ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th August 2010, 11:31 AM   #161
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,912
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Try NIST

The fact that you continually ask for *someone else* to provide you with information about a subject you clearly do not understand, in the slightest, speaks volumes. Am sure I've heard the phrase *appeal to authority* before somewhere. This is not rocket science. It's all quite simple really. A rather obscure field, perhaps, but fundamentally simple.

I have no desire to hear anything further from you at all, but if you must insist on *wearing a funny hat and stepping into the room shouting nonsense* please be very specific about what you believe I have gotten wrong, prove so, and provide correction. I'm afraid I'm going to report further similar posts from yourself.

Cheers matey. x
Does this mean you have qualification to do this work?
Does this mean you can't find the major errors and lack the funds to hire a real reality based engineer to fix your BS opinion analysis?
Does this mean you can't reference or source your claims?

It means you don't care your methods are making the data less accurate, you don't care about it because you are making this up as you go.

Does this mean you can't do better to tie this to refuting the delusional CTs of 911 truth better than the BS you posted above.

You have major problems with your work. You can't find them on your own, you will need help.
It is very valid that you are looking at the facade when the real collapse is going on internally. This is a fact, your work is a waste of time and does not relate in any reality form to 911 CTs; it does relate to 911 CTs in the fact you have a CD delusion you are afraid to announce and explain.

Seriously, you have posted major problems with your work and you don't understand what they are. You are using methods which are not helping with accuracy.

Any chance you can source or reference your claims? Any chance you are qualified?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2010, 11:47 AM   #162
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
I see you are indeed incapable of highlighting any errors beachnut.

Given the specific and repeated requests for you to do so, as indicated I have reported your post.

Yawn.

I am sure other posters here are tired of your inane posts, and would request that they also request you go and do something more useful with your time, or better still for your interruptions to be split to a separate thread.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2010, 12:40 PM   #163
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Tom,

Additional static point trace data without dejitter...

Download
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2010, 02:38 PM   #164
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,912
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
I see you are indeed incapable of highlighting any errors beachnut.

Given the specific and repeated requests for you to do so, as indicated I have reported your post.

Yawn.

I am sure other posters here are tired of your inane posts, and would request that they also request you go and do something more useful with your time, or better still for your interruptions to be split to a separate thread.
I would report my post, it points out your claims can't be sourced, proved, or backed up with references. Please source your claims, with references to other work, and prove the claims you are making are true.

It would be nice to know your qualifications. Are you an engineer?

As an engineer, I find your efforts are not getting better data, but the opposite. Ask another non-911-truth engineer.

Please tie this work to 911 conspiracy theories; or maybe you should move the thread to the pseudoscience, aka barroom science, sub-forum. You must source your claims. You have to have references. Why can't you cite other work similar in nature?
I found some.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Now 911 truth can add thermite to the WTC complex. What does your work have to do with 911 conspiracy theories? It can be used to back in complex delusions made up by Gage?

Last edited by beachnut; 25th August 2010 at 03:15 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2010, 03:12 PM   #165
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
your claims
What claims ?

Quote:
I find your efforts are not getting better data, but the opposite.
You are talking absolute nonsense. Better than what ?

Quote:
maybe you should move the thread
Not my thread Einstein.

Quote:
Why can't you cite other work similar in nature?
NIST beachnut, NIST.

---

Tom,

Feel like continuing this discussion at the911forum, where there won't be such an influx of stupid ? Again, I don't mind doing the leg-work implied by your requests, but the environment is pretty pathetic. W.D.Clinger would be very welcome I am sure. Other constructive contributors to this thread are already members.

Last edited by femr2; 25th August 2010 at 03:24 PM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2010, 06:28 PM   #166
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Am having a few issues generating the promised variance data for the blob test video, as there's no way to export the actual 3dstudio path movement, and as the tiny blob test video was a downscaled version of a rendered video from 3ds, there are a few translation phases between the *perfect* path movement and the resultant tiny video anyway...

I have however been able to generate rough variance dat, though not *correct*, so posting the full dataset would be in error.

Bit of a surprise...


The variance shows some interesting patterns, and reaches ~0.06 pixels at times (as opposed to my earlier suggested sensitivity value - a different metric)

Higher than expected, but not too shabby.

I may look at how to regenerate the test case making sure these results can be definitively determined.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2010, 09:01 AM   #167
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Okay, new blob test variance results...



Quite interesting. Shows the error across pixel boundaries (which makes sense), and the *drift* given circular movement (which is slightly surprising, but about a third of the pixel boundary scale, so may also make sense). Also shows variation in the oscillating frequency dependant upon rotation angle (which makes sense), and flattened, non-oscillating regions at 180 degree intervals (which again makes sense).

A useful image, and should assist in defining trace accuracy considerably.

Will look at the same thing with a square object, and then again with linear movement, rather than circular.

