The other Fake Hez Vid Anomaly-Computer Generated?

[matrix911]

Maybe I missed the thread,

But I'm still waiting and curious how many from the RPT camp here have answered, logically refuted, or explained away this anomaly:

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss258/Teardrop196/hezarkhanicumv3-line.gif

[fanoftruth]

Without having stated the anomoly you are refering to I can offer an explanation for what I presume you are pointing us toward ;

If the vertical red line is getting us to focus on the tail wing then on first viewing the tail seemingly 'speeds up' at the point of near total engulfment into the building. If however you ignore the plane in this clip and simply focus on the vertical red line as it draws nearer to the right hand edge of the building it's clear that in the last few moments the line's movement slows down to a practical stand still ; thus giving the impression the plane's wing tail has sped up.

Was that the anomoly in question?

[fanoftruth]

Without having stated the anomoly you are refering to I can offer an explanation for what I presume you are pointing us toward ;

If the vertical red line is getting us to focus on the tail wing then on first viewing the tail seemingly 'speeds up' at the point of near total engulfment into the building. If however you ignore the plane in this clip and simply focus on the vertical red line as it draws nearer to the right hand edge of the building it's clear that in the last few moments the line's movement slows down to a practical stand still ; thus giving the impression the plane's wing tail has sped up.

Was that the anomoly in question?

:D as an amateur filmmaker I'm slightly embarrased that I didn't initially point out that this is due to the camera person bringing their panning shot to a halt near the end of this clip.

[matrix911]

:D as an amateur filmmaker I'm slightly embarrased that I didn't initially point out that this is due to the camera person bringing their panning shot to a halt near the end of this clip.

So you're saying its the camera-man that has been able to maintain this amazing stabilized pan of the plane and its path into the tower?

interesting you mention how the line slows and stops, giving the "impression" that the tail is speeding up... have to remember that for future reference ;)

But you don't notice anything else odd or interesting in this footage?

And I'm not talking about how the plane appears to be absorbed into the steal frame of the wtc without any reaction or crumpling.

[fanoftruth]

Personally I find nothing unrealistic in regards to the panning shot made. The camera is relatively far away from the moving object so it's not too difficult to keep a panning shot like that steady.

The red line almost stops in the last few frames of the clip, other than that I can't see what we're supposed to be looking for. If the clip holds something interesting that needs discussion why not quit the 'winks' and the cryptic talk and just come out and tell us, then we can discuss it.

[matrix911]

Personally I find nothing unrealistic in regards to the panning shot made. The camera is relatively far away from the moving object so it's not too difficult to keep a panning shot like that steady.

The red line almost stops in the last few frames of the clip, other than that I can't see what we're supposed to be looking for. If the clip holds something interesting that needs discussion why not quit the 'winks' and the cryptic talk and just come out and tell us, then we can discuss it.

The plane isn't moving, the building/scenery is.

The Hez video is made in a computer and has nothing to do with a real camera.

its an illusion that the "camera" is panning or zooming.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Admittedly, I'm not up to date on the finer points of video editing. But from what I understand, whoever created that .gif (is that the right name for it?) from the original footage made sure to keep the plane centered in the picture. That's why it looks like the building is moving towards the plane.

I hope I didn't mangle that explanation too badly.

You might want to do a search for the original video somewhere. I'd bet you it doesn't show a "stationary" plane.

~

Looking at the video bit again, it's fascinating how the building gradually slows down when it hits the plane ... :D

[stannrodd]

The plane isn't moving, the building/scenery is.

The Hez video is made in a computer and has nothing to do with a real camera.

its an illusion that the "camera" is panning or zooming.

Any illusion you wish to create is because there is imagery to manipulate.

The video of the stationary plane with moving background was a task to look at the plane within a moving and panning scenario .. we wanted to look at the plane .. you are five years ago .. when it comes to where we were then.

If you were genuine Matrix911 .. you would present your credentials.

Stann

[fanoftruth]

tabea's explanation is spot on.

[stannrodd]

tabea's explanation is spot on.

I agree

Stann

[matrix911]

Any illusion you wish to create is because there is imagery to manipulate.

The video of the stationary plane with moving background was a task to look at the plane within a moving and panning scenario .. we wanted to look at the plane .. you are five years ago .. when it comes to where we were then.

If you were genuine Matrix911 .. you would present your credentials.

Stann

what are you going on about regarding genuine and credentials? Your "argument" is irrelevant to anything I was pointing out for discussion regarding the real possibility that what we're seeing is computer generated as I explained.

Tbh, I'm not convinced 100% either way yet on that... however I AM convinced that video and other footage has been tampered with, faked and edited etc... which makes this scenario plausible to consider questionable and suspect as most of 911 should be.

Either way, the "official story" is pure BULLSHIT... Anyone who disagrees is either in denial, hasn't done enough research, is an agent or plain braindead.

[stannrodd]

I was pointing out for discussion regarding the real possibility that what we're seeing is computer generated as I explained.

I was simply pointing out that five years ago, the original footage was shaky and it was stabilised so that the aeroplane could be seen without the hand held camera motion.

Is that OK .. ?

Your comments today and recently seem to have no concern for the historical research. Which to me seems to indicate a lack of respect for those who did a lot of hard work in days gone by.

I suspect your youth will come to the fore and find the answer you are looking for.

Truth..

Stann

[matrix911]

I was simply pointing out that five years ago, the original footage was shaky and it was stabilised so that the aeroplane could be seen without the hand held camera motion.

Is that OK .. ?

Your comments today and recently seem to have no concern for the historical research. Which to me seems to indicate a lack of respect for those who did a lot of hard work in days gone by.

I suspect your youth will come to the fore and find the answer you are looking for.

Truth..

Stann

ROFL!

You're probably one of the biggest trolls on this forum... and you speak of seeking TRUTH?

Like a Troll has any interest in the TRUTH.

what a joke.

Now, as to the rest of your response...

You claim the gif is stabilized...

Then you should have no problem unstabilizing the gif/video and make the plane move instead of the building.

Can't wait to see this....

[stannrodd]

I claimed the original footage was stabilized as did tabea. This is true.

Have you seen the original footage ? If not your response is conjecture.

The animated .gif was created from the stabilized video.

Would you like to see the original footage? I'm sure I have a copy of it in my archives.

Stann

[matrix911]

I claimed the original footage was stabilized as did tabea. This is true.

Have you seen the original footage ? If not your response is conjecture.

The animated .gif was created from the stabilized video.

Would you like to see the original footage? I'm sure I have a copy of it in my archives.

Stann

i'll ignore for the moment how many other threads on the fakery you've lost and been absent from or conveniently disappeared from including my IMPACT STUDY thread.

So show me in the Hez video where the plane is moving and not the tower.

The "plane" was supposedly travelling at 560 MPH but in the gif from Hez video you can clearly see it doesn't move at all, its background that moves.

If you think Hez video real then show me that the plane moves when it enters the tower. Make a gif of the part when the "plane" enters the tower and slow it down and show me its the "plane" thats moving.


one person had this to say about the video...
=================================================
"I see what you mean. The plane is static, no movement at all. Whoever stabilized the video would have to pick two points on the plane to stabilize to make the plane not move at all. If they choose one point on the plane to stabilize and the plane remains static, that would suggest the video is fake.

However even if they stabilized the plane to be static, there should be some movement if the wings flex and starts to crash with the building.

I always thought this video had that "Hollywood" look to it."
==================================================

[stannrodd]

How about we discuss logic.

110 storey skyscrapers are designed to move/flex .. right ?

But they don't move around as if they are dancing .. right ?

Do you think it reasonable to assume that the towers are stationary rather than the plane ?

I do.

This implies that the plane is moving around in terms of the position of that plane within the original frames. This movement is due mainly to the shake in the camera while being operated.

Movement is relative in imagery.

If you were filming the space shuttle taking off and tracked the vehicle very accurately only the background appears to move .. while the shuttle looks as if it's stationary.

Did the sky move ? Was the shuttle photoshopped into the image because the background is moving ??

Was it faked ?? I think not.

I'm sure if you use a bit of imagination and stabilize the Towers you can safely assume the plane is moving quite a bit with respect to the towers.

I will try and find the original footage and post it here for further discussion.

I'm not sure you have shown evidence of fakery. Perhaps it's more that you want it to be, and are looking for things which seem to support your ideas.

The burden of proving your theory is upon you and working with critics is better than abusing them with trivial labels such as

ROFL!

You're probably one of the biggest trolls on this forum... and you speak of seeking TRUTH?

Like a Troll has any interest in the TRUTH.

what a joke.

Stann

[stannrodd]

Here you go Matrix911..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G1zvhNt85g

Archived on Sunday, October 02, 2005, 3:00:32 PM .. uploaded to YouTube today.

This is as seen and broadcast TV footage, shown on 9/11, sourced by CNN. The stabilized version used original footage without the subtitles and logo.

Stann

[matrix911]

The burden of proving your theory is upon you and working with critics is better than abusing them with trivial labels such as

Stann

Actually the burden of proof to prove the Hez is PROOF a plane struck the tower as the official claims is on those who believe the Hez vid shows a REAL PLANE and isn't FAKE.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... Go get the full hez video, slow it down and stabilize it. Thats the only way one can truly see the fakery in proper perspective.

this is "stabilized" from the HEZ
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss258/Teardrop196/hezarkhanicumv3-line.gif

In the normal universe governed by physical laws, thats not real.

the HEZ is FAKE... among many others.

[strt]

Hi all,

Please try to discuss this (and any other topic actually) like any other adult would do.

Thanks

[stannrodd]

.... Go get the full hez video, slow it down and stabilize it. Thats the only way one can truly see the fakery in proper perspective....

I simply offered the footage which was broadcast on 9/11 so that you could see it as others saw it.

If you want to believe it's faked .. that's OK by me. The alleged interview with Hill and Michael Hez.. could easily be faked too, to suggest that Hez.. was under pressure from CNN not to disclose the location of where the camera position was. We are talking Killtown and his bag of majik tricks remember.

I am not interested in disproving your claim that something is faked .... the evidence you have presented so far is flimsy at best, and lousy at worst.

I'll leave you to it .. but will watch with interest for developments.

Stann

[matrix911]

I simply offered the footage which was broadcast on 9/11 so that you could see it as others saw it.


So are you saying thats from the HEZ or not?

And you act as if thats evidence of what "others" saw. Who are all these "OTHERS"? Many "saw" something, others saw nothing. And what MANY claimed to have "seen" was NOT any commecial boeing jet.

So to insinuate or make it look like the footage you offer is what "others" saw which "might" appear to be a commercial jet (aside from the fact there's other footage that shows nothing remotely like one or what is seen in that footage), makes the footage irrelevant in your "argument". You can't have it both ways. If even one of the vids contain fakery or physical impossibilities, then that demonstrates an inconsistency or contradiction in the videos which people are using, turn to or point to as proof of flight 175 or 11 and therefore you can't use the video in the way you are as concrete evidence against NRPT. Or iow, to say NRPT is nonsense and has no evidence, is not only disinfo and a biased viewpoint, but itself, NONSENSE.


If you want to believe it's faked .. that's OK by me.


if you want to believe its real, that ok by me too... but the evidence for fakery far outweighs the evidence against it.


The alleged interview with Hill and Michael Hez.. could easily be faked too,


Rofl! mmmmmmkay... So now you're accusing them of setting that interview up? You government loyalists and real planers make me sick.

But ok, If you want to use that claim and logic to support your flimsy argument, fine by me... you and other plane huggers in denial do it all the time. nothing new here. If thats now your contention, then I suggest you publicly challenge Jeff Shure on that charge. Considering the evidence coming from your ilk and whats come from KT, Jeff and others exposing 911, the odds its NOT FAKE and IS what it appears to be in this case that it is HEZ and he is a shill involved in the hoax , is more likely than what you claim.



to suggest that Hez.. was under pressure from CNN not to disclose the location of where the camera position was. We are talking Killtown and his bag of majik tricks remember.

the interview speaks for itself... anyone with a brain can understand whats going on... HEZ is clearly hiding something and was definitely SCARED to talk about it. For you to say there's nothing suspicious proves again that you're either in denial, naive, or have no common sense which seems to be a trademark of those trying to defend the perps and perpetuate the disinfo.


I am not interested in disproving your claim that something is faked ....


because you can't.


the evidence you have presented so far is flimsy at best, and lousy at worst.
Stann

so you claim without any proof whatsoever

what else is new? :rolleyes: