March 21, 2007

TV Fakery Test

(03/23/07: Answer to question below)


Look very closely at the following animated gifs:



(#482-83)

(#518-19)

(#519-20)

(#520-21)

(#549-50)

(#555-56)

(#561-62)





How do you think I
manipulated these videos?




(Answer below.)





Bonus:

(#312-13)

(#326-27)

(#362-63)

(#386-87)


Extra Bonuses:

(#147-48)

(#238-39)






Question: How do you think I manipulated these videos?







Answer: I didn't.



The bouncing effects you are seeing are what the video clips show when you loop two sequential frames from the videos together.





To replicate, get Vdownloader to grab videos (see links to videos under gifs). Then use VirtualDub to analyze video clips frame-by-frame. The numbers of the frames I used are listed under the gifs. Go back-and-forth between the frames to see the bouncing effect. Note that there are tons of these bouncing effects throughout the video clips.


The question is are these bouncing effects just the result of the normal compression phenomenon that do sometimes happen in videos taken with a camcorder, or are the amount and degree of these compression effects in all these 2nd hit videos abnormal?


11 comments:

Spooked said...

Perhaps the question should be: WHY did you create these?

I don't understand what the idea here is. Although I do feel a bit dizzy from staring at those.

Anonymous said...

If it's about the bouncing image, that's due to the progressive scanning of the lines of resolution on the TV picture. Happens all the time in video editing. So I sure as heck hope that's not what I was supposed to be looking for.

Melle Belle said...

Not to spoil anything, but my guess is, after importing into
ImageReady, two layered screenshots ...

Swing Dangler said...

Fireball has been removed in one set, the fireball appears to large in the extra section, the smoke from the first hit apepars too black.
I'm not an amateur or expert at A/V manipulation so couldn't tell you how you did it.

Swing Dangler said...

Why does the extra bonus project a 'pointy' shadow that doesn't match the fireball?

magnus said...

What sort of composite would alternately shift one distinct object, then another? Maybe that's a common flaw in shaky field composites. You must admit that the fakery is good enough to make your job very hard. Excellent forgery together with the imprimatur of bona fide concensus of authority can bring the fraudulent art dealer a fortune. Many years can pass before a forgery is proven and accepted. Thanks for speeding up the process.

Anonymous said...

Hi bgregistration,

The following insight was recieved by me regarding your videos:

Well, that proves everything! The first video has made me a believer! I'm ready to convert now! Get out the scalpel and circumcise me right now!

Here's what you didn't notice: the perspective is different. Notice the brown building behind the main buildings that are being used as a reference. The brown building appears lower than the taller reference building's arch. In the "fake" video, it's higher, and almost completely behind the other one. So in the "fake" video the camera is no longer at ground level, and has shifted significantly to the left. It also appears that the camera in the fake video is quite a bit further back than the camera in the "real" video, that and the trees in front of the buildings are not the same in the two shots (unless they've shrunk instead of grown).

1. If the "missing" buildings are in front of the twin towers (it's difficult to tell from either shot), the taller white building is now closer to the shorter reference building, because the camera has shifted to the left. It may be the one just peaking out from behind the trees, just to the left of the shorter reference building (circled below).

2. If the missing buildings are about the same height as the shorter reference building, pulling the camera back and up, and taking it behind another set of trees would provide a perspective very similar to the "fake" shot.

To sum up:

1. The camera is to the left, further up, and much further back in the "fake" video. This can be clearly seen from the building behind the taller reference building.

2. The trees in front of the buildings are not the same ones, unless they have shrunk, going from 9/11 to the new shot. The camera is further up in the 9/11 shot, so the trees should be even smaller, but they are as tall as the shorter building, further back in time.

Anonymous said...

Hello again:

This is the second email I recieved from a person I know. Please note that this individual is an electrical engineer who has designed cell phones and computer control boards where, in some cases, may have been used in rockets. Thanks and visit my channel.

Here it is:

All BS:

1. Smoke doesn't move from one frame to the next: the buildings are 208 feet across. As the amount of smoke gets scaled up, the movement doesn't scale with it. For example, if you have a small fire of 1 foot in height, the flames from 10 feet away will appear to move fast. If the fire is 100 feet in height, and you are watching it from a distance of 1000 feet, it won't look the same: it will appear to move much more slowly. If you watch the shot in normal speed before the plane hits, the smoke is moving, and is moving as it should for the size of the smoke cloud. If you were to zoom in closely and look at the smoke in a 1 foot by 1 foot area, you would see a lot more motion. If you watch the little buldge in the smoke just to the upper right of the brown building, you will see it slowly move up and dissapear into the main column. Like most conspriacy theorists, the authors lack some very basic knowledge of physics and fluid dynamics.

2. Scary faces. The human brain is designed to recognize faces (and other images) in an abstract way. It's what set our species apart from our predecessors. Before us, there were no cave paintings, no fine tools, sewing needles, etc. Getting back to faces: why do you suppose people recognize the images of Jesus, Mary, Elvis, etc. on slices of bread, reflections on a piece of glass, etc.? Where's the conspiracy there? Smoke clouds on the scale of 9/11 will have large pockets. Sometimes they will line up and look like a face. All you need are two pokets across the top for eyes and one below for the mouth, and you have a face. There are other pockets that don't line up, so they don't look like faces. Have you ever looked up in a cloudy sky and recognized objects? Same effect.

3. Fireball stands still. Actually, it doesn't. It expands quickly at first, but as the pressure difference lowers, the expansion slows. Again, a knowlege of physics would really help the authors. One mistake they have made throughout this movie is expecting camera movements from one frame to the next and to be matched by huge movements in the scene. If a camera is 1000 meters from the object that being filmed, and the camera moves 1/5 degree per frame, the apparent movement in the scene is 1.75 meters in 1/30 seconds, or 52 meters per second, which is 190 Km/h.

4. Debris not falling. Actually, it is falling. Light debris may be affected by updrafts caused by the heat from fireball (the air has to come from somewhere to fill the void left by the rising air, or a vacuum will be created). Also, the scale is important here as well. The distance from the impact to the top of the trees is at least 200 feet, or 60 meters. D= 1/2*a*t*t, so t = sqrt(D/(1/2*a)), t = 3.5 seconds, ignoring the effects of wind resistance. That's 105 frames, so the movement from one frame to the next will be very small. I wonder if these guys passed physics 12, never mind anything in college or university.

As I said, all BS.

Anonymous said...

http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-6165269.html

The above link pertains to Halifaxion getting his YouTube account axed for violating DMCA.

What I am pondering is why did YouTube axed your account, Killtown? Maybe you can elaborate if you happen to know.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

This article is about 3 weeks old so you might have already heard about it. If you have, I apologize for posting it.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Someone on You Tube has been sending me messages from an Electrical Engineer who supports the official story. He's clearly a bright guy but is proposing impossible camera locations (such as from the inside of an apartment building where no apartment building exists.)

I think he's thinking about things in the right way, all that's missing is for him to link it up to the real world. He's making assumptions about where the camera could have been without taking into consideration where it could actually be (for example there has to be some place to stand, it doesn't make sense that the camera could be 100 feet above the ground and still be shot by an amateur cameraman).

I think some of the shots they used for their composite image may have been taken from the air. Also, there's a good article from a Disney animator on how to compose a scene (for real cartoons) and part of the advice is to clean up the foreground so that there's less to animate in the scene (I can't find the link). The camera location for looking up at the whitehall building works if they get right behind some big trees near Castle Clinton in the park, but then the problem is that they'd be looking up at the WTC through the trees, so you'd have a cluttered image of a bunch of tree branches.

I think what they did is build up several layers based on hundreds of photographs of the site, and then cleaned up the layers into a sort of idealized backdrop for the ghostplane animation. So, some of the photos going into the layers may have been shot from a helicopter or cherry-picker (crane) or something like that.

Peggy Carter's blog http://conspicuousplot.blogspot.com has some nice maps and photos, and so does Brain V's noplanes911.blogspot.com

Here's what the view looks like from inside castle clinton. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-845163873350524664&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7879201860008343809&hl=en

And behind and near the water (this is back and to the left, as your friend origianally suggested) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-61802431331464232&hl=en

You can tell that that spot is too far to the left because you can't see the red building any longer. From the water's edge doesn't work at all either. The "correct" place to stand is right behind some very large trees to the right and slightly behind Castle Clinton, but then why aren't they in the shot?


This spot here is probably the best from the line up point of view, but it doesn't work for obvious reasons. You can see how dramatically the line up of the building changes by walking just a few steps in any direction. Thus, we can rule out being further to the left or right, and we end up with shots from impossible locations (flying above the water, hovering over the treetops, etc.)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8257984384124514044&hl=en


Hope that helps!