KeepDiggin
some
logic... some of the time
Later
That Evening, May 2, 1587
The
Earth Is An Oblate Spheroid - Installment VII: “Ignorance Is
Bliss”
Introduction
Something has always bothered me
about the work of StillDiggin. Here we have a case of an individual who has the
means to not only model the exact layout of the WTC towers (Flight Simulator
2004 and the New York Objects patch are all public domain), but also to overlay
accurate freeware POSKY and iFDG Boeing 767-200 plane models on top of the
inserted CGI’s in the fake 911 videos.
I’ve often wondered what he could
have achieved had he been bothered to buy a copy of Fs2004 and put it to good
use. Instead of using hearsay and guesswork to pedal wishy-washy “no-plane” speculation across the web,
he missed the golden opportunity to regurgitate my own work as detailed in “The WTC2 Media Hoax”, work that would
demonstrate the fraudulent nature of the WTC2 videos and
photographs.
Well, rather than waiting for
StillDiggin to heave his sorry ass off to the local computer store, I decided to
analyse his work myself using Fs2004 and find out how good it was.
Messin’ Up The Angles Part 1 – Takin’ On Water
Let’s provide the
reader with a typical example of StillDiggin’s work. In the article “9/11 TV-Fakery: 45 Degree UA175 Flight Path
Discrepancy?” StillDiggin analyses some CBS video footage and informs the
reader that:
“We can calculate the camera
angle relative to WTC2 by counting the number of pixels of each face. I counted
8 pixels for the east face and 39 pixels for the north face from frame 6868.
This works out to an angle of about 11.5 degrees (tan 11.59 =
8/39).”
It looks as if StillDiggin has
taken a measurement of the blooming (or maybe even the open space between the
towers mixed in with the blooming) from the beveled corner of WTC2. A lesser
example of blooming from the corner of WTC2 appears in CNN’s “Michael Hezarkhani”
video:
But it gets worse for StillDiggin
because he’s missed an obvious clue that would reveal the true bearing of the
camera from the WTC. It’s that large structure on the right-hand side of the
frame commonly known as the “
Here’s that same camera viewpoint
in Fs2004:
The north-south axis of WTC2
aligns with approximately 041 degrees magnetic in the simulation. Fs2004
revealed that the camera bearing from WTC2 to the approximate location of the
Empire State Building was approximately 043 degrees magnetic, making the
relative camera bearing from WTC2 approximately 2 degrees.
So that’s a 9.5 degree difference
between StillDiggin’s calculation and my calculation ascertained using
Fs2004.
Messin’ Up The Angles Part 2 – Listin’ To One
Side
StillDiggin makes a similar
mistake in “The Earth Is Not Flat”
using another source of CBS footage. I’ve shown a DVD video capture of the same
source below.
StillDiggin
reports:
“Well, according to my
calculations, the difference between these two camera angles is only about 6
degrees”
Here StillDiggin is referring to
the difference between the “
StillDiggin has previously given
us a camera bearing of 11.5 degrees for the
So what about the camera bearing
in the “Rapid Descent” video?
Fs2004 gave an approximate
bearing of 059 degrees magnetic for the “Rapid Descent” video compared to the “
But StillDiggin claims the
relative bearing between the two camera viewpoints is about 6 degrees, that’s an
error of 10 degrees!
Messin’ Up The Angles Part 3 – Switchin’ On The Bilge
Pump
Now let’s tie
everything together and find out if the CGI’s in the previously mentioned fake
UA175 videos are in the correct places they should have been had they been real.
I’ve used Fs2004 to extract latitude/longitude, altitude, heading, pitch, roll
and yaw data from the CGI in the WNBC footage (see below). I have chosen this
video because the quality is good enough to obtain pitch, roll, yaw and height
of the “plane” with a sufficient
degree of accuracy. I will then use the information taken from the WNBC footage
and use it as a kind of “measuring
stick” for testing other WTC2 videos.
Shown below are the
previously discussed StillDiggin screen captures with the Fs2004 generated WNBC
equivalents below them using a 3.5-second-to-impact time code. Do you
notice any
difference between the StillDiggin “
No?
I don’t either.
What you may discern is that the
CGI model is placed much higher up and pitched down a few degrees more in the
simulation in comparison to CBS “video
reality”. This is due to the fact that the CGI aircraft data was taken from
the WNBC video, a video of which shows the “plane” making a high approach with a
pronounced dive at the WTC in a fashion we don’t see in other
videos.
Putting this height / pitch error
aside the Fs2004 test would seem to contradict StillDiggin’s assertion
that…
“Given the speed of the plane and
the distance of the camera, these would have to be two different planes for
these videos to be real.”
Messin’ Up The Angles Part 4 – That Ol’ Sinkin’
Feelin’
In “9/11 TV-Fakery: 45 Degree UA175 Flight Path
Discrepancy?” StillDiggin informs the
reader that the camera bearing
from the WTC2 tower in the CNN “Ronald
Pordy” video (DVD capture shown below) is 23.5 degrees.
This time
StillDiggin scores a direct hit as Fs2004 gives a bearing of approximately 23
degrees (approximately 064 degrees magnetic). Luckily for him the camera angle
was quite broad and the quality of the video he’s using was good enough to get a
reliable figure.
However StillDiggin seems to
compound his previous mistakes by claiming that the CGI “plane” should be much closer to the
WTC2 tower than it actually appears in the video given the time
code.
For comparison here’s the Fs2004
equivalent of the “Ronald Pordy”
video using a similar time code (the image is not at the same dimensional scale
as StillDiggin’s):
So according to Fs2004 there is
nothing unusual about the distance of the “plane” from WTC2 in the “Ronald Pordy” video, yet StillDiggin
would have us believe otherwise.
Messin’ Up Them Angles Part 5 –
Down To Davey Jones Locker
To end this analysis I’ve cobbled
together a range of different Fs2004 screen captures based on data gleaned from
the WNBC footage using the 3.5-second-to-impact time code. This montage includes
the “Ronald Pordy” view, the “
The Earth Is An Oblate
Spheroid
The technique I use in “The WTC2 Media Hoax” to analyse
information from a WTC2 “plane” video
or photograph involves visually transposing the camera bearing, aircraft
location and aircraft attitude from the “authentic” footage into the Fs2004
environment.
It’s a difficult and time
consuming process that will only yield a conclusive result with at least 2 good
quality video or photographic sources. When a good quality video or photographic
source is used it’s often difficult, if not, impossible to extract 3 dimension
information from the 2 dimensional source, even when accurate time frames are
involved.
However, when reliable data has
been extracted from 2 or more videos or photographs it is possible to compare
height, pitch, roll, yaw, length, width and heading data from 2 transposed CGI’s
inside the Fs2004 simulation.
StillDiggin claims
that:
“Something has always bothered me
about the work of Marcus Icke and Stephan Grossman. Here we have a case of
individuals having the wherewithal to not only model the exact layout of the
towers, but also overlay accurate plane models on top of the inserted plane
CGI’s.
I’ve often wished that I had that
model at my disposal so that I could use it properly... the first thing I would
do with that model is to flip to a plan view (view from directly above). From
there, I would be able to demonstrate how vastly different all the flight paths
of these cartoon planes are.”
In that case it’s time to put
StillDiggin out of his misery. The
simple answer to the inferred question of ‘why don’t I use Fs2004 to check flight
paths’ is because...
You can’t.
The quality and limitations of
the video sources are too great and Fs2004 would need to be adapted for that
specific task.
I could develop a case for
differing flight paths from one video or photograph to another but I’d need to
rely on interpolation and assumptions in my calculations and therefore I don’t
think the results would be accurate enough to warrant any attention.
But there are reliable ways to
demonstrate video forgery.
One such method is to imply differing flight paths of the “plane” from one video to another. Using
captures from videos where the CGI “plane” is very close to, or touching,
the WTC2 tower is its possible to quite accurately gauge airframe attitude and
dimensions as the dimensions of the B767-200 and WTC towers are known.
Here’s my favorite example from
“The WTC2 Media Hoax”. The analysis
compares aircraft data from the “CNN Best
Angle” or “Michael Hezarkhani”
video with data from the “
As the yaw and roll are different
in both cases it follows that both “planes” must have had different flight
paths. So here we have some pretty hard evidence for video manipulation or
outright fakery (as if the differing roll and yaw didn’t make it obvious…). Having spent about 2 years analysing as
many good quality videos and photographs as possible I have been able to produce
pitch, roll and yaw summaries for the videos below:
CNN
Best Angle (Michael Hezarkhani Video) / Carmen Taylor Digital
Photograph
Pitch = +3 degrees at impact
Roll = 35 degrees port at impact
Yaw = 5 degrees starboard at impact
Pitch = -1 degree at impact
Roll = 41 degrees port at impact
Yaw = Undetermined
Robert Clark
Photograph
Pitch = -2.5 degrees
Roll = 37 degrees port
Yaw = Undetermined
Park Foreman Video
Pitch = -2.0 degrees at impact
Roll = Undetermined
Yaw = Undetermined
Evan Fairbanks Video
Pitch = Undetermined
Roll = Undetermined
Yaw = 11 degrees starboard at impact
Cheney Hit / Courchesne Video
Pitch = Near horizontal at
impact
Roll = 42 degrees port at impact
Yaw = 9 degrees starboard at impact
Jennifer Spell Video
Pitch = -1 degree at impact
Bank = 40 degrees at impact
Yaw = 6 degrees starboard at impact
The WTC2 event could only have
happened one way, and one way only. It therefore follows that
either:
- All of the sources mentioned
above are fakes.
Or,
- Only one of them is genuine and
therefore the remainder are fakes, thereby implying a
very high incidence of visual fakery.
We could add to this by analysing
the shape of the “plane” in each
image and comparing it to a CG model which is known to be identical to a real
Boeing 767-200 with a United Airlines livery. This has been done in “The WTC2 Media Hoax” and it can be
shown quite clearly that a significant number of the “planes” do not look like one another
and many bear little or no resemblance to a real Boeing
767-200.
Ignorance Is
Bliss
Analysis of the WTC2 videos and
photographs in isolation is both difficult and unreliable. The analyst runs the
risk falling for optical illusions or rushing towards a mirage created by his or
her own inadequate or inaccurate methodologies and practice’s. Even obvious
mistakes can slip through the net, mistakes that could have been easily detected
using software like Fs2004 with an objective operator and a reliable comparative
methodology.
My personal view is that
determination, or attempted determination, of flight paths as a means of
detecting video fakery is an inferior methodology to other methodologies that
could have been employed by a more resourceful and objective
researcher.
“The WTC2 Media
Hoax”
can be viewed here.
“The WTC1 Video
Hoax”
can be viewed here.
| Permafrost | Comets