• 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.

Lying with Pixels - Technology Article from 2000

Corsair 115 said:
I'll give it a whirl. But there's one major caveat: such videos must be of reasonable quality and of a reasonable resolution and screen size. Trying to do any meaningful analysis of a video with the resolution and picture quality of a typical YouTube video is difficult at best - having sufficient detail is the absolutely key component in being able to make any worthwhile judgements.
Click to expand...


I accept with the same reservations.
 
twinstead said:
I will almost guarantee there were probably 1 or 2 people who thought they saw a leprechaun out of all the hundreds or thousands of witnesses. So?

Of course according to some, eye witness testimony must always agree to a man to be valid, right?
Click to expand...

I don't recall reading about leprechauns in the PA transcripts, a missile on the other hand I do recall reading about.

According to ARSUS...BEFORE beginning to analyze video, HE Should be analyzing what people saw that day, in person.
Click to expand...

So we have people who saw leprechauns, missiles, and planes. This might explain why Truth is analyzing a single piece of the video record.
 
Swing Dangler said:
And of accounts of people who thought they saw a missile?
Click to expand...

1) How many people actually say they saw a missile?
2) How many people didn't see it and speculate it was a missile?
3) How many people didn't see it and speculate it was an aircraft?
4) How many people actually say they saw an aircraft?
5) How many people explicitly state it was a large United Airlines airliner?

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
1) How many people actually say they saw a missile?
2) How many people didn't see it and speculate it was a missile?
3) How many people didn't see it and speculate it was an aircraft?
4) How many people actually say they saw an aircraft?
5) How many people explicitly state it was a large United Airlines airliner?
-Gumboot
Click to expand...

How many saw the tail number of the airplane to positively identify the aircraft?
 
Swing Dangler said:
How many saw the tail number of the airplane to positively identify the aircraft?
Click to expand...
How many people match the dental and DNA remains of the passengers on flight 175, which remains were recovered from the rubble of the WTC?

Using the inability to read the 1 foot tall numbers on the vertical tail of a 570 MPH jet aircraft at a distance of 1/4 mile as "evidence" that it wan't UAL175 is about the stupidest, most insane idea ever dreamed up by anybody--especially when the remaining physical evidence is overwhelming.
 
pomeroo said:
Stateofgrace, the point is that it doesn't seem odd to Ace that a poorly-educated musician of average intelligence notices things that every scientist and engineer in the world overlooks. That is why I label him insane.
Click to expand...


I say me and Ace have a Riff Off. Winner gets to decide if there were planes or not
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
In attempting to discredit my UA175 velocity study paper, RMAckey has claimed that video insertion technology did not exist in 2001. I invite you all to read "Lying with Pixels". Then comment upon whether or not RMackey is correct.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000711055157/http:/www.techreview.com/articles/july00/amato.htm

July/August 2000



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+2]Lying With Pixels[/SIZE][/FONT]
Seeing is no longer believing. The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake—a fabrication of fast new video-manipulation technology.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]By Ivan Amato[/FONT]
Click to expand...
It is a nutty idea flight 175 was faked. Since thousands of eyes saw flight 175 hit, your whole idea on 175 is flat wrong. Which part of wrong are you having a problem with. Therefore you have wasted a thread again on 175.

Now this brings up a question. Why are you supporting an idea which is wrong? What a waste.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
How many saw the tail number of the airplane to positively identify the aircraft?
Click to expand...
Are you this challenged when it comes to research and facts?

4 aircraft were destroyed on 9/11, I bet you can not prove 175 was not one of them. I bet your life on it. You are safe, you will never prove it was not. This kinds of positively identifies 175, and when you use your head you can prove it.

4 sets of passengers died on 9/11, try an prove the passengers on 175 did not die. Their remains were in the WTC. I wonder why the DNA matched the passengers? Did you miss this too?

Radar data proves 175 was the aircraft that hit the WTC. Bet you can not prove the radar data was not real. Bet you forgot that radar data is stored, as in recorded. The experts can go back and find 175 and track it accurately. Darn, your evil plot story was foiled by data. Facts and data do in the Swing Dangler again, and again, and again. Darn facts. Even moose and squirrel could foil your best story.

I think the tail number is superfluous. What do you think? What other insignificant false data do you have?
 
Swing Dangler said:
Is this really a picture of the North face of WTC 2 where the nose cone emerged?
Click to expand...
What is your point? Debris is expelled out the window, the nose cone of a jet is fiberglass. Is there a full moon, or just mentally challenged people making up junk?
 
Is it possible that traffic cameras can image one's license plate because they are a specific type of camera, set up at a specific angle, and operated for the purpose of imaging license plates?

Or can any old schmuck with a camera perform such feats of speed, especially in an emergency situation, with no warning?
 
Unsecured Coins said:
I say me and Ace have a Riff Off. Winner gets to decide if there were planes or not
Click to expand...

I volunteer to be on the distinguished panel of judges. I have a Masters in Riffology.

Was that you in that video? That guitarist--he have fast hands! Dam! (DJJ)
 
slingblade said:
Is it possible that traffic cameras can image one's license plate because they are a specific type of camera, set up at a specific angle, and operated for the purpose of imaging license plates?
Click to expand...
Yes, they also have a flash so the shutter speed can be fast enough so that the plate isn't blurred because the car is moving.
 
This thread is about debunking Mackey. Mackey says that video insertion technology is beyond technological limitations. The article linked in the OP begs to differ.

Perhaps we should take TAM's advice and wait until Mackey shows up and has something to say for himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom