What Technology Inserts CGI Into Live TV?

[mynameis]

What evidence is there that TV Fakery novices compiled that is evidence of CGI is used before on 911 other than September Clues prior to 911?

CGI is complicated computer generated rendering of: locations, planes, people, cities; into a live shot.

Edit:It is supposed to read: "What Technology Inserts CGI Into Live TV?"

[dave52]

1996 - http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5491517.html
1996 - http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=1996024115&IA=WO1996024115&DISPLAY=DESC
1998 - http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5808695/description.html
2000 - http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6100925/description.html

There was information about this being intigrated into the WESCAM system, but that appears to be hard to find at the moment (broken links etc).

[mynameis]

Nothing in those describe for CGI and rendering of 3D images in live video.

1.) This is not a patent for frame by frame live video.

2.) This is not a patent for CGI video.

3.) This is a patent for 2-D insertions. For this to work for 3-D the shots from live helicopters would need to compile the rendering of 3-D objects into the 3-D space.

4.) This is not a patent for CGI video as I described for your link to #3.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now have one of the NPT people contact and prove their case (It's a very short list):

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=3693

Scitex Corporation
Type: Public Company
Address: P.O. Box 330/Hamada Street, Industrial Park, 46103 Herzlia B, Israel
Telephone: 972-9-959-7222
Fax: 972-9-950-2922
Web: http://www.scitex.com
Employees: 3,400
Sales: $676 million (1997)
Stock Exchanges: NASDAQ
Ticker Symbol: SCIXF
Founded: 1968


Princeton Video Image, Inc.
15 Princess Road
Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648
UNITED STATES
Phone: 609-912-9400 (Ext. 1135)
Fax: 609-912-0044
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



#1.

Inventor(s):

Scitex America Corporation
Kreitman, Haim
Bar-El, Dan
Amir, Yoel
Tirosh, Ehud

Examiners
Primary: Kostak, Victor R.
Assistant: Miller, John


#2.

Inventor(s):
PRINCETON VIDEO IMAGE, INC.

ROSSER, Roy
DAS, Subhodev
TAN, Yi VON
KAENEL, Peter


#3

Inventor(s):
PRINCETON VIDEO IMAGE, INC.

ROSSER, Roy
DAS, Subhodev
TAN, Yi VON


#4


Inventor(s):
PRINCETON VIDEO IMAGE, INC.
Rosser, Roy J.
Tan, Yi
Kennedy, Jr., Howard J.
Jeffers, James L.
DiCicco, Darrell S.
Gong, Ximin

[dave52]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the last bit. I just spent 20 mins or so searching for patents that probably matched the question....

What's the link to the other forum for...?

[mynameis]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the last bit. I just spent 20 mins or so searching for patents that probably matched the question....

What's the link to the other forum for...?

It is a link of interest. I don't think that those patents match the claims of 911. Anyhow those are the key inventors to ask if you want to ferret out more information about the product. It wouldn't be hard to obtain a straight answer from them would it? Apparently, NPTer's have their hands tied and are might be unwilling to seek out answers to their questions? Why hasn't there been an interview of any of these experts in their field? You don't necessarily need to claim you are investigating 911, but just the technology? I find it very dubious that if what NPTers claim as "Fakery" but yet hasn't a single interview or expert testimony to refute claims. Not only does the lack of investigation skills seem troublesome, but the attitude that NPTers have is a chip on their shoulders the size of Plymouth Rock. So to me it is beginning to look as though NPTer's are 10% truther's and 90% shills because of their failure to conduct interviews, document, and support their claims. disingenuous is the word.

[killtown]

"What Technology Inserts CGI Into Live TV?"

Watch this video (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-use-real-planes.html), it will explain it.

[mynameis]

There's still no evidence that this technology works with 3D graphics prior to 911, nor does the 2D technology convince people otherwise. Secondly, the eyewitnesses are not computer generated and uncompromisable and neither are the victims. My opinion is still the same as before NPT fails! :D

[graflok]

My opinion is still the same as before

Apparently, so is everyone else's.

[smariot]

There's still no evidence that this technology works with 3D graphics prior to 911, nor does the 2D technology convince people otherwise. Secondly, the eyewitnesses are not computer generated and uncompromisable and neither are the victims. My opinion is still the same as before NPT fails! :D

1) Augmented Reality
2) What are witnesses going to see other than fast moving blurs, which they'll later associate with the planes they were told they were repeatedly for hundred of hours straight?
3) I'm pretty sure something did hit the buildings, and why not use the planes? It saves you having to worry about adding CGI to live video and the problem of 'what do I do with a bunch of planes and people that were supposed to be destroyed'.

[killtown]

There's still no evidence that this technology works with 3D graphics prior to 911
Who said it was 3D?

I love how some hater planers claim victory of debunking a theory no-planers don't hold.

[lizzy]

"What Technology Inserts CGI Into Live TV?"

Watch this video (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-use-real-planes.html), it will explain it.

Great blogspots killtown.:) I think the NPT has alot of merit.

[killtown]

Great blogspots killtown.:) I think the NPT has alot of merit.
Thanks lizzy. Nice to see more open-minded and progressive thinkers here!

[mynameis]

Who said it was 3D?

I love how some hater planers claim victory of debunking a theory no-planers don't hold.

If it was 2D you wouldn't expect people to see an aircraft from the ground, in the towers, from helicopters, from various angles.

[redman]

I have been looking into the NPT a lot more lately. To me it's not a big issue if you believe it or not because you come to the same conclusion at the end of it. And that is, the official story is a crock and that people in high places were behind it without a shadow of doubt in my mind.

But it's a interesting theory, and to be honest I have enjoyed the september clues video, and enjoyed that link ya just give Killtown.

It wouldn't surprise me if the NPT was the truth, nothing surprises me much these days. LOL


But like I say, it's not a major issue IMO and I don't understand why people argue about it all day long and label each other as " Plane huggers " and shit like that. Pretty fucking childish if ya ask me.

[gutcassidy]

"What Technology Inserts CGI Into Live TV?"

Watch this video (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-use-real-planes.html), it will explain it.

Well worth the seven and a half minutes. Great vid killtown. Appreciated.

[mynameis]

911 TV fakers would have to insert 2D images from various angles for one or more towers, or the more illogical impossible 3D images. Now how would they specifically choose where to cover the trajectory of a fast moving object such as a missile or other exotic weaponry that everyone in New York and inside the towers witnessed which is some kind of large aircraft? All this across multiple stations and multiple angle insertions.

[dave52]

911 TV fakers would have to insert 2D images from various angles for one or more towers, or the more illogical impossible 3D images. Now how would they specifically choose where to cover the trajectory of a fast moving object such as a missile or other exotic weaponry that everyone in New York and inside the towers witnessed which is some kind of large aircraft? All this across multiple stations and multiple angle insertions.

There were only a handful of live shots that needed to be doctored quickly (and let's not forget - nothing on tv is actually live, so there would've been a little time to get this right). There was time to perfect the other footage, because that was seen later in the day.

Two things about witnesses - firstly, people are easily fooled in stressful situations (and easily manipulated after the event).

Secondly, you aren't in a position to take on this argument if you're going to "bump" a no-plane at the pentagon thread elsewhere on this board. Surely this is mutually exclusive?

I'm off to the V-Fest now - have a great weekend...!

[sidlittle]

Now how would they specifically choose where to cover the trajectory of a fast moving object such as a missile or other exotic weaponry that everyone in New York and inside the towers witnessed which is some kind of large aircraft?

well, they didn't do it very well did they? That's demonstrated in videos like September clues

Your second part of the question is fallacious and full of the usual circular logic - "there were witnesses because there were planes"

[mynameis]

well, they didn't do it very well did they? That's demonstrated in videos like September clues

Your second part of the question is fallacious and full of the usual circular logic - "there were witnesses because there were planes"

Unfortunately September Clues doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort. A is supposed to lead to B. There is no relationship what so ever to the capable technology as its and the weaponry.

[mynameis]

There were only a handful of live shots that needed to be doctored quickly (and let's not forget - nothing on tv is actually live, so there would've been a little time to get this right). There was time to perfect the other footage, because that was seen later in the day.

Two things about witnesses - firstly, people are easily fooled in stressful situations (and easily manipulated after the event).

Secondly, you aren't in a position to take on this argument if you're going to "bump" a no-plane at the pentagon thread elsewhere on this board. Surely this is mutually exclusive?

I'm off to the V-Fest now - have a great weekend...!

Hand full of live shots? Each frame is a shot dave52 and there were multiple stations and helicopters taking footage. Everything I am talking about would have been shot is live dave52. I don't think that what you think is fakery matters when people in the helicopters, in the towers, on the ground witnessed the events. Some footage wasn't seen until later in the day dave52, it also happened on TV live. Your stressed witness excuse doesn't hold water, there's too many witnesses. Only npt is easily manipulated to stretch your excuses for the lack of research and documented evidence. Just what is "You aren't in a position to take on the argument" supposed to mean? I hope you have fun at V-Fest.... :)

[paatal]

Unfortunately September Clues doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort. A is supposed to lead to B. There is no relationship what so ever to the capable technology as its and the weaponry.
September clues shows 1 very good example of were they messed up there filming. One was in the helicopter footage that had zoomed in prior to the 2nd plane hitting. You clearly see the nose of the plane undamaged extruding out the opposite side of the building. Which is an impossibility for 2 reasons. First, even if the nose of the plane had not gone through the exterior steel columns, the interior steel columns w/ concrete encasement, and avoided all steel joists w/ concrete flooring 8"-16" thick minumum. And had only penetrated two layers of brick and wooden 2x4 studs as well as several layers of drywall the nose of the plane wood not hold it's original shape and the plane would not have exited the other side without slowing down. Reason #2, Had the nose of the plane managed the impossible feat of exiting the building unscathed one of two things would of happened: The cockpit would have been blown from the building after the explosion (the explosion occurred milliseconds after you see the cockpit), or you would have seen it remain were it exited after the explosion.
The only argument you can make toward the September Clues footage is that all or some of the footage shown is falsified. Meaning the footage reviewed is not the original aired footage. Personally I haven't researched to find out if the footage from the September clues was original. The commentator refers you to a website for credibility. If the website shows the original footage as the same then to argue the point is completly asinine regardless of your comprehension of the technological means used to pull off 9/11.
Most people won't believe it because they are to emboldend with the idea and that they couldn't be fooled. Personally the NPT seems nuts, but if that planes nose whent through the building as shown then it is inconcievable to think otherwise.

[mynameis]

September clues shows 1 very good example of were they messed up there filming. One was in the helicopter footage that had zoomed in prior to the 2nd plane hitting. You clearly see the nose of the plane undamaged extruding out the opposite side of the building. Which is an impossibility for 2 reasons. First, even if the nose of the plane had not gone through the exterior steel columns, the interior steel columns w/ concrete encasement, and avoided all steel joists w/ concrete flooring 8"-16" thick minumum. And had only penetrated two layers of brick and wooden 2x4 studs as well as several layers of drywall the nose of the plane wood not hold it's original shape and the plane would not have exited the other side without slowing down. Reason #2, Had the nose of the plane managed the impossible feat of exiting the building unscathed one of two things would of happened: The cockpit would have been blown from the building after the explosion (the explosion occurred milliseconds after you see the cockpit), or you would have seen it remain were it exited after the explosion.
The only argument you can make toward the September Clues footage is that all or some of the footage shown is falsified. Meaning the footage reviewed is not the original aired footage. Personally I haven't researched to find out if the footage from the September clues was original. The commentator refers you to a website for credibility. If the website shows the original footage as the same then to argue the point is completly asinine regardless of your comprehension of the technological means used to pull off 9/11.
Most people won't believe it because they are to emboldend with the idea and that they couldn't be fooled. Personally the NPT seems nuts, but if that planes nose whent through the building as shown then it is inconcievable to think otherwise.

Whoever told you it was a missile they lied.

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p177/chrisfarb/plane.jpg

[branjo]

I am under no illusions that these were any kind of commercial jets, maybe in shape but not by design. Don't forget if these were drone planes then they would be reinforced to handle both the speed and whatever they were designed to hit. They didn't just choose these planes straight of the tarmac, paint them and send them on their way. All the weight that would have been the seats and luggage etc in a standard plane would have been replaced for extra reinforcements to the wings and fuselage.

mynameis vs brickwall....lol