Fake helicopter flies through WTC smoke @ 8:59am

[killtown]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngg4A4vQR5c

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/5572/fakeassheliwtctv4.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngg4A4vQR5c)

Notice that this "helicopter" creates no disturbance to the WTC smoke when it is seen passing through it.

My guess is that the perps were doing some TV fakery test runs to test out the video layering right before the big finale of their CGI 2nd plane hit.

That's why you see all these helicopter silhouettes flying mostly in straight lines past the WTC as if they had better places to go instead of hovering nearby to film the smoking towers.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/10/daredevil-helicopter-pilot-or-fake-ass.html


(Let's see if we have some helicopter-huggers after this one. ;)

[parmy]

so all those thousands of people in the area saw a cgi image did they????:o

[graflok]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngg4A4vQR5c

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/5572/fakeassheliwtctv4.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngg4A4vQR5c)

Notice that this "helicopter" creates no disturbance to the WTC smoke when it is seen passing through it.

My guess is that the perps were doing some TV fakery test runs to test out the video layering right before the big finale of their CGI 2nd plane hit.

That's why you see all these helicopter silhouettes flying mostly in straight lines past the WTC as if they had better places to go instead of hovering nearby to film the smoking towers.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/10/daredevil-helicopter-pilot-or-fake-ass.html


(Let's see if we have some helicopter-huggers after this one. ;)

Excellent post.

Let's see -- the WTC towers were made of butter, Boeing 767s have
disappearing wings, planes don't slow down as they crash through steel
buildings, 3 billion foot pounds of enery can hit a skyscraper without it
budging an inch and now helicopters can fly through smoke without
disturbing it.

Gee, what's so hard to believe about the "plane theory"? :D

[jalexander]

so all those thousands of people in the area saw a cgi image did they????:o

Can't get enough of the responses like this. They choose to ignore all of the people who claim to have seen no plane, or a missle, or explosions, and then try and use the "people who saw a plane" as proof.

Have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZVaL1NaFQ

I think maybe it is time to focus on the content of TV Fakery's claims, instead of ignoring it while parroting the "eyewitness" line. :eek:

[krakhead]

So it was in no way a helicopter flying BEHIND the smoke?

[graflok]

So it was in no way a helicopter flying BEHIND the smoke?

The 'copter can be clearly seen in front of the background smoke before it disappears into it.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/2/19/1770022/heli.jpg

[mynameis]

So it was in no way a helicopter flying BEHIND the smoke?

Aye. To clarify. It's flying behind both towers. It's another opitcal illusion.

[krakhead]

The 'copter can be clearly seen in front of the smoke.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/2/19/1770022/heli.jpg

Or maybe THROUGH the smoke? Smoke tends not to be completely opaque once it begins to spread out as far as I'm aware.

[krakhead]

Messrs killtown and graflok - may I recommend you have a look at this thread - http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37496

[graflok]

Or maybe THROUGH the smoke? Smoke tends not to be completely opaque once it begins to spread out as far as I'm aware.

So, the smoke is transparent to helicopters but not to the sky behind it?
I don't think so.

[krakhead]

So, the smoke is transparent to helicopters but not to the sky behind it?
I don't think so.

And if you read the article in the thread I recommended you'd already know - what the thinker thinks, the prover proves...........

[graflok]

And if you read the article in the thread I recommended you'd already know - what the thinker thinks, the prover proves...........

So, you believe anything that psychologists tell you?

Poor boy. :D

[krakhead]

So, you believe anything that psychologists tell you?

Poor boy. :D

Well you're right about the 'poor' bit! ;)

And I guess you're not willing and/or able to see the point of the thread I directed you to? :(

[ukor]

Here we go again: Killtown once more attempting what he's proved himself to be spectacularly useless at over the years. Which is interpreting 2-D images into what's happening in the 3-D world.

Let's see what he's selling this time.

Notice that this "helicopter" creates no disturbance to the WTC smoke when it is seen passing through it.

Given the camera position, you can't tell that the helicopter is even passing through the smoke at all. It just looks that way from the camera's perspective. In fact looking more closely at the shadow form on the underside of the plume, it seems he's flying through a gap where the smoke plume dips down.

My guess is that the perps were doing some TV fakery test runs to test out the video layering right before the big finale of their CGI 2nd plane hit.

Gosh really? I bet there's some moron somewhere out there who'll think you sound like you know what you're talking about too.

That's why you see all these helicopter silhouettes flying mostly in straight lines past the WTC as if they had better places to go instead of hovering nearby to film the smoking towers.

And now you're an expert in what all airborne services should doing in the event of an urban disaster too?
Is there no end to what you feel ably qualified to comment on?

Maybe you could get Shure to call the chopper pilot.

Lollers.

[killtown]

Ah, I knew it wouldn't be long until the helicopter-huggers arrived.

To squash their "behind the smoke" theory:
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5050/wtcheliexitdw5.gif

The CGI helicopter clearly comes out of the smoke.

[ukor]

Ah, I knew it wouldn't be long until the helicopter-huggers arrived.
To squash their "behind the smoke" theory:
The CGI helicopter clearly comes out of the smoke.

You clearly can't state that as a fact - that's only how you choose to interpret 3 dimensions from a 2-D image.
And blab about it, of course.

If you're serious (lol) about this ...er...."research" you ... er... "do", then get some contemporaneous images from other angles, fuzzy math yourself the helicopter size, the distances and angles, the volume of the smoke etc. etc. and generally put some effort into this garbage you produce.

It'll still be garbage, but at least it'll look like you tried.

[graflok]

Well you're right about the 'poor' bit! ;)

And I guess you're not willing and/or able to see the point of the thread I directed you to? :(

Seem irrelevant to me.

[krakhead]

Seem irrelevant to me.

Never mind then :(

[branjo]

This no plane theory is fucking embarrassing and a perfect tin foil hat story for the fuckers that planned 911 to make fun of anyone questioning it. This is the kind of thing the FOX news network would love to get a hold off and remark how unamerican and patriotically callas this is and then everyone that thinks the official story is true will decide that anyone who speaks out against it is one of these confused no plane people

This kind of thread needs to stop, it is so counter productive it is insane to continue it.

3000 people died, the "how" means absolutely fucking NOTHING!, its the "WHY" and "WHO" that is worth our time.

[graflok]

Gosh really? I bet there's some moron somewhere out there who'll think you sound like you know what you're talking about too.

Another example of "plane theory debate." :rolleyes:



Is there no end to what you feel ably qualified to comment on?



I'd like to point out that you post comments on exactly the same topics
as killtown.

[ukor]

Another example of "plane theory debate."


Merely commenting on the Killtown's usual groundless speculation as if his know-nothing would-be technical sounding evaluations are worth spit.
It's the equivalent to the nonsense that gets spouted on the bridge of the Enterprise or the console of the Tardis.
"CGI rehearsals".
LMFAO.

I'd like to point out that you post comments on exactly the same topics
as killtown.

I'd like to point out that taking someone's quote out of context is meaningless.

Mine related to the Killtown's alleging to have a clue about what several helicopters probably from several public services 'should' be doing.

Like they'd know. Yet you defend it.

Whatever.

[dave52]

This is the kind of thing the FOX news network would love to get a hold of

I'm staying out of the main "helicopter" debate here, but I can't really ignore this one. There has only ever been one interview about no-planes on Fox. It was with Morgan Reynolds. Pray tell, how many times has Griffin or the Jones boys been on there...?

[thematrix]

Notice that this "helicopter" creates no disturbance to the WTC smoke when it is seen passing through it.

My guess is that the perps were doing some TV fakery test runs

Killtown - the quality of the video footage you are analysing is barely good enough to make out the helicopter.

How is it that you can determine so categorically that it's a CGI helicopter?

Exactly how can we tell that the smoke is undisturbed given the limitations of the video capture method and subsequent processing involved?

My guess is you don't know what you are talking about - but if you could walk through the logic used and the reasons why you can get to such a concrete conclusion based on what I as a clueless video layperson see as fuzzy footage I would appreciate it.

[graflok]

Merely commenting on the Killtown's usual groundless speculation as if his know-nothing would-be technical sounding evaluations are worth spit.
It's the equivalent to the nonsense that gets spouted on the bridge of the Enterprise or the console of the Tardis.
"CGI rehearsals".
LMFAO.

Well, when you're all done with LYFAO, you might want to look at your own
know-nothing would-be technical sounding evaluations. :)



I'd like to point out that taking someone's quote out of context is meaningless.

OK, here's the entire context of your quote:


And now you're an expert in what all airborne services should doing in the event of an urban disaster too?
Is there no end to what you feel ably qualified to comment on?

Maybe you could get Shure to call the chopper pilot.

Lollers.


It doesn't seem to me that it changes anything but we'll let the readers
decide.



Mine related to the Killtown's alleging to have a clue about what several helicopters probably from several public services 'should' be doing.

Like they'd know. Yet you defend it.

Whatever.

I defend killtown's right to post his views. I even defend your right to post
your views. I just object to your insults, which aren't helping your case by
the way. They only serve to underscore that you are not impartially
considering the arguments. :)

[ukor]

I defend killtown's right to post his views. I even defend your right to post
your views. I just object to your insults, which aren't helping your case by
the way. They only serve to underscore that you are not impartially
considering the arguments. :)

Nobody questioned the Killtown's 'right' to post their views, but what they say is up for critique.

And as for impatially considering the arguments - frankly their one dimensional analyses insult the intelligence, if not yours.

[helloperator]

You're all disinfo agents

[graflok]

And as for impatially considering the arguments - frankly their one dimensional analyses insult the intelligence, if not yours.

:confused: Is that English?

Trust me, the last thing of yours that would be insulted is your intelligence. :D

[ukor]

:confused: Is that English?

Trust me, the last thing of yours that would be insulted is your intelligence. :D

Oh! Oooh touche Oscar - I don't think, as that was my line.

So attempted wittery aside, you still can't actually bring yourself to support this latest less-than-earth-shattering ..er...'revelation' from the Killtowns?

Hardly suprising.

Let's have a think now..... hmmm.
The 'missing' Rector Street (chortle) ...... the 'moving' Verrezano Narrows bridge (chuckle), trying doggedly to discredit Val McClatchey's photo .... that makes a big fat zero in the Killtowns' exposure of media fakery in what? ...four years? Excuse me while I LMFAO again.

Look at it this way - at least they don't have a reputation to protect.

It'd be almost too funny if it wasn't for the gaggle of worshipful dupes who want to believe despite a record of unbroken Killtown failure.

Understand this: the Killtown's are nothing to do with the search for 911 truth and everything to do with establishing a conspiracy brand name.

[dangermouse]

maybe this makes things clearer

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=98hO97ky-sA

[krakhead]

maybe this makes things clearer

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=98hO97ky-sA

LMAO! I thought of that, but couldn't be bothered with searching for it!

I love that scene! :D

And, more seriously, it perfectly illustrates your point........

;)

[graflok]

Oh! Oooh touche Oscar - I don't think, as that was my line.

So attempted wittery aside, you still can't actually bring yourself to support this latest less-than-earth-shattering ..er...'revelation' from the Killtowns?

Hardly suprising.

Let's have a think now..... hmmm.
The 'missing' Rector Street (chortle) ...... the 'moving' Verrezano Narrows bridge (chuckle), trying doggedly to discredit Val McClatchey's photo .... that makes a big fat zero in the Killtowns' exposure of media fakery in what? ...four years? Excuse me while I LMFAO again.

Look at it this way - at least they don't have a reputation to protect.

It'd be almost too funny if it wasn't for the gaggle of worshipful dupes who want to believe despite a record of unbroken Killtown failure.

Understand this: the Killtown's are nothing to do with the search for 911 truth and everything to do with establishing a conspiracy brand name.

I find killtown's post interesting simply because the only logical conclusion
is that the WTC planes were faked in some way. A conclusion that requires
at least a 3-digit IQ to see.

I also enjoy the way the planer's howl and rant at any suggestion of fakery.

Very entertaining stuff. :D

[krakhead]

I find killtown's post interesting simply because the only logical conclusion
is that the WTC planes were faked in some way. A conclusion that requires
at least a 3-digit IQ to see.

I also enjoy the way the planer's howl and rant at any suggestion of fakery.

Very entertaining stuff. :D

I don't hold any faith in the NPT and my IQ is 147 (FACT!)

Therefore ALL your arguments are now null and void from here on in! ;)

[graflok]

I don't hold any faith in the NPT and my IQ is 147 (FACT!)

Therefore ALL your arguments are now null and void from here on in! ;)

Shows you how invalid those IQ tests are these days. :D

[ukor]

I find killtown's post interesting simply because the only logical conclusion is that the WTC planes were faked in some way.

You mean, in some mysterious way that you can neither describe or show examples of, yet you get a warm squishy feeling inside from knowing that you believe it against all logical exposition.

Right. I'm sure its a nice hobby.

A conclusion that requires
at least a 3-digit IQ to see.

I take it you're being flattering about yourself here?
In which case you forgot to add that in your own case, your three digits probably go to two decimal places.

I also enjoy the way the planer's howl and rant at any suggestion of fakery. Very entertaining stuff. :D

Almost as much as I find the evangelical fervour of the evidence-less a hoot, no doubt.

[graflok]

You mean, in some mysterious way that you can neither describe or show examples of, yet you get a warm squishy feeling inside from knowing that you believe it against all logical exposition.

Neither mysterious nor squishy. Warm? Possibly.

And anyway -- I thought it was a Boeing 767 that was squishy, at least
the way you planers explain how they can magically melt into steel buildings
without even slowing down.

Or, maybe it's just your heads that are squishy? We may never know. :confused:


I take it you're being flattering about yourself here?
In which case you forgot to add that in your own case, your three digits probably go to two decimal places.

You forgot to stick out your tongue at me, like this: :p
and say, "neener, neener!"


Almost as much as I find the evangelical fervour of the evidence-less a hoot, no doubt.

Well, when you're all done hooting you might want to try thinking. :D

[ukor]

Neither mysterious nor squishy. Warm? Possibly.

And anyway -- I thought it was a Boeing 767 that was squishy, at least
the way you planers explain how they can magically melt into steel buildings
without even slowing down.

If you've ever heard the violence of the WTC2 impact, you'll know that there was nothing melting or squishy about it.

But your use of such received language is a good indication of how misdirected you've been by all those lo-rent slo-mo videos.

Which in effect tells me you're yet another repeater with no analysis and nothing to add.

[endlessvista]

Christ this is pathetic. The chopper is about a half a mile away from the smoke.

9-11 is a religion. Like the eejits who see images of jesus in piss stains.:rolleyes:

[graflok]

If you've ever heard the violence of the WTC2 impact, you'll know that there was nothing melting or squishy about it.

If you've ever heard a joke (or, rather if you've ever understood one)
you'd know the meaning of my comment. :)


But your use of such received language is a good indication of how misdirected you've been by all those lo-rent slo-mo videos.

"Lo-rent slo-mo videos"? Have no idea what that's referring to. You're not
watching porn are you? Or, maybe that's a planer's idea of an insult? :confused:


Which in effect tells me you're yet another repeater with no analysis and nothing to add.

Boy, you sure do get a lot of imaginary "meaning" out of things that people
say, don't you? That tells me you are a mental midget desperately clinging
to the only thing you have left: corny, misworded insults. :D

[ukor]

If you've ever heard a joke (or, rather if you've ever understood one) you'd know the meaning of my comment.

In the course of your 'joke' you introduced the keyword 'melting'. Other common ones are 'floating' and 'gliding'.

These words are boringly common features of no-planer forum lore used in discussion of the "Lo-rent slo-mo videos"? you pretend you don't know about and make another cack-handed 'joke' about.
But of course you know the ones - to say otherwise is just another example of the dishonesty which seems to be imherent in no planers.
The videos I of course mean are those - as if you didn't know - that attempt to hypnotically condition you that 500mph 150ton impacts involve 'melting', 'gliding' and 'floating'. Those little words that indicate an alarming and major detachment from actual events.

Boy, you sure do get a lot of imaginary "meaning" out of things that people say, don't you?

Yeah, language is funny that way - especially when used by those such as yourself who blab more than they need to say.

[stealth_0073]

did you no the helicopters in rick siegel's 911 eyewitness are fake killtown
there just orbs disguised as choppers and it can be proved by further examination
by using find edges and invert. high quality dvd is also needed

thats why alex jones told rick siegel to remove the helicopters, and also
911 mysteries faded them out and changed his audio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
102 minutes that changed America documentary

this picture below is just a few frames before the alleged second plane hit
what you see here is the white elephant which is just a rack of orbs
that then explodes and turns into multiple balls!! that then fire all around
the towers this is how the lines get created and shapes all around towers AKA form.


The picture snap posted is from a high quality xvid version but the idiot has cropped
the resolution!! once the helicoptor goes behind tower it dramatically changers into 1 orb

iam currently downloading the HD version which is 19_gigabyte 1080.
to further examine this video all will be clear when i get a 1920 X 1080
version. so no excuses for low resolution people or ntsc to pal crowd

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/1110/fakehelicoptergu9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/4723/helicoptororbtm7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


also in the video!! a ghost resembling casper goes down the left hand side of the black building
before the camera pulls away!!! but we have enough frames to prove this is a soulette whatever the fuck it is,
it ain't no friendly ghost.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E75EBBDDBDB14110BF925957545F1F41/9-11-kennebunk-flop-op-space-.aspx?lastvcid=373520

[graflok]

In the course of your 'joke' you introduced the keyword 'melting'. Other common ones are 'floating' and 'gliding'.

These words are boringly common features of no-planer forum lore used in discussion of the "Lo-rent slo-mo videos"? you pretend you don't know about and make another cack-handed 'joke' about.
But of course you know the ones - to say otherwise is just another example of the dishonesty which seems to be imherent in no planers.
The videos I of course mean are those - as if you didn't know - that attempt to hypnotically condition you that 500mph 150ton impacts involve 'melting', 'gliding' and 'floating'. Those little words that indicate an alarming and major detachment from actual events.



Yeah, language is funny that way - especially when used by those such as yourself who blab more than they need to say.

Gosh, I'm now both "boringly common" and "alarming" at the same time.
Man, you need to lighten up! :D

[ukor]

iam currently downloading the HD version which is 19_gigabyte 1080. to further examine this video all will be clear when i get a 1920 X 1080 version. so no excuses for low resolution people or ntsc to pal crowd

I'm interested in which commercial video cameras had 1920x1080 resolution in 2001, because you know that playback resolution isn't the same as capture resolution, right?

Because blowing a flash video even up to 4064x2704 doesn't magically make it Super-Duper Unbelievable Quality HD, now does it?

Also, you are aware that NTSC/PAL format frame speeds are a separate issue to the frame resolution, right?

As usual, one of these days, eh Stealth, right?

[john white]

Gosh, I'm now both "boringly common" and "alarming" at the same time.
Man, you need to lighten up! :D

Why? Isnt it fun? Does it feel like UKOR is not "playing the game"?

When he is telling you, in detail, the specifics of how people induced to believe in NPT are being conned?

You dont enjoy that? Not as fun as going along with Killtown?

[stealth_0073]

I'm interested in which commercial video cameras had 1920x1080 resolution in 2001, because you know that playback resolution isn't the same as capture resolution, right?

and how do you think you get your movies from 70s and 80s @ 1920x1080?
blueray and hd!! hmm when was those star wars movies made again?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/7525143.stm


Because blowing a flash video even up to 4064x2704 doesn't magically make it Super-Duper Unbelievable Quality HD, now does it?

i don't use flash video's and would never blow them up beyond there
real size.


Also, you are aware that NTSC/PAL format frame speeds are a separate issue to the frame resolution, right?

why would i convert anything?
if the source is ntsc why would i need to convert it to pal and vice versa
when ,my computer is its region free.

are you going address the pictures?
why does a helicoptor fly into the hole of the north tower
and appear at the other end as an orb.

[krakhead]

Shows you how invalid those IQ tests are these days. :D

I think you'll find cereal boxes have all sorts of interesting things on them these days! ;)

[thematrix]

and how do you think you get your movies from 70s and 80s @ 1920x1080?
blueray and hd!! hmm when was those star wars movies made again?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/7525143.stm



lol

you just linked a BBC article describing how film studios use graphic artists to "retouch" old classics to make them look new.

When you retouch something you add pixels that were not present in the original and or remove pixels that were there in the original

Which renders the film completely worthless for analysing.

All known video of 911 that exists today online has been altered/compressed which makes most analysis based upon it extremely shaky at best.

[graflok]

Why? Isnt it fun? Does it feel like UKOR is not "playing the game"?

When he is telling you, in detail, the specifics of how people induced to believe in NPT are being conned?

You dont enjoy that? Not as fun as going along with Killtown?

Jack Nicholson in The Shining, right? You nailed him perfectly! :D

[ukor]

In addition to thematrix's information, old films are just that - old film.

The grain density on a frame of 35mm film (and widescreen formats can use up to 70mm) is the equivalent of approx a 15-20 megapixel CCD array.

I'm not sure who you're trying to impress Stealth, but it ain't working.

[stealth_0073]

lol

you just linked a BBC article describing how film studios use graphic artists to "retouch" old classics to make them look new.

it doesn't just retouch them did you read the full article
thats the last part the touching up you no the fixing part
it breaks down each individual frame as high quality bitmaps


When you retouch something you add pixels that were not present in the original and or remove pixels that were there in the original
Which renders the film completely worthless for analysing.

so if i capture you breaking into my shed with a shitty vhs quality 240x240 resolution and it doesn't even pick out your face but matches your clothes
then i still have you, compression means nothing.


All known video of 911 that exists today online has been altered/compressed which makes most analysis based upon it extremely shaky at best.

if i take a HD film 1980x1080 and make it 1200x720 hd then i take that and make it 720x480 mpeg2,
now if i take that again and make it 720x480 xvid is the picture going change, nop the human eyes wont even notice the small
decrease in bitrate because iam always keeping the aspect ratio intact.


Anyway back on topic, i asked you how a helicoptor can fly thru a tower and come out the other end as an ORB!!! are you avoiding the simple question.


how about a fake helicopter that transforms from 1 orb into 2 orbs
http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/726/fakeheliperpux5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/1353/fakeheliperp01es9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

and btw helicopters don't blink

now back into 1 orb
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/903/fakeheliperp02xb6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[graflok]

Anyway back on topic, i asked you how a helicoptor can fly thru a tower and come out the other end as an ORB!!! are you avoiding the simple question.


how about a fake helicopter that transforms from 1 orb into 2 orbs
http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/726/fakeheliperpux5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/1353/fakeheliperp01es9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

and btw helicopters don't blink

now back into 1 orb
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/903/fakeheliperp02xb6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

stealth, this is interesting.

Can you explain a bit more how you got these images?

[mynameis]

stealth, this is interesting.

Can you explain a bit more how you got these images?

If the video is from 911 which video is it? Can you post a link? If not has it been uploaded to megaupload yet?

[graflok]

Stealth, can you explain a bit more how you got these images ?

Thanks.

[krakhead]

If you're going to continue to discuss these pictures can you please NOT include them in your reply? They take up an awful lot of space!

Cheers :)

[bob_jones]

Check out my albums to find out about the use of fake film footage broadcast on CNN.
My rucksack was put on the backs of the 7/7 London Bombers for a while.
But my ruck sack was at least 15 years old and so you can't buy them these days.
So they took it out again.
Also some will notice how Agent Y that bribed Henry Paul was in on a plot to murder me in Clove Hill Remand Prison after 7/7/05 with the M.I.6 Madrid bomber.
It proves Prince Charles is into train bombing aswell as having his ex-wife murdered.

[stealth_0073]

graflok when you quote me, please delete the links to pictures in the quoted text
cheers it will help for dial up users

electromagnetic orbs coming into view
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/5513/beamorbsfe1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


electromagnetic orbs discharging their load and firing at tower
2 orbs at bottom 1 orb at top

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3654/beamorbs1bd5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[dangermouse]

u must be kidding me electro magnetic orbs? :rolleyes:

[stealth_0073]

u must be kidding me electro magnetic orbs? :rolleyes:

yes did you not know chemtrails get formed by orbs
some1 is playing with the magnetic field project bluebeam has
begun how about orbs that disguise themselves as clouds planes birds
meteorites etc



i have captured orbs with my own camera pointing at chemtrails

[stealth_0073]

Stealth, can you explain a bit more how you got these images ?

Thanks.

these still images are from genuine video sources
i have loads more


some1 on youtube told me how to detect them my friends from all round the world
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIt5uXOkL8

[keystone]

Stealth

Can I have some of what you are on?

[turbine]

Video in the first post has been taken down. :(

[stealth_0073]

If the video is from 911 which video is it? Can you post a link? If not has it been uploaded to megaupload yet?

find all the amateur footage you can before it goes, i have been doing this for the last 2 years i have collected everything i can find

here is the youtube clip of what i posted although my source wasn't from
youtube

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FutwXm5VsyA

[stealth_0073]

Stealth

Can I have some of what you are on?

well i made a video about 911 in normal Colour 15 mins worth of orbs
but one of my m8s spiked with me with magic mushrooms and somehow
it all became apparently clearer so i started to play with various filters in adobe premier cs3 and bingo i see them blink blink:D

and btw i solved 911 over 2 years ago!! ive just be gathering more evidence as it appears.

its time for those fake scientists to be buried we need knew scientists
since the ones we got are withholding back the nice technology
and using it as a weapon against us for mind control & dumbing down


3 orbs hiding down by the water in rick siegel's although you only see 2 because one is more left
as i wanted to zoom in more. and btw the orb starts in between the buildings

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9306/orbwarsvc7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


now it suddenly appears on the outer edge of building like it just passed thru it, like it wasn't even there
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3185/orbwars01cu4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


now it dims itself like if its turning on and off

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/293/orbwars02jm3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


orbs destroying the south tower flashing on the right hand side of smaller building
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3341/orbwars03hi3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[stealth_0073]

Video in the first post has been taken down. :(

i think he has made a new one
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zk_gNObS0NU

[ukor]

My God, it's everywhere.

This may look, on the surface like an ordinary everyday photo of Canary Wharf at sunset:
http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo81/ukorphotos/CanaryWharfstandard.jpg

but by applying a common or garden bit plane filter it becomes apparent that unseen to the human eye something else is going on:
http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo81/ukorphotos/CanaryWharfzapped.jpg

It's immediately obvious that the top floors of the Towers, probably where all the really really bigwig senior execs are located, are being zapped by mind control beams, probably from orbs cunningly hidden just out of sight.

We can deduce from the pinky-turquoise guidance frame lobes that they're mind control beams; if they were to turn bluey-purplish they'd be ankle deep in dust and human remains out to Southend.

Who would ever have guessed ferquing about with brightness and variance integers would be so earth shatteringly revealing?

[stealth_0073]

irrelevant ukor since your just posting a building with lights on
and at night, no orbs in your picture whatsoever lol

in my videos they flash disappear & reappear at different times and angles

ask the history channel and the bbc why they have deleted them from all the footage
people were on the ball that day

i can even remember watching 911 and seeing 3 large orbs passing over buildings
directly coming from the blue helicoptor nypd
thats what got me researching while you were still sobbing over your idiot box aka tv.

[thematrix]

it doesn't just retouch them did you read the full article
thats the last part the touching up you no the fixing part
it breaks down each individual frame as high quality bitmaps

it effectively remasters them.

It takes the original film frame by frame - scans it at a very high resolution - then they fix errors in the film caused by ageing of the original media - then they convert the fixed frames back into a useful video.

Fixing = retouching. It's the same thing. The important point is that they add pixels that were not in the original scanned image or they delete pixels that were in the original scanned image. I note that you ignored the point about the size of the film grain on the original media as well.


so if i capture you breaking into my shed with a shitty vhs quality 240x240 resolution and it doesn't even pick out your face but matches your clothes
then i still have you, compression means nothing.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Your shed film does not prove that I robbed your shed - only that someone wearing the same clothes as me robbed your shed. Your "shitty VHS" would not by itself prove that it was me - you would need more evidence.

compression does not mean nothing. When a picture is compressed what happens? The compression algorithm removes pixels from the original image and throws them away. Depending on the algorithm it might also replace original pixels with averaged out values or blurred values.

The human eye can detect differences in shades for something like 32000 colours - the colour palettes used in HD video run to millions of colour shades.

Now when you compress a video of a fast moving object that has a similar colour to the background it will very likely introduce video artifacts, things that appear on the film, but that were not actually there in real life as a result of the compression.


if i take a HD film 1980x1080 and make it 1200x720 hd then i take that and make it 720x480 mpeg2,
now if i take that again and make it 720x480 xvid is the picture going change, nop the human eyes wont even notice the small
decrease in bitrate because iam always keeping the aspect ratio intact.


We are talking about analysing that footage - such analysis involve zooming in on sections of indivdual frames to count how many pixels the plane moved in a given time for example to determine it's speed for one example. If the video is compressed and there are much fewer pixels to count the video is rendered too poor quality to make a good analysis that one can draw solid conclusions from.

Aspect ratio is the ratio of height to width of the frame. You can shrink a 1080HD video down all the way down to 72x48 and preserve the aspect ratio, but you sure as hell won't be able to see much detail on that will you?


Anyway back on topic, i asked you how a helicoptor can fly thru a tower and come out the other end as an ORB!!! are you avoiding the simple question.


It can't.

Please define "ORB!!!"

[graflok]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Are you having a seizure? Should we call an ambulance?

[mynameis]

You do realize the video you posted is 1:11 seconds unlike your video that is over 5 minutes long. These aren't even the same thing. Where did you find the original source of the video?

[stealth_0073]

You do realize the video you posted is 1:11 seconds unlike your video that is over 5 minutes long. These aren't even the same thing. Where did you find the original source of the video?

were did i mention 5 mins?

i have been adding everything i have found out of all amateur sources
i could loop the video for hour if i wanted but that looping does my brain in.


2 beam eyes firing a triangle pod
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1331/seeitbm7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

cloaked
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/1786/seeitnotyx3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

back again as 2 eyes, down right hand side
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/664/backagainiu0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

dancing about making faces at you
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/4264/dancingaboutxz1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

sucking building 7 or is blowing
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7906/suckingnumber7pu8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[john white]

LOL

Bottom line is its Fox Mulder syndrome:

Some people just want to believe!

Now stop interrupting their HOBBY by taking 9/11 Truth seriously UKOR!

[ukor]

irrelevant ukor since your just posting a building with lights on and at night, no orbs in your picture whatsoever lol
in my videos they flash disappear & reappear at different times and angles

My point is to illustrate that filters - especially the extreme filtering you use causes artificial image artefacts. You have a belief that those artefacts 'mean' something. To me they mean you really haven't a clue about image processing.

But you can prove me wrong by explaining what the filters you're subjecting your images to are actually doing and why they aren't just artefacts.

I've a feeling I'll be waiting a long, long time for an answer to that.

ask the history channel and the bbc why they have deleted them from all the footage people were on the ball that day

I'd check the TV archive before even thinking of those sources.
But no doubt you have your reasons.

i can even remember watching 911 and seeing 3 large orbs passing over buildings directly coming from the blue helicoptor nypd thats what got me researching while you were still sobbing over your idiot box aka tv.

I don't know what it is Stealth baby, but not a single thing you say rings true with me....

[stealth_0073]

LOL

Bottom line is its Fox Mulder syndrome:

Some people just want to believe!

Now stop interrupting their HOBBY by taking 9/11 Truth seriously UKOR!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=036dOiSX9vA

[stealth_0073]

My point is to illustrate that filters - especially the extreme filtering you use causes artificial image artefacts. You have a belief that those artefacts 'mean' something. To me they mean you really haven't a clue about image processing.

your the one who hasn't a clue about filters
lol!! do you think the filters just make things appear like magic
the anomalies are there without using any filters.


But you can prove me wrong by explaining what the filters you're subjecting your images to are actually doing and why they aren't just artefacts.

as stated above!!! the artefacts are there!! the higher the resolution and closer the camera is to the action the objects become more brighter
when filters are applied.


I've a feeling I'll be waiting a long, long time for an answer to that.

sorry but i have been busy upgrading my computer and been fixing a few laptops since i do work.


I'd check the TV archive before even thinking of those sources.
But no doubt you have your reasons.

what archives do you want me to check since i don't go with archives
i use amateur sources the usa archives are heavily contaminated
with Colour balance there no good for analyzing.


I don't know what it is Stealth baby, but not a single thing you say rings true with me....

the videos don't lie iam afraid iam only pointing out the anolomies
and i have loads more just from rick siegals dvd
i suggest you do a frame by frame of his dvd
and see them yourself but you will need to be quick since there
fast and only appear on 2 frames of video.

[adamg]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=036dOiSX9vA



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rIZ205ccX8M

[ukor]

your the one who hasn't a clue about filters
lol!! do you think the filters just make things appear like magic
the anomalies are there without using any filters.

I don't only "think" that, I showed you an example of it. In case you didn't notice, there were no pink and greenish zap rays in London that evening.

as stated above!!! the artefacts are there!! the higher the resolution and closer the camera is to the action the objects become more brighter when filters are applied.
Exactly. Artefacts of the process.
sorry but i have been busy upgrading my computer and been fixing a few laptops since i do work.
Good for you. Idle hands and all that
the videos don't lie iam afraid iam only pointing out the anolomies and i have loads more just from rick siegals dvd
i suggest you do a frame by frame of his dvd and see them yourself but you will need to be quick since there fast and only appear on 2 frames of video.
And is that two separate 30ths of a second occasions or just the one 15th of a second extravaganza?

[stealth_0073]

I don't only "think" that, I showed you an example of it. In case you didn't notice, there were no pink and greenish zap rays in London that evening.

Exactly. Artefacts of the process.

And is that two separate 30ths of a second occasions or just the one 15th of a second extravaganza?



you showed a totally different filter from me

anomalies i meant or the orbs objects


what does this have to do with beam weapons they are there, and you
cant debunk it weather its 1 frame or 2 frames or 20 frames.

[joyful]

This message is hidden because killtown is on your ignore list.

[stealth_0073]

This message is hidden because killtown is on your ignore list.

who's ignore list mine or ukor's?