of Professor's books on the JFK assassination I am completely au fait with all the known details regarding the origins, history
and manipulation of the Zapruder film. However, I must take
issue with your statement: " There are original frames intact in the beginning.."
The original frames from the beginning of film taken by Abraham
Zapruder are missing. What we see in the extant Zapruder film is missing the true beginning of the Zapruder film. Zapruder filmed the motorcade as it turned into
Elm Street. That part of the film is gone. Only a few people have seen that part of the Zapruder film showing Greer turning into Elm and almost mounting the sidewalk as he made the 120 degree turn. The late Rich Dellarosa had spoken and written about "the other Zapruder film". Details of what Rich saw in that "other film" can be read about in one of Professor Fetzer's book
"The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK".
When you reply to this post as you surely
will, I'll thank you not to be so patronizing and condescending in your comments.
The lecturing tone of your replies tends to wear very thin very quickly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt is hardly common knowledge, Tarquinius, and I was unsure how much you knew.
DeleteAs to the frames of the car before & just after turning: the frames are far less doctored or are original there. The crowd on the street closeby seems to have been added and maybe a van obscured (a director of operations radio centre, or some such, some have suggested).
They are not frames which underwent as much doctoring as the later frames did.
But for you or for others who do not know of the following, and to address your feelings about my post:
I am speaking from certainty and many, many discussions past; lecturing it may be but not patronizing: the two are not the same. I simply tire of teaching the same stuff.
You (or others) will need to learn about the film's extant condition (it's claimed to be original but there is no edit cut at the turn onto Elm, so it's already remade there); it's got multiple frames which cannot be from any camera on any planet (from selective lack of lens distortion & blur arguments on items within frames); it has palpably fake crowds (not matching general make-up known from other photos & testaments, nor matching normal movement in crowds), etc.
As such, the extant film is problematic as "real" in any normal construing of the term, or "merely edited" either.
Thus, we can turn back to the witnesses (properly understood & vetted testaments in their own right), only bringing the film back into considerations selectively.
Other edits, versions or (possibly) outrightly original versions have to exist; that some have seen some of at least one of these, is hardly surprising.
I'm being straightforward, factual. Hope you take it as such & just go learn. Do have a nice day.
DeleteIt is common knowledge among those who have researched the subject - something that you evidently have not done. You write your posts here in a patronizingly lecturing way.
By the way, Who said "patronizing" and
"lecturing" were the same thing?! What an outrageous thing to write!! If you tire of teaching the same stuff then you are in the wrong job. What matters in teaching is not what you teach but whom you teach and how you teach them and just for the record, you're not teaching me anything I don't know already.
You wrote:
" You (or others) will need to learn about the film's extant condition "!!
What a pretentious and arrogant thing to write!! You seem to have set yourself up as the final arbiter and fount
of all knowledge on all things
to do with the Zapruder film.
You also wrote:
" it's got multiple frames which cannot be from any camera on any planet (from selective lack of lens distortion "
Perhaps you would care to give the numbers of the "multiple" frames you are referring to? There are 486 frames. Can we have the numbers? Also can you explain what you mean by:
"from selective lack of lens distortion & blur arguments "
( A Scientist's Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication John Costeĺla)?
and
" ...only bringing the film back into considerations selectively.."
and
" As such, the extant film is problematic as "real" in any normal construing of the term, or "merely edited" either."
What on earth are you babbling about?!
You are writing sheer gibberish.
As for being straightforward and factual,
you are far from it. I suggest you get down off your high horse and go BUY
and READ Professor Fetzer's canon of books on the JFK assassination.
Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK
The Great Zapruder Film Hoax
Deceit and Deception in the
Death of JFK
Murder in Dealey
Plaza: What We Know Now That We Didn't Know Murder
...
Correction!!
DeleteMurder in Dealey Plaza:
What We Know Now That
We Didn't Know Then
By James H. Fetzer PhD
Simon Pimon said:"For now, I find Jim's position desperate foolish and immature, and the debate pointless."
ReplyDeleteUnderstand, Mr Fetzer has frequently revealed that he has absolutely no interest in applying the standard, basic, "run -of-the-mill" scientific methodology to 9/11 investigations, where the scientist is required in all of his/her investigations to pre- assume as true_only_ the discovered laws of physics etc., and that everything else, [for example videos and photos] is only _possibly_ evidence, and must neither be pre-assumed to be fake, nor to genuine by that investigating scientist until each video or photo has been thoroughly tested to establish which of the 2 categories[genuine or fake] it belongs in.
