No Blue

[abababba]

Regardless of whether one believes an object struck the second tower, we should all be able to agree it was not United flight 175. An undervalued argument in my mind is that fact that we don't see any blue color in the various videos. You can see two different United paint jobs below, both share the feature of having a blue underbelly.

First Picture 767-300
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3335/3430776703_b6c8ab5e0f.jpg
Second picture 747 with another common United plane design
http://images.travelpod.com/users/jcjones66/far_east_2007.1194715440.united_airlines_744.jpg

There are some jets that have been out of commission for many years with a more white type color, but the modern United jets always have a blue underbelly.

Flight 175 was a boeing b767-200 which I couldn't find a picture of, but I'm sure we can all agree that United Airlines jets have a substantial amount of blue paint. But why is there no blue color in any of the amateur videos, taken from a variety of different angles and elevations or any of the live videos?

In the Hezarkani shot below we get a clear picture of the underbelly of the plane both largely under some type of shadow and then in greater light. We see gray and not blue.

"OMG!" - Hezarkhani audio fakery - YouTube


I couldn't find the courschesne shot on youtube anymore but it is in September clues and starts at 28:17. This clip is literally right under the tower, but no blue.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=september+clues+august&emb=0&aq=f#q=september+clues&emb=0

There is another clip from directly under the towers at 22:15 and beyond in the above video. This is not blue but instead a whitish color.

There are countless other videos, and I have yet to see one with any noticable blue color on the plane. Most of the clips just have a blackish gray blob in them that has no noticable blue.

Clearly, this was not a United Airlines jet, simply because there is no blue. Can we all at least agree to this point or are there any counterarguments?

[dave52]

It's also worth considering the Air Force 1 fly over of New York from last week. Plenty of detail and colour in the various footage of that.

[nightwalker]

If the airline was code sharing the aircraft may actually have belonged to another airline and thus not be painted blue. Just a thought.

[abababba]

Here's another clip of the Hezarkhani shot, for some reason the first clip isn't in the original post anymore.

9/11 Second Impact (Flight 175) Hezarkhani - YouTube

[abababba]

If the airline was code sharing the aircraft may actually have belonged to another airline and thus not be painted blue. Just a thought.

Do you have a source for this story? Never heard it before but would be interested if thats true.

[abababba]

Or rather, shouldn't someone have actually mentioned code sharing if it was happening. In addition, what airline has solid gray planes?

And wikipedia lists the tail number as N612UA, does that rule out code sharing? Here is the FAA registry

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=612UA&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0

[nightwalker]

Hi

Its not a story - I was just offering a point for consideration.

Many airlines code share - its very common. So say you book on a American Airlines flight you could actually end up on a British Airways flight if the two airlines code share (example only). Also its very common for airlines to charter aircraft from private companies if they have unscheduled down time (defects on their own aircraft which cause them to be grounded). Im just offering it as a possible explanation of why you see no blue - it may not have been an AA aircraft.

I dont know every paint scheme in the world I am afraid - Airliners.net is good however :)

[abababba]

OK, but does knowing the airplane itself was registered by United rule this possibility out?

[nightwalker]

No, just because it was registered with AA does not mean it had to be painted a certain way. An airline chooses its livery and if it leases or rents an aircraft on a short term lease then they wont bother to paint it in their livery. Equally if they buy one from another airlline they may just dis identify it (ie paint it white or grey) until there is a convenient down time to paint it in their own colours.

[abababba]

Actually this page

http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Quantas-CodeSharing.shtml

Claims all jets on 911 were code shares, including flight 175, which was apparently an Air New Zealand jet. Here is the picture of air New Zealand

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Air_new_zealand_747-400.jpg

Almost solid white with a blue tail.

Thanks for the tip off on code sharing. I guess the video where someone says "It was a United Airlines jet" is even funnier now.

[abababba]

I think what this website is actually saying is that the code sharing was passengers from other airlines flying on the United or American jets.

They say that the other flights were Quantas and Air Canada code shares, which I think they are implying that the flights were duel listed as United or American and Quantas or Air Canada. Either way, Quantas and Air Canada planes both have large noticeable red tails.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00540/Quantas_682_540746a.jpg
http://disabledtravelers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/air_canada.jpg

[nightwalker]

No, just because it was registered with AA does not mean it had to be painted a certain way. An airline chooses its livery and if it leases or rents an aircraft on a short term lease then they wont bother to paint it in their livery. Equally if they buy one from another airlline they may just dis identify it (ie paint it white or grey) until there is a convenient down time to paint it in their own colours.


Just because an airliner is registered with one airline does not mean that aircraft has to or will fly in that airlines livery :)

[abababba]

Well I think it would be reasonable to say that they fly in the colors of their own airline or that of their code share partners.

Have you ever seriously heard of an airline painting a plane solid gray? This doesn't make sense to me. I've never seen a commercial jet without identifying features of some airline.

[abababba]

Or more precisely, would we all agree that the second plane crashing into the world trade center could not have been a United Airlines jet or an Air New Zealand jet, and that the first plane crashing into the WTC could not have been a Quantas or American Airlines jet?

Then the only possibly excuse is that the airlines decided to paint their planes solid gray for some reason, something which doesn't seem plausible.

I'm willing to end the debate there, that these couldn't have been painted as traditional jets for the airlines that are listed as possibilities. Then each person can use their logic to determine the likelihood of a solid gray paint job versus some sort of CGI insert.

[nightwalker]

Well I think it would be reasonable to say that they fly in the colors of their own airline or that of their code share partners.

Have you ever seriously heard of an airline painting a plane solid gray? This doesn't make sense to me. I've never seen a commercial jet without identifying features of some airline.


I have seen all sorts - I have woked in the airline industry since I was 18 years old. Just because you personally dont think something is plausible doesnt make it impossible :)

[abababba]

I can't verify the source, but this picture says that this was 175 before take off.



http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://zkf9435.k12.sd.us/Events/flight%2520175.bmp&imgrefurl=http://zkf9435.k12.sd.us/Events/Flight%2520175.htm&usg=__ITfKDm8HyChofWRu-Qeajd2RLi8=&h=304&w=500&sz=446&hl=en&start=11&um=1&tbnid=JHEn7qzOqrcE5M:&tbnh=79&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dflight%2B175%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1C1GGL S_enUS323US324%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

[abababba]

I have seen all sorts - I have woked in the airline industry since I was 18 years old. Just because you personally dont think something is plausible doesnt make it impossible :)

OK, well in your expertise, what is the probability of United flying a solid gray jet? Not whether it is possible, just what is the rough probability?

[abababba]

Here is another source that identifies the plane by the correct registry number

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0205074/L

It is painted with the standard United colors. You'll notice the correct number N612UA on the plane.

[abababba]

Here is a picture of the plane N612UA in the air for comparison purposes.

http://www.hybrideb.com/images/newyork/n612ua.jpg

[secondsun]

...this does not look like a solid Grey plane to me!

...and in my opinion!.... you can see a line of windows!

http://i39.tinypic.com/x3bjtj.jpg

...and a bit of the Logo on the tail!

...and for further comparison purposes!

http://i41.tinypic.com/28hlz6c.jpg

..bye bye Aba`!

[dave52]

Can you show me where that picture came from, it's been cropped by the look of it - is there somewhere we can see the whole picture.

Cheers.

[abababba]

...this does not look like a solid Grey plane to me!

...and in my opinion!.... you can see a line of windows!



I think the point here is that none of the videos show anything even close to a United jet. Its much easier to have more realistic still picture than a moving video. Needless to say, the fact that still pictures show contradictory evidence to moving videos is itself damning evidence.

In addition, the paint job on the still picture you posted looks nothing like the picture of flight 175 I posted previously. There is still no blue on the plane in that still picture. The tower in the picture is clearly a greenish color, so we should be able to see some blue if the plane was flight 175. In addition, you can clearly make out the large white letters of "United Airlines" in the actual picture of N612UA. There should also be some noticeable red color in addition to any blue.

And you don't need to post a picture of another United jet for comparison, I already posted a picture of N612UA, the exact jet that was supposed to crash into the WTC.

[abababba]

Another thing about that picture that I think is important. On the actual United jet, the underbelly of the plane is dark blue, but the underside of the wings are themselves the same shade of gray as the body of the plane. In the picture both the bottom of the plane and the bottom of the wings are a similar dark gray shade.

I don't think this paint job looks anything like flight 175, its not even remotely close.

[bryan]

I'm willing to end the debate there, that these couldn't have been painted as traditional jets for the airlines that are listed as possibilities. Then each person can use their logic to determine the likelihood of a solid gray paint job versus some sort of CGI insert.

Hint:

If military planes were used, the perps would have had all the time in the world to do a good paint job.

If a cgi insert was used, the video editors would only have a few hours to work on the composites and may have been struggling to get the colours right.

[white horse]

You make some very good points abababba - many times we have tried to keep the focus on the video footage of the planes.

That one pic that is being focused on is a blow up from a video (recorded video, not live TV stream) and is apparantly the only clip with any colouration to it.

Why is it so dark? - it was a beautiful sunny day and yet that plane has not got a glint of sunlight on it at all. Look at the building near it? Blazing in reflected light.

What has been 'proposed' before is that the plane is flying under the smoke cloud of th efirst tower. That needs to be investigated to see if the smoke is between the pane and hte sun.

I commend you and hope we can keep this on topic.

The topic is 'Blue' - hunt the blue!!

[matrix911]

you're joking right? you seriously believe there's anything clear about the footage pic and nothing at all unusual?

the denial you're in secondsun, is incredible... either you're not a reasonable person to blindly accept that pic as clear evidence of flight 175, or you know exactly what you're doing and intentionally perpetuating and protecting the lie.

actually its really more bizarre than anything that you can actually attempt a comparison between these two pics which is MORE THAN OBVIOUS using COMMON SENSE its like comparing apples to grapefruits.

and you wonder why nothing you say can be taken seriously by any rational logical thinking person.


...this does not look like a solid Grey plane to me!

...and in my opinion!.... you can see a line of windows!

http://i39.tinypic.com/x3bjtj.jpg

...and a bit of the Logo on the tail!

...and for further comparison purposes!

http://i41.tinypic.com/28hlz6c.jpg

..bye bye Aba`!

[matrix911]

Though I do tend to believe the fakery was done hours or minutes before broadcast or in real time, I've always wondered about the possibility that they had the overlay or the pre-made production of the fakery all ready to go and was then only a matter of inserting/running the production reel at the right moment.

Hint:

If military planes were used, the perps would have had all the time in the world to do a good paint job.

If a cgi insert was used, the video editors would only have a few hours to work on the composites and may have been struggling to get the colours right.

[secondsun]

Can you show me where that picture came from, it's been cropped by the look of it - is there somewhere we can see the whole picture.

Cheers.

Dave... these are the pictures i am referencing here...

http://i41.tinypic.com/2yuirur.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/317i914.jpg

...i have 18 meg` hi res copies! 6500x4500 pixels (approx )

you're joking right? you seriously believe there's anything clear about the footage pic and nothing at all unusual?

the denial you're in secondsun, is incredible... either you're not a reasonable person to blindly accept that pic as clear evidence of flight 175, or you know exactly what you're doing and intentionally perpetuating and protecting the lie.

actually its really more bizarre than anything that you can actually attempt a comparison between these two pics which is MORE THAN OBVIOUS using COMMON SENSE its like comparing apples to grapefruits.

and you wonder why nothing you say can be taken seriously by any rational logical thinking person.

...when you look like your losing... switch to ridicule mode!... thats what they teach you guys aint it!?... oranges and onions.... apples and grapefruits... how about truthers and disinfo` artists!?!

In addition, the paint job on the still picture you posted looks nothing like the picture of flight 175 I posted previously. There is still no blue on the plane in that still picture. The tower in the picture is clearly a greenish color, so we should be able to see some blue if the plane was flight 175. In addition, you can clearly make out the large white letters of "United Airlines" in the actual picture of N612UA. There should also be some noticeable red color in addition to any blue.

...you cant see no blue!?!?!?!?!?... well you can see the two images im using above... and there is clearly some problem with the sensor/software on what ever camera the photographer is using!... we all know the smoke coming out of the Towers was not cobalt blue as in his/her two pictures dont we!!!

...but if you place Photoshop CS2 colour picker on the underside of that crop i posted earlier... this one!

http://i39.tinypic.com/x3bjtj.jpg

...guess what colour you get?

http://i39.tinypic.com/qz2g7m.jpg

...Aba`!... if you cant see blue in the square above... you need an appointment with you know who!

...as far as some red in the logo as you mentioned!

...a crop from the second image above and corrected using levels in Photoshop reveals....guess what!?

http://i42.tinypic.com/2z7fsqb.jpg

...Red on the tail!

...but i guess you cant see any red can you Aba`!?

...oh!... the `greenish` colour is probably the copper on the spire!

..oh!... and you can see the underside of the wing is grey!

..oh!...white horse said...

That one pic that is being focused on is a blow up from a video (recorded video, not live TV stream) and is apparantly the only clip with any colouration to it.

...he sounded like he knew what he was talking about!... did`nt he!?.... but was completely wrong!

[tabea_blumenschein]

From this page of eyewitness accounts (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai), we find an account that specifically mentions an aircraft with a blue tail:

"While assisting a female burn victim, I observed PO Rivero look up towards the WTC tower #2. At this time the undersigned heard the sound of jet engines and observed an aircraft with a blue color tail fly directly into the south face of WTC Tower #2. Following the impact an enormous explosion occurred causing debris to begin to fall down all around the WTC complex."

- PAPD PO James Hall

Hopefully, this will help corroborate secondsun's latest post.

~

Do the resident no-planers have anything to say about that horde of eyewitness accounts I linked to?

[stannrodd]

Additionally ... to revisit this one ..

Why is it so dark? - it was a beautiful sunny day and yet that plane has not got a glint of sunlight on it at all. Look at the building near it? Blazing in reflected light.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2yuirur.jpg

Try doing some shadows and angles and figure that the plane was "most likely" in the smoke's shadow.

Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of men .... ?

The Shadow doooo !!


:eek:

[bryan]

Though I do tend to believe the fakery was done hours or minutes before broadcast or in real time, I've always wondered about the possibility that they had the overlay or the pre-made production of the fakery all ready to go and was then only a matter of inserting/running the production reel at the right moment.

They could have had the cgi's prepared in advance, but if they didn't look right on the day, after they were added to the real footage, the video editors might have decided to remove the detail and darken the object to try and make it less obvious. The two live shots were the most basic of all, because they knew they only had one chance to get them right.

[abababba]

...guess what colour you get?


I think you managed to make some good points, but I think you need to consider the following. All that this demonstrates is that there was one reasonably good composite, but there are still countless others that don't show the features you have pointed to.

The fact that it was flight 175 relies on the idea that all of the images and videos bear resemblance to flight 175, not just one. There are a number of other close up shots, like Hezarkhani, Evan Fairbanks and Luc Courcesne.

I noticed in the Hezarkhani shot, there is a small patch of blue at the beginning but you don't see it at the end. In Evan Fairbanks, there is also some blue on the belly, but the rest of the plane is white. In Luc Courchesne, you don't see anything close to blue as far as I can tell. Here are the videos

CNN Footage - 2nd Plane Pod/Flash - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18hkDOQB6h4&feature=PlayList&p=B2B7DD0E67FA59E0&index=25

two different versions of Courchesne
Clip 1 -The Missing Shot - Luc Courchesne - YouTube
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Some of the other videos are too far away to make an air tight argument, but most of them look nothing like flight 175. The first picture that you posted still looks nothing like flight 175. It shares some features of the flight, but holistically, if you take a step back and ask the question of whether this is plausibly the same plane, the answer is no.

I believe your argument contains two types of fallacies that we see a lot attacking 911 truth. The first is that if an argument is proven wrong, that demonstrates automatically that the person making it is crazy and wrong about everything, and therefore should see a shrink. Thats fundamentally wrong, people make mistakes or don't see things at first. Counterarguments get us closer to the truth and someone shouldn't be called crazy for being wrong.

Second, there is the idea that a fragment of evidence that supports your theory should be the only thing considered instead of the whole of evidence that does not. For instance, many people look at a few pieces of wreckage or a passport of the terrorist and say "well case closed, the official story must be true" without looking at the whole of the evidence that proves the opposite. I think there is overwhelming evidence that the plane movies and photos in general bear little resemblance to flight 175. Again, you have to explain why some videos show the blue underside and red logo while others do not even though you get a good view of them. This is a contradiction that itself demonstrates evidence for video tampering.

I think you should take a more sophisticated approach to looking at these issues instead of searching for the one piece of evidence that vaguely suits your hypothesis even though almost all of the other evidence doesn't. Thanks for pointing out the blue underbelly of that shot though.

[matrix911]

Dave... these are the pictures i am referencing here...

http://i41.tinypic.com/2yuirur.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/317i914.jpg

...i have 18 meg` hi res copies! 6500x4500 pixels (approx )


showing STILL PICS and ONLY of ONE frame is a usual diversionary disinfo tactic since it tells a story OUT OF CONTEXT when there's actual MOTION FOOTAGE or Hundreds of frames in the sequence.

Its sad that you or anyone actually believe ONE FRAME proves or disproves anything when its lacks 90% plus of the rest of the evidence.

you cherry-pick only what fits your agenda and do so out of context because any attempt to actual show the evidence in full context, would expose your argument for the fraud it is.


...when you look like your losing... switch to ridicule mode!... thats what they teach you guys aint it!?... oranges and onions.... apples and grapefruits... how about truthers and disinfo` artists!?!


when people like you have LOST the argument, you resort to claims those who debunked you and can't disprove their evidence, are switching to ridicule mode.

As usual you offer ZERO evidence to support your claims and ZERO evidence showing exactly where and how the evidence and arguments we've presented debunking you, are wrong.

typical evasionary tactics when one has lost an argument.



...you cant see no blue!?!?!?!?!?... well you can see the two images im using above...
and there is clearly some problem with the sensor/software on what ever camera the photographer is using!... we all know the smoke coming out of the Towers was not cobalt blue as in his/her two pictures dont we!!!


your "images" (again aside from being OUT OF CONTEXT) in full motion and in complete sequence show FAKERY and physical impossibilities that not even compression or res can account for when other objects aren't affected in the same way.


...but if you place Photoshop CS2 colour picker on the underside of that crop i posted earlier... this one!

http://i39.tinypic.com/x3bjtj.jpg

...guess what colour you get?

http://i39.tinypic.com/qz2g7m.jpg

...Aba`!... if you cant see blue in the square above... you need an appointment with you know who!

...as far as some red in the logo as you mentioned!

...a crop from the second image above and corrected using levels in Photoshop reveals....guess what!?

http://i42.tinypic.com/2z7fsqb.jpg

...Red on the tail!

...but i guess you cant see any red can you Aba`!?

...oh!... the `greenish` colour is probably the copper on the spire!

..oh!... and you can see the underside of the wing is grey!

..oh!...white horse said...

...he sounded like he knew what he was talking about!... did`nt he!?.... but was completely wrong!

You can't have it both ways pal.

When several other angles and footage contain physical impossibilities, contradictions and fakery that came from the same sources, it only proves this video you're using for your images is based on another set of fakery.

So to take ONE or two frames while ignoring OTHER FRAMES in that same footage let alone the MOTION sequences that show CONTEXT, is beyond absurd and shows you're either intentionally pushing disinfo, or you're in an incredible state of denial.

[abababba]

http://i43.tinypic.com/317i914.jpg


...a crop from the second image above and corrected using levels in Photoshop reveals....guess what!?

http://i42.tinypic.com/2z7fsqb.jpg



Wait, so you are saying these two things are the same image?

[tabea_blumenschein]

I'm well-nigh certain that the plane in secondsun's pictures appears dark because it's in the "shadow" of that huge column of smoke (edit - just noticed that stannrodd (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=974929&postcount=30) and I agree on this ...)

Here's another eyewitness account from the page I linked to earlier: (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai)

Just then out of the corner of my eye I could see this plane. Just remember it was dark in the shadow. It looked low. I thought, what the heck is the guy doing? I watched it, watched him turn and crash right into the south tower.

FDNY Battalion Chief Brian O'Flaherty

~

No-planers, those eyewitness accounts I keep linking to are fast becoming the elephant in the room ...

[secondsun]

...i really cant be arse`d replying to all of Matrix`s deluded claims and accusations... but will concentrate on just this one quote!

your "images" (again aside from being OUT OF CONTEXT) in full motion and in complete sequence show FAKERY and physical impossibilities that not even compression or res can account for when other objects aren't affected in the same way.

...1!... explain how my post is `out of context`in relation to this thread!

...2!... prove the `fakery` alluded too!

...3!... expand on the `physical impossibilities` also alluded to in reference to the two images i posted!... and prove such!


...dont expect an answer folks!


...how come your not on a warning yet is even more mind boggling!?!



Wait, so you are saying these two things are the same image?

...this just gets more sad!... Aba`!... do you mean your post #32 was based on something you did`nt know what you was looking at!?!

[abababba]

...this just gets more sad!... Aba`!... do you mean your post #32 was based on something you did`nt know what you was looking at!?!

No, I took you at your word at first that the picture was a blown up version of the smaller picture. Then I tried magnifying the picture myself and I didn't get any of the additional features in your focussed shot. Therefore, I was first confirming that you were claiming they were the same and second wondering why I couldn't see any of the additional features when I magnified the picture.

[stannrodd]

No, I took you at your word at first that the picture was a blown up version of the smaller picture. Then I tried magnifying the picture myself and I didn't get any of the additional features in your focussed shot. Therefore, I was first confirming that you were claiming they were the same and second wondering why I couldn't see any of the additional features when I magnified the picture.

You really need to download the 18Mb frames to see the detail.

I found them here .. and are still available .. I just checked.

http://hybrideb.com/images/newyork/2328200101a.jpg

http://hybrideb.com/images/newyork/2328200102b.jpg

Stann

[secondsun]

No, I took you at your word at first that the picture was a blown up version of the smaller picture. Then I tried magnifying the picture myself and I didn't get any of the additional features in your focussed shot. Therefore, I was first confirming that you were claiming they were the same and second wondering why I couldn't see any of the additional features when I magnified the picture.

...my crop is actual pixels!.. its not magnified!

...you need to download the hi res image for yourself!... and you need to have some good quality image editing software!... if you have not got any you can go to the Photoshop or Paintshop website and usually download a thirty day trial!

...then open the file on the view tab at the top click actual pixels, select crop tool and crop!

http://i44.tinypic.com/317ciz4.jpg

...open a levels layer by hovering over the black and white disk shaped icon on the lower edge of the layers palette then select the red channel from the drop down menu!.. adjust left and right sliders in till they meet the edges of the histogram!

http://i44.tinypic.com/18yw69.jpg

...now select the green channel and do the same!

http://i39.tinypic.com/2rzsbdg.jpg

..then do the same with the final blue channel!

http://i42.tinypic.com/dov4gw.jpg

...you then go back through and make minor tweaks to the sliders to try and perfect the resulting image still further!... then i used the magic wand tool to select the background and used the reduce noise filter to clean up the background!

http://i41.tinypic.com/wi56qr.jpg

..you can see in the History palette below the layers palette all i have done to this image!

...i know you probably wont believe it until you see it with your own eyes and if i can help further then just ask!

[bryan]

..you can see in the History palette below the layers palette all i have done to this image!


Does this not suggest that something like Photoshop was used to make the plane look darker?

