• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

i'd like this debunked

water_bender said:
anyone have an explanation as to why it would be altered?
Click to expand...

No, Perry is 100% spot on. There is ample evidence that it wasnt tampered with by using simple logic and reasoning skills. This evidence of tampering might make sense if:

- there was anything visible that looked like an airliner, just before impact. Or...
- the alleged tampering was only evident in the the timespan of the event above, which would be no more than a split second - and not throughout the feed.

Water bender, if you were in charge of doctoring a tape to cover up foul play. Would you:

- Just doctor up the 5 or so frames(assuming the video is 5 fps) that clearly show your cruise missile/Global Hawk.
- Doctor up the whole tape, including peoples movements minutes afterward for absolutely no reason whatsoever?

Considering the low quality of the feed, you have no idea how easy it would be to simply "erase" the missile/Global Hawk/UFO in just 3-4 frames of the video(and even insert a properly shaded blur of an airliner). Its just silly to think they edited many parts of the video for no reason whatsoever.
 
Fast version: any competent media production student editor with access to , say, Full Sail or DAVE School level equipment (much less the Feds, Rosicrucians, Illuminati, etc,ad infinitum) could fix the video so you would see no oddities - or see oddities but with no number glitches - or see number glitches but no oddities. If the source video is less than sterling quality (and same with the recording system) finding real life, non-conspiracy reasons for glitches is easy. And implying conspiracy reasons for what is equiptment/media failures is easy also. But pointless/meaningless.
 
have any of you actually gone through the sequence frame by frame? have any of you even looked to see if the anomalies i'm pointing out are there? heres a further explanation of what im trying to get someone to OBJECTIVELY (like my use of the shift key that time?) look at. go through the actual film, and stop making indirect conclusions and dismissing the hard evidence.

in every example of a person moving on screen they move or change position every 15 frames, or 2 times a second. this is because the frame rate of the original captured footage is at 2fps. a pretty standard rate for security cameras. the mpg however is at a frame rate of smpte non-drop 29.97, or roughly 30 frames per second. so if every other person on this video is moving at a rate of 2 times every second, why does the man in the video starting at 11:16:25 absolute time (09:34:35 using the videos time stamp) not advance while in a movement stance (one leg up and in motion) for 121 frames and then again for another 159 frames. that means this man was lifting his leg and would have had to keep it in the same position for
4 seconds. does it take you 4 seconds to move your leg forward 1 step?

in any given point in the video, except the segment in question the camera oscillates up and down at a regular rate, 1 oscillation every second. why is it then that the camera only goes through one cycle of up and down oscillation for 395 frames? thats 12.5 seconds. why did it cease to oscillate at a rate of 1 time per second to a rate of 1 time every 12.5 seconds.

both of the above examples occur during the same time period in question.

if anyone wants examples of people moving at a rate of 1 every 15 frames here are the time signatures of several examples :
3:22:25[absolute] 09:26:16[time stamp]
3:59:01[absolute] 09:26:54[time stamp]
12:44:07[absolute] 09:36:11[time stamp]

in addition to the abnormal movement rates are two artifacts that suggest splicing at 11:24:10[absolute] 9:34:42[time stamp] and 11:26:25[absolute] 9:34:44 [time stamp].

this isnt the case of a bad feed, or poor reception. the time stamp and absolute frame rate remain in sync for the entirety of the video clip, EXCEPT for the segment in question.
 
Last edited:
apathoid said:
No, Perry is 100% spot on. There is ample evidence that it wasnt tampered with by using simple logic and reasoning skills. This evidence of tampering might make sense if:

- there was anything visible that looked like an airliner, just before impact. Or...
- the alleged tampering was only evident in the the timespan of the event above, which would be no more than a split second - and not throughout the feed.

Water bender, if you were in charge of doctoring a tape to cover up foul play. Would you:

- Just doctor up the 5 or so frames(assuming the video is 5 fps) that clearly show your cruise missile/Global Hawk.
- Doctor up the whole tape, including peoples movements minutes afterward for absolutely no reason whatsoever?

Considering the low quality of the feed, you have no idea how easy it would be to simply "erase" the missile/Global Hawk/UFO in just 3-4 frames of the video(and even insert a properly shaded blur of an airliner). Its just silly to think they edited many parts of the video for no reason whatsoever.
Click to expand...
you are only arguing my point. i dont think that the video was altered in several location. just one 12.5 second segment, starting approx. 15 seconds after impact. i dont think a cruise missle or global hawk hit the pentagon. i think flight 77 did. wow shocker. i'll say it again. i think that flight 77 hit the pentagon. now why was this video altered?
 
water_bender said:
have any of you actually gone through the sequence frame by frame? have any of you even looked to see if the anomalies i'm pointing out are there? heres a further explanation of what im trying to get someone to OBJECTIVELY (like my use of the shift key that time?) look at. go through the actual film, and stop making indirect conclusions and dismissing the hard evidence.

in every example of a person moving on screen they move or change position every 15 frames, or 2 times a second. this is because the frame rate of the original captured footage is at 2fps. a pretty standard rate for security cameras. the mpg however is at a frame rate of smpte non-drop 29.97, or roughly 30 frames per second. so if every other person on this video is moving at a rate of 2 times every second, why does the man in the video starting at 11:16:25 absolute time (09:34:35 using the videos time stamp) not advance while in a movement stance (one leg up and in motion) for 121 frames and then again for another 159 frames. that means this man was lifting his leg and would have had to keep it in the same position for
4 seconds. does it take you 4 seconds to move your leg forward 1 step?

in any given point in the video, except the segment in question the camera oscillates up and down at a regular rate, 1 oscillation every second. why is it then that the camera only goes through one cycle of up and down oscillation for 395 frames? thats 12.5 seconds. why did it cease to oscillate at a rate of 1 time per second to a rate of 1 time every 12.5 seconds.

both of the above examples occur during the same time period in question.

if anyone wants examples of people moving at a rate of 1 every 15 frames here are the time signatures of several examples :
3:22:25[absolute] 09:26:16[time stamp]
3:59:01[absolute] 09:26:54[time stamp]
12:44:07[absolute] 09:36:11[time stamp]

in addition to the abnormal movement rates are two artifacts that suggest splicing at 11:24:10[absolute] 9:34:42[time stamp] and 11:26:25[absolute] 9:34:44 [time stamp].

this isnt the case of a bad feed, or poor reception. the time stamp and absolute frame rate remain in sync for the entirety of the video clip, EXCEPT for the segment in question.
Click to expand...

did the original camera operate with video tape or did it save it as data like a web cam? I have had an outdoor web cam for years now and for some reason every once in awhile it stalls just as you describe above, In fact some times i see traffic jump back one frame. I attribute it to the CPU or memory swap.

http://awsmith.dyndns.org/dynamicindex/cam0vo.html
 
fuelair said:
Fast version: any competent media production student editor with access to , say, Full Sail or DAVE School level equipment (much less the Feds, Rosicrucians, Illuminati, etc,ad infinitum) could fix the video so you would see no oddities - or see oddities but with no number glitches - or see number glitches but no oddities. If the source video is less than sterling quality (and same with the recording system) finding real life, non-conspiracy reasons for glitches is easy. And implying conspiracy reasons for what is equiptment/media failures is easy also. But pointless/meaningless.
Click to expand...

name a single equipment related glitch that would cause these oddities. this sort of glitch or error can only occur when using software or through poor quality physical tape editing.
 
A W Smith said:
did the original camera operate with video tape or did it save it as data like a web cam? I have had an outdoor web cam for years now and for some reason every once in awhile it stalls just as you descibe above, In fact some times i see trafic jump back one frame. I attribute it to the CPU or memory swap.
Click to expand...


direct to vhs.
 
water_bender said:
have any of you actually gone through the sequence frame by frame? have any of you even looked to see if the anomalies i'm pointing out are there? heres a further explanation of what im trying to get someone to OBJECTIVELY (like my use of the shift key that time?) look at. go through the actual film, and stop making indirect conclusions and dismissing the hard evidence.

in every example of a person moving on screen they move or change position every 15 frames, or 2 times a second. this is because the frame rate of the original captured footage is at 2fps. a pretty standard rate for security cameras. the mpg however is at a frame rate of smpte non-drop 29.97, or roughly 30 frames per second. so if every other person on this video is moving at a rate of 2 times every second, why does the man in the video starting at 11:16:25 absolute time (09:34:35 using the videos time stamp) not advance while in a movement stance (one leg up and in motion) for 121 frames and then again for another 159 frames. that means this man was lifting his leg and would have had to keep it in the same position for
4 seconds. does it take you 4 seconds to move your leg forward 1 step?

in any given point in the video, except the segment in question the camera oscillates up and down at a regular rate, 1 oscillation every second. why is it then that the camera only goes through one cycle of up and down oscillation for 395 frames? thats 12.5 seconds. why did it cease to oscillate at a rate of 1 time per second to a rate of 1 time every 12.5 seconds.

both of the above examples occur during the same time period in question.

if anyone wants examples of people moving at a rate of 1 every 15 frames here are the time signatures of several examples :
3:22:25[absolute] 09:26:16[time stamp]
3:59:01[absolute] 09:26:54[time stamp]
12:44:07[absolute] 09:36:11[time stamp]

in addition to the abnormal movement rates are two artifacts that suggest splicing at 11:24:10[absolute] 9:34:42[time stamp] and 11:26:25[absolute] 9:34:44 [time stamp].

this isnt the case of a bad feed, or poor reception. the time stamp and absolute frame rate remain in sync for the entirety of the video clip, EXCEPT for the segment in question.
Click to expand...


Counter Implication :

Are you implying security feed that watches a parking lot in a commercial hotel should have 24+frames per second, high speed shutter features, zoom int and out functions, and should be impervious from tampering?

Still, EVEN if this video has been tampered with : what the heck would it prove?

A. Some dumbass employee at that hotel spilled coffee of the tape and ruined it?

B. The Illuminati agent spliced incriminating shots of a cruise missile/ Global hawk / the star wars beam weapon hitting the Pentagon?

C. The tampering is not tampering. It's just the product of the video passed from one hand to another?

D. Planet X. All tapes on Planet X mean something!

E. The CTers are REALLY running out of "evidence" for their cause and have to over analyze some dumb video from a hotel parking lot?

F. Any combination of the above.

G. All of the above.
 
water_bender said:
in every example of a person moving on screen they move or change position every 15 frames, or 2 times a second.
Click to expand...

Absolutely false. There is similar stoppage throughtout the video for example around time stamps 9:36:53 9:37:28 9:38:29 ...

Also the time changes irregularly for example 9:37:17 to 9:37:46 to 9:37:26 this type of thing also goes throughout the video.

in any given point in the video, except the segment in question the camera oscillates up and down at a regular rate,
Click to expand...

What segment are you talking about? The camera oscillates exactly the same way during the "running man" segment as the rest of the film.
in addition to the abnormal movement rates are two artifacts that suggest splicing at 11:24:10[absolute] 9:34:42[time stamp] and 11:26:25[absolute] 9:34:44 [time stamp].

this isnt the case of a bad feed, or poor reception. the time stamp and absolute frame rate remain in sync for the entirety of the video clip, EXCEPT for the segment in question.
Click to expand...


It was recorded on a vhs tape that had probably been used for months. Could that explain your artifacts? I see nothing that would be different on the segment right after the impact that isn't on rest of the film. Just play the film and you see stopping and time stamp irregularities.
 
28th Kingdom said:
I love how you people...use incompetence as an excuse for why the gov didn't stop 9/11... but if they were involved...of course, they wouldn't be incompetent enough to leave absurd planted evidence like miracle passports, bandannas, confessional tapes & doctored video footage.

Assbackwards logic...per usual.
Click to expand...

I thought everyone was on your ignore list;

You are short on as much proof as you are on brains.
 
well, the delays on the tape look just like those you get when you're logging digitally, and the crummy cpu in the camera/logger is having trouble keeping up.
 
ohp said:
well, the delays on the tape look just like those you get when you're logging digitally, and the crummy cpu in the camera/logger is having trouble keeping up.
Click to expand...

That sounds very good; Merry Christmas
 
chacal said:
Absolutely false. There is similar stoppage throughtout the video for example around time stamps 9:36:53 9:37:28 9:38:29 ...

Also the time changes irregularly for example 9:37:17 to 9:37:46 to 9:37:26 this type of thing also goes throughout the video.



What segment are you talking about? The camera oscillates exactly the same way during the "running man" segment as the rest of the film.



It was recorded on a vhs tape that had probably been used for months. Could that explain your artifacts? I see nothing that would be different on the segment right after the impact that isn't on rest of the film. Just play the film and you see stopping and time stamp irregularities.
Click to expand...

no the same sort of time changes do NOT occur throughout the video. yes there is a fluctuation in the appearance of the time stamp when run at normal speed. slow it down and you will see every second count off, one by one. it will require you to go frame by frame, however the average rate is as it should be 2 frames of analog video to every 30 frames of digital video at a rate of 30fps. go back and read what it is i am saying. everywhere in the video the rate of movement for every single moving object in this video is approx 1 step of movement every 15 frames, as one would expect them to be. the only exception to this is during the 12.5 seconds in question and in that segment the man remains in a movement stance for 121 frames, as the time stamp continues, for 4 seconds. the time stamp comes from the analog video. as does the video of the man. the ONLY way that the time stamp can continue to count off seconds and that man not move, though in a moving pose for 121 frames is if the video has been digitally altered or physically editing by cutting and splicing the film.

and the camera does not oscillate at the same rate during the segment im questioning. the oscilation is at a rate of 1 complete up/down cycle in 395 frames. everywhere else it completes one up/down cycle every 30 frames.

again i insist you go through the piece frame by frame, otherwise you're ignoring the evidence and making conclusions based on pure conjecture.
 
Last edited:
That is because the right side of his brain is filled with Paranoia, leaving little room for anything else.

TAM
 
water_bender said:
again i insist you go through the piece frame by frame, otherwise you're ignoring the evidence and making conclusions based on pure conjecture.
Click to expand...

And that right there is the problem with this thread. You're "insisting" we sit down and spend a whole lot of time studying a boring security video, but you don't tell us why we should spend the time to do that.

What do you expect to find here? What could editing those few seconds of the tape have gained or lost for anyone? What is our motivation for doing all this work?

If you really believe that this is some sort of "smoking gun", tell us why you think that. If you don't think that, then tell us why you're so interested in it, and why you think we should be so interested in it.

Do you just imagine we have nothing better to do than jump through all these hoops, for some undisclosed reason?
 
water_bender said:
again i insist you go through the piece frame by frame, otherwise you're ignoring the evidence and making conclusions based on pure conjecture.
Click to expand...
I insist you use upper and lower case letters.
Another thread starter setting House Rules? Sorry, but that ain't the way it works, here. You post what you choose/want to post. We post what we choose/want to post in response. You respond, in turn; we respond.

I'm really sorry if you dedicated a week of your life to looking for lizard lords (or whatever) in a cheap re-used piece of video tape, but that's like looking for the Bible Code in a typo in a Mickey Spillaine novel. As Solidslade tried to ask (and as you've avoided)..... What does it prove?

You keep insisting there's only one question, "Was this tampered with?"
We've answered.
a) hey, anything's possible
b) not likely because there's no gap at a significant moment
c) the quality is shi**y throughout, not just at that point
d) it doesn't seem like anything more than a crappy parking lot video camera tape, not dissimilar to any number that we've all seen on true crime television shows at 7-11's and liquor stores

What is your point? It doesn't appear to be tampered with. If that's the question, we've answered it and you can move on. If you actually have something else to ask, then ask it, already? Quit dawdling and teasing and get to the point of your thread. Are you leading us down the garden path to the missing splice being the part where the drone was? J. Edgar Hoover's ghost? A pterodactyl? John Connor littering(commiting a crime) while screaming "911 was an inside job"?

Get to the point!


ETA: Horatius pretty much beat me to it.....
 
water_bender said:
the time stamp comes from the analog video. as does the video of the man. the ONLY way that the time stamp can continue to count off seconds and that man not move, though in a moving pose for 121 frames is if the video has been digitally altered or physically editing by cutting and splicing the film.
Click to expand...


Actually that's not true.

The video of the man comes from the CAMERA and the timecode comes from the recording device.

If the images are not moving, but the timecode continues to count, that means the signal from the camera to the recorder has had a glitch.

It's an error in the CCD, nothing more.

And by the way, given this is video it cannot be "physically edited by cutting and splicing the film".

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom