tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post2982694996158367218..comments2024-03-02T21:58:21.667-08:00Comments on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: franklyspeakingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger372125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-85459288316822690512014-03-13T09:13:13.285-07:002014-03-13T09:13:13.285-07:0012 month loans Vs 3 month loans
Through this the i...<strong><a href="http://12monthloansdirectlendersinstant.co.uk" rel="nofollow">12 month loans</a> Vs <a href="http://3monthloanspaydaynocreditcheck.co.uk" rel="nofollow">3 month loans</a></strong><br />Through this the individual are ready to get the necessary finance which will facilitate them to hold out all their wants and needs on the correct time.<br /><strong><a href="http://3monthloansdirectlenders.co.uk" rel="nofollow">loans direct</a> Vs <a href="http://12monthloanssamedaypayoutnobroker.co.uk" rel="nofollow">no broker loans</a></strong><br /><br />http://sitakrajka.blogspot.in/p/vzory.html?showComment=1394726964447<br /><br />http://3monthloanspaydaynocreditcheck.co.uk<br />http://3monthloansdirectlenders.co.uk<br /><br />https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9020657707899386354&postID=3885136071817246559&page=1&token=1394726837550<br /><br />http://12monthpaydayukloans.co.uk<br />http://12monthloanssamedaypayoutnobroker.co.uk<br />http://12monthloansdirectlendersinstant.co.ukAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09620406345461488469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-46842447625844140272014-01-06T16:58:52.707-08:002014-01-06T16:58:52.707-08:00Stop, Don. You can choose not to LOOK but to take ...Stop, Don. You can choose not to LOOK but to take it seriously if you do look is important, in order to determine if they did good work on one and not on another! I say this even if OBF had no good points, though he (with Shack) does.<br /><br />Stop thinking that OBF and Shack work ONLY REPRESENTS 100% FAKING.<br /><br />IT ACTUALLY IS PARTLY WONDERFUL ABOUT MEDIA COMPLICITY AND FAKING, AND ONLY THEY FEEL A NEED TO TAKE IT TO MEAN 100%.<br /><br />As to Hall's work -- I have not read the critique by OBF yet. Just FYI. My argument of fairness is for the sake of being honest; I know one can assume there would be no value from a flat Earther at all, but that is, in fact, not true.<br /><br />Some people go too far on one thing and then move on to even less tenable things. That happened here.<br /><br />Lots in Sept Clues' work is excellent. So please STOP using straw men (such as flat Earth confusion).Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-49708189312526515582014-01-06T16:48:35.662-08:002014-01-06T16:48:35.662-08:00They are, at present, extremists.
As such, those ...They are, at present, extremists.<br /><br />As such, those who try to suggest only part of their content is valid get attacked as if only their conclusions explain the content. In the case of Sept Clues' work, their conclusions are unnecessary, but their work contains great parts (conclusions within).Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-44681956444637680582014-01-06T16:46:16.849-08:002014-01-06T16:46:16.849-08:00No, an UNCAREFUL USE OF OCCAM is that mere simplic...No, an UNCAREFUL USE OF OCCAM is that mere simplicity is the argument;<br /><br />in fact, simplicity is a reminder (that if reality mixed with fake is supportable, in a general sense, then go with that),<br /><br />and simplicity as a goal as much as possible must be used to account best for all the evidence, all the lines of argument, including the complex parts.<br /><br />It is not simplicity alone.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-60843141265520144062014-01-06T10:34:08.081-08:002014-01-06T10:34:08.081-08:00Well said Jim, it's rather disturbing that the...Well said Jim, it's rather disturbing that the attacks are coming from those who she was attempting to defend, or rather, defend their work.Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-36736252230633669632014-01-06T10:05:12.449-08:002014-01-06T10:05:12.449-08:00Well, Allan and I appear to be talking about apple...Well, Allan and I appear to be talking about apples and oranges. I am talking about the EFFECTS of Snowden's revelation, while he seems to be addressing his MOTIVATION. I have yet to see any good reason to think he is right and I am wrong about any of this.<br /><br />People can do good things for bad reasons all the time, but I don't even see where he has made a case re Snowden's motives. The man brought the most massive intel op of all time to the attention of the world--but Weisbecker doesn't think he deserves credit! Jim Fetzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05539733121153973439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-61657902899224527912014-01-06T07:46:08.128-08:002014-01-06T07:46:08.128-08:00Enough of this Clare-bashing. She has the uncanny...Enough of this Clare-bashing. She has the uncanny and extremely rare ability to see both (or more) sides of these complex questions, making her an invaluable resource to those of us trying to sort these things out but also a target for those unwilling to admit that they may have part but not all of the truth. So she is too often subjected to verbal abuse, even when what she writes is exceptionally clear but conveys an unwelcome message. Just for the record, I regard her as one of the best who comment here--and I don't want to see a continuation of ad hominem attacks on her or on others.Jim Fetzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05539733121153973439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-84554021518600702762014-01-05T07:00:37.942-08:002014-01-05T07:00:37.942-08:00I hope everyone is taking not of hock Shack Hytten...I hope everyone is taking not of hock Shack Hytten and OneEyedFool don't actually defend their theories and methods, instead they attack the people who challenge them. Simply because their theories are indefensible and ludicrous. Now we have reference to masturbating and Nazis, what the hell has that got to do with a rational, serious debate or proper scientific analysis? Heil Hitler? WTF? Has OBF been smoking crack? <br /><br />Pathetic, disgusting and spurious, which sums them up really.<br /><br />I'd like to continue to debate and discuss sensible topics such as Allan, Clare, Bill and others bring to the table. :)Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-25915771214629772462014-01-05T05:47:52.501-08:002014-01-05T05:47:52.501-08:00How many scientists believe that the Earth is flat...How many scientists believe that the Earth is flat?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-67943677504641916852014-01-05T05:19:07.656-08:002014-01-05T05:19:07.656-08:00Don Fox said : "Why would people take your &q...Don Fox said : "Why would people take your "video analysis" seriously when and your Sept Clueless buddies think the Earth is flat?" <br /><br />Hey Foxy, it "takes two to tango" , and so: <br /><br />shouldn't you be off somewhere polishing yer jack -boots and sprucing up your 4th Reich uniforms for your next circle-jerk with your similarly attired circle-jerk buddies Fetzer and Greenhalgh? <br /><br />Heil Hitler! :-) <br /><br />Regards, obf.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-7979574143605762802014-01-05T05:09:42.649-08:002014-01-05T05:09:42.649-08:00@ Simon Shack["Norwegian"].
Simon, you...@ Simon Shack["Norwegian"]. <br /><br />Simon, you are "flogging a dead horse" here ! <br /><br />Ms Kuehn is not a scientist, and [obviously] has no use for the scientific methodology. <br /><br />Anyone [including Ms Kuehn]can believe anything they want to about the spire images, and any other totally unverified 911 image. It's their "right".<br /><br />However, as you know, a scientist does not have that same luxury. <br /><br />They are duty bound to employ a strict methodology whereby ALL imagery, in order to become bona fide , trusted evidence, must first be thoroughly analyzed/tested/compared to establish whether or not it is in fact genuine. <br /><br />To repeat myself from elsewhere:<br /><br /> "This investigation of their authenticity would include questions of still photo authorship; original source,[video?]; at what time[ eg year] did the originals surface?; where did they first show up [Youtube ?] ; plus questions to establish whether or not it was even actually physically possible to shoot videos/photos from the claimed location."<br /><br />"All of that without even getting into perspective issues, relative size of surrounding scenery etc. etc. " <br /><br />Ms Kuehn can be excused, she's no scientist [obviously], however the glaring, "in our faces" fact remains that NONE of the claimed "scientific experts" who have put out their various 911 theories, [Hall, Wood, Jones, Ward/Prager/Fox ] have EVER even made so much as a half-hearted, pretend attempt at ANY image verification process, let alone a full-on genuine attempt at it. <br /><br />One of the few persons in the world who has attempted such a process [actually multiple processes], is yourself, ironically enough a none ["officially trained"] scientist. <br /><br />You gotta love it :-) <br /><br />Regards, obf.Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-64735036082560984302014-01-05T04:55:42.346-08:002014-01-05T04:55:42.346-08:00Why would people take your "video analysis&qu...Why would people take your "video analysis" seriously when and your Sept Clueless buddies think the Earth is flat?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-87332475540164021072014-01-05T04:48:02.865-08:002014-01-05T04:48:02.865-08:00Richard Hall's holographic plane thesis is fra...Richard Hall's holographic plane thesis is fraught with methodological errors and is therefore useless as bona fide scientific research. <br /><br />See my 4 part analysis of his "research":<br /><br />"9/11 Scams-Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs. Richard Hall's Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique ":<br /><br />http://www.onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-vs-richard-halls.html<br /><br />obfOnebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-42356587571265764622014-01-05T04:45:54.189-08:002014-01-05T04:45:54.189-08:00In 1956, Samuel Shenton, a signwriter by trade, cr...In 1956, Samuel Shenton, a signwriter by trade, created the International Flat Earth Society as a successor to the Universal Zetetic Society and ran it as "organizing secretary" from his home in Dover, in Britain. Because of Shenton's interest in alternative science and technology, the emphasis on religious arguments was less than in the predecessor society.<br /><br />This was just before the launch of the first artificial satellite, and when satellite images taken from outer space showed the Earth as a sphere rather than flat, the society was undaunted; Shenton remarked: "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye."<br /><br />However it was not until the advent of manned spaceflight that Shenton managed to attract wide publicity, being featured in The New York Times in January and June 1964, when the epithet "flat-earther" was also slung across the floor of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom in both directions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-30390864161810854572014-01-04T21:41:11.356-08:002014-01-04T21:41:11.356-08:00Well, monsieur Ian Greenhalgh...
I had sort of fi...Well, monsieur Ian Greenhalgh...<br /><br />I had sort of figured out already what your mission was, ever since you presented yourself as a "CGI expert". Funnily enough, huh?<br /><br />In over half a decade of relentless 9/11 research efforts, and funnily enough, I have never heard of Ian Greenhalgh. He just recently appeared out of the blue here on James Fetzer's blog. <br /><br />Funnily enough, "Ian Greenhalgh" seems to have a mission to discredit my work and to promote that of Richard "Hologram" Hall (another Fetzer rabbit) ! ...<br /><br />Good grief. This place is a wretched clown-cove.norwegianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17995678585264337010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-88104032492269082442014-01-04T21:03:53.158-08:002014-01-04T21:03:53.158-08:00Sorry, I gave the wrong youtube link for the Richa...Sorry, I gave the wrong youtube link for the Richard D Hall analysis of the flight 175 clips vs the radar data, it should have been this one:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5DgFcpsxesIan Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-32871944587549313942014-01-04T20:54:43.575-08:002014-01-04T20:54:43.575-08:00"Having said that, they still thought that th..."Having said that, they still thought that they could get away with their farcical / outlandish / unphysical "top-down" WTC collapse imagery - counting on the fact that most people do not analyze imagery on a daily basis. This is, however, what we do at Cluesforum - and this is why we know that all the available tower collapse imagery is as fake as a three-dollar bill."<br /><br />BS, it is clear that you don't have even a basic understanding of the techniques of 3D computer graphics therefore you are completely unqualified to determine what is fake or not.<br /><br />"Their comparative analysis presents such a large number of inconsistencies so as to mutually disqualify each other, one by one - very much like the 45 or so animations of the "Flight175 crash". <br /><br />This statement shows that Mr Hytten is either incapable of doing proper analysis of video footage or is just not telling the truth. In contrast to Hytten's piss-poor 'analysis' we have the excellent work of Richard D Hall where he analysed as many of the 45 clips of the flight 175 impact as possible, using radar data to verify the accuracy and consistency of the flight paths shown in the various clips:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4r01Y7ew4c<br /><br />Hall's analysis provides quite a stark contrast to the work of Mr Hytten. Hall does a very good job using solid scientific principles whereas 'Shack' Hytten does a piss-poor job.<br /><br />Please keep posting your farcical theorising and 'analysis' here Hytten, it makes it very easy for me to refute it and demonstrate how lacking you are in your knowledge of computer graphics.Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-88020106239861146472014-01-04T20:53:36.673-08:002014-01-04T20:53:36.673-08:00"For this very same reason, the 9/11 animatio..."For this very same reason, the 9/11 animation team chose to just make "Flight175" crudely disappear (in a puff of dust) into the tower façade. To be sure, it would have been a major headache for the animators to fabricate 45 videos from different angles - if they had chosen to make the 'plane' crash more realistically - shredding into a thousand pieces upon impact. Those thousand pieces falling down on the sidewalk would have had to be reproduced precisely - from multiple angles - in each of their "Flight175" animations... A true nightmare - even for a top Hollywood / Disney animation crew. "<br /><br />Again, total lack of understanding of 3D modelling and animation on display here by Mr Hytten. While it is fairly complex to model a plane breaking up into many pieces, it is not particularly difficult, this short video shows how a solid object can be smashed into many pieces in 3D:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q211mqBSH08<br /><br />You only need to model and animate the destruction sequence once, then you can render a finished video sequence as many times as you wish, each time changing the position of the virtual camera, this is time consuming only in the amount of computer processing required, and with the huge render farms available to high-end studios, that is not a problem. So creating 45 different videos of the same destruction sequence from 45 different angles is not at all difficult once one has modelled and animated the event n the 3D software. Here we see the same destruction sequence from two different camera angles, it was modelled and animated only once but rendered twice:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V70FrE6XoCk<br />Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-24709867550465627412014-01-04T20:52:12.821-08:002014-01-04T20:52:12.821-08:00Excellent, I'm really pleased we have Simon &#...Excellent, I'm really pleased we have Simon 'Shack' Hytten here now talking about fakery of images and video, because I can pick apart his statements and demonstrate his lack of knowledge of CGI.<br /><br />"the spire seen "dustifying" in mid-air in some of the WTC1 collapse animations is every bit as silly and unreal / physically absurd as "Flight 175" going 'poof' and totally vanishing into WTC2 in other 9/11 animations."<br /><br />Without knowledge of the physical forces that were in effect then we can say very little about the apparent dustification of the steel of the spire. The theory put forward by Don Fox that intense radiation from a neutron bomb explosion caused the dustification is one possible explanation.<br /><br />"See, to animate that steel spire's gradual collapse in any sort of realistic way would have required lots of complex CGI work (far more complex than the surrounding 'pyroclastic' smoke - one of the simplest special fx used in countless action movies). It is a far, far easier to simply use a blur tool to make that spire disappear (or "dustify" - as you like to call it."<br /><br />Here Mr Hytten displays a complete lack of understanding of computer graphics. It is actually far simpler to model, in 3D, the spire collapsing than to model it turning to dust. A 3D model of the spire would be composed of relatively few points as it is a simple shape. For instance, to represent a cube in 3D requires only 8 points,one for each corner. The spire, being made up of rectangular shapes would be simple to model in 3D and require relatively few points. Therefore, it would be simple to animate it's collapse. However, to animate a dustification is far more complex. Forget any notions of a 'blur tool' as Hytten suggests, that is not how 3D animations of complex physical phenomena work. Also disregard his ludicrous statement that pyroclastic smoke is one of the simplest FX. While solid objects like cubes or the spire itself are simple to model and animate in 3D, effects such as smoke and fie are extremely complex and difficult to model and animate in 3D. In order to represent a cloud of smoke, the software creates millions of particles, think of each one as a tiny 3D sphere. It then has to apply toeach particle, individually, the motions that it has calculated using a pre-programmed set of rules that take into account variables such as gravity and air turbulence. In fact, modelling and animating effects such as smoke and fire is so difficult and complex in 3D that instead, animators almost always chose to use 2D composites where they layer the smoke/dust over their 3D renderings, see this discussion on the subject:<br /><br />http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?131260-Creating-dust-and-smoke-elements-in-LW-w-an-eye-towards-compositing-Tips&s=90141bb6f4230b5933d3de2b5c257086<br /><br />Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-29147409265402150272014-01-04T19:49:05.733-08:002014-01-04T19:49:05.733-08:00A geostationary orbit can only be achieved at an a...A geostationary orbit can only be achieved at an altitude very close to 35,786 km (22,236 mi), and directly above the Equator. This equates to an orbital velocity of 3.07 km/s (1.91 mi/s) or a period of 1,436 minutes, which equates to almost exactly one sidereal day or 23.934461223 hours. This ensures that the satellite is locked to the Earth's rotational period and has a stationary footprint on the ground. All geostationary satellites have to be located on this ring.<br /><br />A combination of lunar gravity, solar gravity, and the flattening of the Earth at its poles causes a precession motion of the orbital plane of any geostationary object, with a period of about 53 years and an initial inclination gradient of about 0.85 degrees per year, achieving a maximum inclination of 15 degrees after 26.5 years. To correct for this orbital perturbation, regular orbital stationkeeping manoeuvres are necessary, amounting to a delta-v of approximately 50 m/s per year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-4416253088718043362014-01-04T19:43:45.691-08:002014-01-04T19:43:45.691-08:00The notion of a geosynchronous satellite for commu...The notion of a geosynchronous satellite for communication purposes was first published in 1928 (but not widely so) by Herman Potočnik. The first appearance of a geostationary orbit in popular literature was in the first Venus Equilateral story by George O. Smith, but Smith did not go into details. British Science Fiction author Arthur C. Clarke disseminated the idea widely, with more details on how it would work, in a 1945 paper entitled "Extra-Terrestrial Relays — Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?", published in Wireless World magazine. Clarke acknowledged the connection in his introduction to The Complete Venus Equilateral. The orbit, which Clarke first described as useful for broadcast and relay communications satellites, is sometimes called the Clarke Orbit. Similarly, the Clarke Belt is the part of space about 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above sea level, in the plane of the Equator, where near-geostationary orbits may be implemented. The Clarke Orbit is about 265,000 km (165,000 mi) longAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-58013918191374617312014-01-04T18:13:55.469-08:002014-01-04T18:13:55.469-08:00Not at all, Simon.
Cover-ups are notoriously slop...Not at all, Simon.<br /><br />Cover-ups are notoriously sloppy. As you know (victim doctored photos, etc.). Inconvenient moments showing up -- per your own work -- belie the idea of all-fake-all-the-time.<br /><br />Having said that, I know you stretch on further, to suggest that those inconvenient moments were all planted to seed the all-fake record with nonsense.<br /><br />However:<br /><br />They look real in part or whole, when there is an inconvenience (except by impression, a physic on the spire from nukes which you do not yet understand, and I did not for some time, either -- but impression aside, if something dustified the dust would blow exactly that way in air and something falling through would fall and anything made dusty would blow off too). The ball vs blob; the beeps of co-ordination; the whitewash and edit for the spire and later the footage with overlaid dust over fully dustifying spire in double-exposure, a sloppy and ad hoc attempt to cover up.<br /><br />It is your overall logic which gets uncareful, but I understand where you got it. It is easy to forget what the preparations would be likely to think of and what they would not (layers, yes, untoward moments still happening); and what would be the way different people would try to cover up inconvenient moments (a blob here, a banner there, a re-edit there, a whitewash there, an overlay of dust there).<br /><br />No, only some inconsistencies actually disqualify the others; some inconsistencies PROVE the others.<br /><br />Be careful, Simon.<br /><br />With love, actually.<br /><br />ClareClare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-39235309252955762702014-01-04T17:22:44.702-08:002014-01-04T17:22:44.702-08:00Clare,
the spire seen "dustifying" in m...Clare,<br /><br />the spire seen "dustifying" in mid-air in some of the WTC1 collapse animations is every bit as silly and unreal / physically absurd as "Flight 175" going 'poof' and totally vanishing into WTC2 in other 9/11 animations. Let me try and explain why the animators would have opted to make the spire seemingly "dustify".<br /><br />See, to animate that steel spire's gradual collapse in any sort of realistic way would have required lots of complex CGI work (far more complex than the surrounding 'pyroclastic' smoke - one of the simplest special fx used in countless action movies). It is a far, far easier to simply use a blur tool to make that spire disappear (or "dustify" - as you like to call it. The problem is: you're describing a cartoon). <br /><br />For this very same reason, the 9/11 animation team chose to just make "Flight175" crudely disappear (in a puff of dust) into the tower façade. To be sure, it would have been a major headache for the animators to fabricate 45 videos from different angles - if they had chosen to make the 'plane' crash more realistically - shredding into a thousand pieces upon impact. Those thousand pieces falling down on the sidewalk would have had to be reproduced precisely - from multiple angles - in each of their "Flight175" animations... A true nightmare - even for a top Hollywood / Disney animation crew. <br /><br />Having said that, they still thought that they could get away with their farcical / outlandish / unphysical "top-down" WTC collapse imagery - counting on the fact that most people do not analyze imagery on a daily basis. This is, however, what we do at Cluesforum - and this is why we know that all the available tower collapse imagery is as fake as a three-dollar bill. No matter what Dr Fetzer keeps stating, the available collapse videos & photos are NOT in the least consistent with each other. Their comparative analysis presents such a large number of inconsistencies so as to mutually disqualify each other, one by one - very much like the 45 or so animations of the "Flight175 crash". <br /><br />Your logic is flawed, Clare, when you argue that they wouldn't have put "damning" stuff into the collapse imagery - like those few squibs "exposed" by the Loosechange crew, for instance). Of course they would. This is why we are still here arguing about these silly animations. Just what they wished for !<br /><br />Simon Shacknorwegianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17995678585264337010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-71639290062664307852014-01-04T15:41:19.403-08:002014-01-04T15:41:19.403-08:00Not at all, OBF. I don't have a "pet"...Not at all, OBF. I don't have a "pet" theory, only ones which seem to explain ALL the evidence.<br /><br />The evidence is (from many things in life) that people planning something really don't tend to be as wild as your ideas are (how you admit, probably, wild that they sound, anyway). As such, in a cover-up, "committee thinking" tends to try to plan for contingencies but cobble together what they think people will believe. A bit of sleight of hand here and there, some real imagery here and there, a refusal to release certain info, a dismissiveness to agents and police and citizens on the scene who do give a bit of real perception, etc.<br /><br />Now, also, we know that the kinds of inconveniences found in the footage:<br /><br />a) add up reasonably into a general picture of a weird effect in physics but which does have some basis in aftereffects and also in possibly ionizing nuclear physics, for one thing<br /><br />b) that the kinds of inconveniences which are not about the takedown at all (such as the "ball" vs black blob plane) indicate, even if you can't tell the natural photography of the ball footage, that one or both must be fake but the ball is highly inconvenient, and in normal life, news, etc., when there are switches between cameras or feeds, even doctored feeds as here, someone might well not switch at the right time.<br /><br />We have much else: the beeping co-ordination, audially, etc.<br /><br />Shack's work supports much, but not quite the conclusions he ultimately makes from it.<br /><br />They have to have added crowds to some scenes, because they function as green-screen and whole-section glitches on the body.<br /><br />Other scenes not only generally look nice -- I don't mean the faraway crowds with seemingly imperfect shadows and possibly mid-layer fake buildings; I mean general messy street scenes with real chaos and lighting -- but also look real. One even catches the planting of the too-small engine at Church and Murray.<br /><br />However, a nice posed photo of that engine, looking perfect with only feet showing and a perfectly lit and placed lamppost in front, is likely staged after the event.<br /><br />One has to keep perspective here of what is likely to be faked, before positing testing the imagery. Yes, if all images had faking in them utterly, we could say that 100% were fake; but with contraindications and natural photography look to some quite obviously (such as planting the engine and the ball and the layer with the dust cloud and spire becoming an edit and whitewash), we have to posit that much of what happened was spotty coverup and set-up of how the images would be shown, obscuring front layer and back layer (sky) of events, for very real reasons.<br /><br />People such as you, currently, are forgetting that most people would tend to think "cover up this or that" not "fake the whole".Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-35610045116393996342014-01-04T15:29:23.041-08:002014-01-04T15:29:23.041-08:00I raised this point, Al.
They needed some real la... I raised this point, Al.<br /><br />They needed some real layer in case of an untoward event everyone noticed. Also, it is the nature of cover-up to pre-plan only some things, only some parts of coverup or reality. The 100% fake is "easier" idea is only an oversimplified picture of human nature; when there is 100% fake EVENT, meaning completely not as they said (such as the narrative for Sandy Hook), the coverup in the sense of imagery and interviews and after-event news conferences is where the faking of story mismatches; but not that images are 100% fake.<br /><br />The spire, however, is so detailed in all shots and entirely plausible IF it was physical, plausible in the sense that IF there were a column of dust and a piece at the top not quite converted yet but falling INTO the effect which dustifies, then it would look exactly like that from a visual sense: dust or sand moves the way the dust there moves.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.com