[secondsun]

Does this not suggest that something like Photoshop was used to make the plane look darker?

...no it does not bloody suggest that at all!!!

...i directed Aba` to the content of the History palette as an aid to him if he tried to recreate it for himself!

...so quite twisting my posts to suite your own pathetic agenda!

...the original heavy blue cast is probably because of poor quality camera or settings made by the photographer as personal preference!?

[bryan]

...no it does not bloody suggest that at all!!!


I was only asking!

[abababba]

...you need to download the hi res image for yourself!... and you need to have some good quality image editing software!... if you have not got any you can go to the Photoshop or Paintshop website and usually download a thirty day trial!


OK, that makes sense, thanks for explaining how you did that. One additional question is whether these are actually identical pictures with just one having greater resolution or possibly the second one has some added color after the fact. Is it possible to take the more detailed picture and decrease the resolution in such a way that it would look like the first picture, and that upon further editing, you wouldn't be able to retrieve the detail?

[stannrodd]

showing STILL PICS and ONLY of ONE frame is a usual diversionary disinfo tactic since it tells a story OUT OF CONTEXT when there's actual MOTION FOOTAGE or Hundreds of frames in the sequence.

You allege the frames are from a sequence of video footage .. ?


When several other angles and footage contain physical impossibilities, contradictions and fakery that came from the same sources, it only proves this video you're using for your images is based on another set of fakery.

So to take ONE or two frames while ignoring OTHER FRAMES in that same footage let alone the MOTION sequences that show CONTEXT, is beyond absurd and shows you're either intentionally pushing disinfo, or you're in an incredible state of denial.

And again you allege the frames are from a sequence of video footage.

Yet you have not provided any evidence of that. I have not seen the video footage from which these frames were allegedly taken .. have you ??

If you have .. could you point us to the source of your alleged video, or information about it, because it could contain new information not yet being discussed.

As far as I know .. they are 18 Mb stills and were taken in sequence .. one after the other !

Stann

[bryan]

...the original heavy blue cast is probably because of poor quality camera or settings made by the photographer as personal preference!?

Was the plane dark because it was in the smoke's shadow or because of the camera settings?

[abababba]

One additional question is whether these are actually identical pictures with just one having greater resolution or possibly the second one has some added color after the fact. Is it possible to take the more detailed picture and decrease the resolution in such a way that it would look like the first picture, and that upon further editing, you wouldn't be able to retrieve the detail?

Hey Secondsun,

I noticed you didn't respond to the above question from several days ago. It would be great if you could.

[secondsun]

Hey Secondsun,

I noticed you didn't respond to the above question from several days ago. It would be great if you could.

...sorry!... been a bit off colour the past few days!

One additional question is whether these are actually identical pictures...


...which two are you talking about?... not sure what you mean here?... sorry! :confused:

[abababba]

...sorry!... been a bit off colour the past few days!


...which two are you talking about?... not sure what you mean here?... sorry! :confused:

I was under the impression that you were claiming one picture is just a higher resolution version of the other picture. The one with higher resolution has blue on the body with a red logo. The question was whether you could reduce the resolution in such a way to make it look like the lower resolution version of the same picture.

[secondsun]

I was under the impression that you were claiming one picture is just a higher resolution version of the other picture.....

...the two images i posted i reduced in res` just to make it easier to view in respects to this forum!.... the original images would measure, i guess,about 5ft x 3 ft if you printed them out in actual pixels!

...every time you process and save an image date is lost!... the originals are J Pegs... RAW would have held even more data!... but even so... the fact we have two hi res images to work from is a bonus... though some will not appreciate this fact... without knowing the photographer... any preferences, that he/she might or might not had preselected within the camera software... the make and quality of the camera... we are left with ponder ables!... but even so... these two images are the best "quality" i have found so far!... if we had some video of decent res`... wow!.... would`nt it be great!.... so... we have to make do with what we have got!

The question was whether you could reduce the resolution in such a way to make it look like the lower resolution version of the same picture.

..you have answered your own question here!.... dont you see that!?