After all, its far handier [i.e. "lazier", and therefor more convenient], to simply ignore standard scientific investigative procedure and just go right ahead and pre-assume "genuineness" of any/all 9/11 imagery, and then proceed to use that visually impressive imagery [i.e. "evidence"] as " undeniable absolute proof of nuclear demolitions" [or "direct energy weapons, or of whatever] , simply because there are so many photos and videos, and they all appear to show the same event[s]- therefor, they must all be genuine :-).
Understand that Mr Fetzer, therefor, is no scientist. More of a myth-builder/reinforcer/circus ringmaster/ Pied Piper, as far as I can see.
See: "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html
"Why Jim Fetzer /Richard Hall/Ace Baker etc. Are Wrong About This Fl.175 Video [Hezarkhani]":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/02/911-scams-why-jim-fetzerace-baker-and.html
"9/11 Scams: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus "The Burden of Proof"":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/10/911-scams-911-truth-movement-versus.html
I have responded to these absurd allegations time and time again. I have no respect for obf, although at one time I believe he was sincere. I no longer believe that is true.
ReplyDeleteI think he's sincere. I know people who are like him in all main respects. Give them a particular forum of discussion, they would sound just like him, make the same arguments & confusions, have the same surety and pride in their position & general goodwill but anger at those they think are missing "the harder truth".
DeleteDon Fox said : "If you want our take on Shack be sure to read our article from earlier this year on Veterans Today: Simon Shack, obf and the 9/11 “September Clueless” distractors" " .
ReplyDeleteWhat Mr Fox should have said is: " if you want to read a badly written, badly researched hack-job and desperate attempt at a smear job by yours truly", then read this drivel: Simon Shack, obf and the 9/11 “September Clueless” distractors" " :-) .
Here's a link to an article originally posted at Veterans Today [since deleted at VT, I believe] by a Veterans Today contributer/_defender_ of Simon Shack's 9/11 research , and a rebuttal of that god-awful attempted smear job from Mssrs Fox, Fetzer and Greenhalgh that Fox linked you to previously.
Regards, onebornfree
I'm not seeing that link. I would like to take a look at that article.
DeleteAnonymous said: "I'm not seeing that link. I would like to take a look at that article"
DeleteOops, sorry, I forgot to include the link. Here it is :
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=456&p=2389064&hilit=obf+and+the+9%2F11+%E2%80%9CSeptember+Clueless%E2%80%9D+distractors#p2389064
Regards, onebornfree
Tarquinius Maximus said : "It's fake. It is not "totally" fake. To say that it is "totally" fake is to say that it it has no probative or evidentiary value whatever and therefore can be dismissed as totally worthless. "
ReplyDeleteSorry Tarq, you obviously missed out on comprehension of the legal principle "false in one, false in all" [google it].
The Zapruder movie has " no probative or evidentiary value whatever", at least within a common law court system.
Regards, onebornfree
Oneboredfree:
Delete"Sorry Tarq, you obviously missed out on comprehension of the legal principle "false in one, false in all" [google it]. "
That'll be the day when I start taking legal advice from a poseur like you.
"Dubia in meliorem partem
interpretari debent"
[shmoogle it]
DEFINE WHAT WE MEAN BY "FAKE"
ReplyDeleteWhat we have not done so far is define the word "fake."
Obviously, the video footage of 911 was real video footage. The images of the planes were real images of real planes which had to have been inserted into actual. real footage of the skyline of south Manhattan. All of the video footage is evidence. In order to discern the fake from the real, we must use logic and perhaps coin some new terms.
It all depends on what the
Deletemeaning of the word "is" is.
(1) First, if we all agree there were no planes. (Here's where Fetzer Group runs into problems as they think the footage captures the image of a hologram-created plane. So we'll set that aside as a separate issue for the moment) If there were no planes, there could not have been fireballs, fires in the towers, smoke coming from the top or gashes shaped like planes in the side of the buildings. All of that had to have been "real" or done by the perps in real time.
ReplyDelete(2) Second, the perps could have blown out the plane shapes with explosives, created the smoking, smoldering tower images with smudge pots or whatever and the video footage was live, the effects done in studio. They could have used CGI, computer generated images for the planes.
(3) The third possibility, and most likely, is that tapes were prepared ahead of time. They filmed the skyline in different weather conditions, cloudy or sunny, and added all the special effects in the studio. Notice the way the background always stays the same, the buildings flat and gray and in the same position, the filming done from a copter near the Empire State?
If the towers were taken down by a CD, not planes, they had to change the image to make it look like planes had hit the upper floors, trapping the workers. So, you had pictures of "jumpers" which we now see were just paste-ups. The smoke from the towers was looped as well as other smoking effects. Experts in animation should tell us what terms are used in special effects.
(4) Regarding the demolition footage: since the top floors were alleged to have been hit by planes, that's where the damage was done and resulting fires caused a TOP/DOWN DEMOLITION. Problem is, there is no such thing. CDs are done from the BOTTOM/UP--the same principle as cutting down a tree. Don't believe me? Go to You Tube and look up CDI building implosions. You will not see ANYTHING spewing from the tops of buildings as you do in the 911 footage.
That is why the demolition footage was changed in the broadcast video footage. What we see there is physically impossible. So it has been "faked" to look like a real CD.
(5) Were the towers emptied of furniture and fixtures which might have become flying projectiles? For a successful CD, buildings are totally emptied. The towers might have tipped over and landed on buildings 5&6 as you see in some videos of demos of tall narrow buildings. A lot of steel might have been salvaged. Judy Wood talked of flatbed trucks holding 30' steel beams coming and going from the site,
(Ask yourself, if you were given the job of planning 911, which of the above would be the easiest? Hide what you are doing with a made for TV movie, which most people were watching, or invite every photographer in NY and elsewhere to film every aspect of it?)
The final touch was the hallmark of a CD--clouds of smoke, which would have naturally occurred and also added to artificially.
DON'T FORGET ALL THE DRILLS OF 911. FEMA WAS THERE A DAY AHEAD OF TIME AND I'LL BET MANY MORE. POLICE AND FIRE HAD TO BE IN ON IT.
WHO KNOWS WHAT OTHER GROUPS MANAGED THE CROWDS AND HOW MANY PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY WERE PARTICIPATING IN A DRILL?
HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE SWORN TO SECRECY?
If we can't know what happened at Sandy Hook due to stonewalling by the town and the press, why should we not be allowed to know the truth of 911?
It all depends on what the
Deletemeaning of the word "is" is.
Compass said : "What we have not done so far is define the word "fake."
ReplyDeleteObviously, the video footage of 911 was real video footage. The images of the planes were real images of real planes which had to have been inserted into actual. real footage of the skyline of south Manhattan. "
Sorry Joan, that is incorrect. I thought you had already understood [ or am I misunderstanding _you_?] - no MSM video footage was ever "real footage",nor any part of it.
That is, no " real images of real planes were inserted into actual. real footage of the skyline of south Manhattan".
All of the broadcast "live" MSM footage is 100% CGI computer constructs, manufactured entirely inside computers.
That is: CGI planes, CGI towers, CGI smoke, CGI sky, CGI foreground, CGI background, CGI fireball explosions, CGI holes in towers, CGI tower collapses, etc. etc.
Regards, onebornfree
" What we have not done so far is define the word "fake".
ReplyDeleteIn what sense are you using the word
"fake"? Can you elaborate and expand on your statement above? Also, can you clarify whether you are using the word "fake" in the generally and universally accepted meaning of the word "fake"? Or do you have any doubt or mental reservation or equivocation regarding your use of the word "fake"?
Also, can you explain what you mean
by the word "define"?
Tarquinius Maximus said : "That'll be the day when I start taking legal advice from a poseur like you."Dubia in meliorem partem interpretari debent""
ReplyDeleteCripes! Not only a Roman name but he/she/it spouts latin to "prove" their intellectual superiority! :-)
Don't apply for any attorney job in criminal defense, numb nutz :-)
No regards, onebornfree
Onebornboring:
Deletehttp://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/fake-911-bird-flocks-false-in-one-false.html?m=1
2]: "False In One, False In All"
Secondly, let us remind ourselves of the simple, basic legal evidentiary review principle usually known as "false in one , false in all" [falsus in uno, falsis in omnibus].
Many 9/11 researchers remain completely in the dark regarding this very important , simple principle which "should" be applied when reviewing ALL alleged 9/11 alleged "evidence" [at least by any serious, honest researcher].
Simply put, there is a fundamental, basic legal principle named "false in one, false in all [falsis in uno, falsis in omnibus], whereby a judge may instruct a trial jury that should they find that any part of a witness/entities testimony to be false, then they each have the individual, incontestable right to discount all "evidence" provided by that alleged witness/entity.
Therefor, applied outside of a courtroom, if a person wished to utilize that very same legal principle as a 9/11 research tool/principle, and according to that well established, very old legal principle:
should any researcher find any one part of the government/media 911 story to be false, [for example, the "live" broadcast clip displayed above] then it is perfectly acceptable for that person to then conclude that _all_ "evidence" supplied by that particular entity [i.e. the entire "live" TV network broadcast for 9/11 provided by the network in question from which the above extract was made], is either probably false, or simply to be distrusted.
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/fake-911-bird-flocks-false-in-one-false.html?m=1
At least when I write in Latin, I spell the words right. It's " Falsus in uno. Falsus in omnibus". Poseur!!
Dubia in meliorem partem
interpretari debent!!
" Cripes! Not only a Roman name but he/she/it spouts latin to "prove" their intellectual superiority! :-)
DeleteDon't apply for any attorney job in criminal defense, numb nutz :-) "
Strewth!!
You've been spouting and plastering your blogs with your "False in one. False in all " hogwash in bad Latin for months and you
still can't spell the English word "therefore"!! The word "Latin" is capitalized.
LOL
DeleteOneborderlinenut:
Dubia in meliorem partem
interpretari debent!!
POSEUR!!
" That is, no " real images of real planes were inserted into actual. real footage of the skyline of south Manhattan".
ReplyDeletePlease elucidate and explicate what exactly you mean by the word "real".
In what sense are you using the word "real" in the context of your comment above?
Which word(s) from the following list convey(s) the meaning of the word "real" as used by you in your comment above.
Absolute, actual, authentic, bodily, bona fide, certain, concrete, corporal, corporeal, de facto, embodied, essential, evident, existent, existing, factual, firm, heartfelt, honest, in the flesh, incarnate, indubitable, intrinsic, irrefutable, legitimate, live, material, original, palpable, perceptible, physical, positive, present, right, rightful, sensible, sincere, solid, sound, stable, substantial, substantive, tangible, true, unaffected, undeniable, undoubted, unfeigned, valid, veritable.
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/fake-911-bird-flocks-false-in-one-false.html?m=1
ReplyDelete2]: "False In One, False In All"
Secondly, let us remind ourselves of the simple, basic legal evidentiary review principle usually known as "false in one , false in all" [falsus in uno,falsis in omnibus].
Many 9/11 researchers remain completely in the dark regarding this very important , simple principle which "should" be applied when reviewing ALL alleged 9/11 alleged "evidence" [at least by any serious, honest researcher].
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/fake-911-bird-flocks-false-in-one-false.html?m=1
The "serious honest researcher" OBF
makes a sneaky spelling correction
to his bad Latin!!
Can you spot it?
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/fake-911-bird-flocks-false-in-one-false.html?m=1
Onebornfree:
ReplyDeleteCompass said : "What we have not done so far is define the word "fake."
Obviously, the video footage of 911 was real video footage. The images of the planes were real images of real planes which had to have been inserted into actual. real footage of the skyline of south Manhattan. "
Sorry Joan, that is incorrect. I thought you had already understood [ or am I misunderstanding _you_?] - no MSM video footage was ever "real footage",nor any part of it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course it was "real" footage. It was "real" footage that was shown on 911 in the sense that it was actual and was viewed by the world. The fact that it had been altered, modified, augmented, etc. to give the impression planes hit the towers, does not change the fact that that was "real" footage and is currently archived for all to see and check for authenticity.
I'm just saying I think we have a problem in semantics since "fake" is too general, misleading, etc.
Let the cute wordsmiths on this thread figure it out.
Fakeologist.com had a guest on discussing ebola. About an hour into the interview, the guest said he had been working in NYC on 911 and saw the plane-shaped gash in the north tower. Ab Irato, the host, was startled as he hadn't expected this. What interested me was that the guest said he could see light through the building. In the videos, no light comes through the building which is a tip- off the gashes are just CGIs in the videos. It's possible the perps blew a hole in the north tower for the sake of onlookers. They might have had smudge pots or black smoke generators on the roofs. So, there is the question of whether some special effects were also live but not photographed.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what it would take to make a witness worth considering today. It makes sense the gushes were real, cause it was high up and there was a window of time before the salmon was to get smoked.They should be roughly similar to what on the photos and videos. They may even be the same things, photoed live and inserted into faked video feeds, then scrambled with CGI. Anything possible, theoretically. Not that it matters.
DeleteHave any brave souls actually gone to New York and asked people what they saw on 911? Wouldn't it be interesting to hob-nob with the natives and see what you could find out regarding the tenancy of the WTC and what they saw on 911. How close were they to the WTC, etc.?
ReplyDeleteCompass said: "Fakeologist.com had a guest on discussing ebola. About an hour into the interview, the guest said he had been working in NYC on 911 and saw the plane-shaped gash in the north tower."
ReplyDeleteJoan, that is just heresay.
There is no good reason to believe any of that alleged "eyewitness testimony" no more than any other such testimony. [And I'm reasonably certain that AbIrato was/is entirely neutral on the veracity of that listeners claims].
We know _nothing_ about the person, no-one has done a deep background investigation of the person making this claim, no different than for most other alleged 9/11 eyewitnesses.
On the other hand, you and I can make definite claims that , for example, the gashes in the buildings were simple CGI constructs, without the need for alleged eyewitness testimony from completely unknown persons, surely?
Why confuse the issue with alleged, unprovable, eyewitness testimony- the gashes were demonstrably CGI , all you need to do is look closely at the video/photographic record to see that?
Regards, onebornfree
Onebozofreek:
ReplyDeleteFalsies in one. Falsies in all.
Nolle prosequi.
You're stuffed, codger!!
Onebornfree said: Compass said: "Fakeologist.com had a guest on discussing ebola. About an hour into the interview, the guest said he had been working in NYC on 911 and saw the plane-shaped gash in the north tower."
ReplyDeleteJoan, that is just heresay.
There is no good reason to believe any of that alleged "eyewitness testimony" no more than any other such testimony. [And I'm reasonably certain that AbIrato was/is entirely neutral on the veracity of that listeners claims].
We know _nothing_ about the person, no-one has done a deep background investigation of the person making this claim, no different than for most other alleged 9/11 eyewitnesses.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree, OBF, and I pay no attention to "eyewitnesses." This witness was unusual. Did you listen to the tape?
It made me think of how many witnesses did NOT testify and whether it would be possible to find out what the public actually saw. No big deal--just for the fun of it because no one has done it to my knowledge. Ab Irato was interested but not that impressed, I agree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why confuse the issue with alleged, unprovable, eyewitness testimony- the gashes were demonstrably CGI , all you need to do is look closely at the video/photographic record to see that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, but wouldn't you like to ask some disinterested parties who were there, what they saw?
PS. There could have been BOTH CGI and live gashes. That plae shaped hole is what sold the public on the planes story One image actual and another on tape.
ReplyDeleteCompass said :"Yes, but wouldn't you like to ask some disinterested parties who were there, what they saw?"
ReplyDeleteNot really. It might be superficially interesting, I suppose, but how would I know if someone was telling the truth, or reliable? Seems like a waste of time to me.
Regards, onebornfree
Where are the witnesses that said that what they saw live "on the ground" in NYC on 9/11 was nothing like what the networks showed? As far as I know, the witnesses seem to all claim that was was shown on the networks was what they saw with their own eyes in NYC. Guess they were all paid off.
ReplyDeleteOnebornfree
ReplyDeleteCompass said :"Yes, but wouldn't you like to ask some disinterested parties who were there, what they saw?"
Not really. It might be superficially interesting, I suppose, but how would I know if someone was telling the truth, or reliable? Seems like a waste of time to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, you couldn't say that you were a researcher or that you were doing a survey or looking for witnesses. That would attract all the trolls and disinfo agents. If I lived in NYC, I would have just mingled with people and casually asked if they were near the towers and over a long period of time, you would get a picture of what most likely happened. How did they keep people away from the towers. Did they use any live special effects--things like that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anonymous said: "Where are the witnesses that said that what they saw live "on the ground" in NYC on 9/11 was nothing like what the networks showed? As far as I know, the witnesses seem to all claim that was was shown on the networks was what they saw with their own eyes in NYC. Guess they were all paid off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They were crisis actors with memorized lines. Why aren't their depositions in the 911 Commission Report? You can't compare that fairy tale to the Warren Report which did publish the names of witnesses and their sworn testimony.