Last edited by femr2; 26th August 2010 at 09:12 AM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2010, 01:40 PM   #168
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Behaviour for square and linear movement is very similar to that of circular movement.

So, from simple observation of the variance graph, I would suggest...

a) The highest accuracy is attained when movement in parallel to the axis being traced.
b) The highest accuracy is maintained when on-axis movement is < 1/4 perpendicular-to-axis movement. < 1/4 gradient. Within this margin for the example equates to within +/- 0.01 pixel accuracy.
c) The highest *drift* is attained when movement is at maximum velocity.
d) *drift* is recovered when velocity reduces.
e) On such small regions (49 pixels) inter-pixel transitions can result in oscillating positional error of up to 0.06 pixels. It is expected that this will reduce as region size increases (and will be tested)
f) Pixel transition error oscillation period is obviously related to movement velocity.
g) Error does not appear to favour an axis.
h) For pure on-axis movement, for a 7*7 region, minimum positional error lies within +/- 0.005 pixels.
i) Interestin'
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2010, 04:41 PM   #169
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Thought it would be useful to test a trace of a box corner in perfect freefall...

It's nearish the same scale as the Dan Rather drop distance (both fields). Sample rate is 59.94fps in relative terms.



The x position of the test does not change at all, so the variance is purely SE *noise*...



Previous observations seems to hold true...

a) Vertical variance of around 0.06 pixels.
b) Variance narrows around frame 350, which I imagine is due to the velocity, and so inter-pixel state harmonics.
c) Vertical variance oscillation rate increases as velocity increases, as expected.
d) Drift shifts *downwards* as velocity increases. Will have to double-check if that is a leading or trailing shift, as it will either increase or decrease apparent velocity.
e) Horizontal variance is pure *noise*. +/- 0.001 pixels. No obvious pattern.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2010, 07:22 PM   #170
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Here is why I have trouble with the way you utilze these feilds.



The two images above are in (approx) a 2:3 height to width ratio whereas the full raster we see on TV is 4:3. Obviously half the height is missing, gone, not there, in both feilds yet you seem to treat each pixel in each feild as if it represents full height when in fact it represents half of the full height, the other feild containing the other half (and removed in time by near 1/60th of a second)
Incorrect. I apply separate vertical and horizontal scaling metrics when translating from pixel to real world units, as has been discussed numerous times during this thread.
And there is just one reason why beachnut's challenging of you isn't for nought. For your values to be of any worth, they have to maintain the aspect ratio. The images that you're citing are clearly compressed on the vertical (as jay was pointing out). You toss this off as if it doesn't matter when clearly it diminishes any movement in the axis by 50%.

Not a small factor.

If you don't recognise why this is, you should stop what you're doing before you appear even more foolish.

Then you're comparing a point in field 1 of an NTSC image with what you think is the same point in field 2 even though field 2 is sampling a different spot at a different time. You don't see this as a problem. A field is a 1/60th of a second slice of half of a frame raster of a standard-definition NTSC video camera. A field is never a frame and field-doubling doesn't change that.

You also use a best-case scenario with the motion your white dot on a black background and declare victory even though your source video is shades of grey down I-can't-begin-to-guess-how-many-generations-and-compressed-I-can't begin-to-guess-how-many-ways. This is not a meaningful comparison. You should be moving a grey target around a background of a slightly different shade of grey for this to be at all relevant.

Your playing around with SynthEyes in this context is meaningless because of the low resolution of the video used, not knowing whether the frame order has been compromised by repeated consumer-grade compression/decompression and clear misunderstanding on your part of what the difference is between a field and a frame in an NTSC environment.

And I'm a broadcast television editor (since '91) and a cameraman for 8 years before that.

HTH
Fitz
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!"
Howard Beale, "Network"
fitzgibbon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2010, 07:47 PM   #171
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,497
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
And there is just one reason why beachnut's challenging of you isn't for nought. For your values to be of any worth, they have to maintain the aspect ratio. The images that you're citing are clearly compressed on the vertical (as jay was pointing out). You toss this off as if it doesn't matter when clearly it diminishes any movement in the axis by 50%.

Not a small factor.

If you don't recognise why this is, you should stop what you're doing before you appear even more foolish.

I disagree with this point. There's no need to maintain the original aspect ratio, as long as separate appropriate (preferably directly measured) horizontal and vertical scale factors are applied when converting from image raster lines or pixels to real world spatial positions. Which is exactly what femr2 has stated he is doing.

Maintaining the original aspect ratio would require either throwing away half the horizontal resolution (to squeeze it down to match the vertical), or restoring the original vertical size by interpolating to add extra lines (uselessly confusing the tracking issue), both of which sound like bad ideas.

Far from "a real hoot," I find it rather disheartening, to come into a thread and read what appears to me to be unthoughtful criticism arising from careless and uncharitable reading.

The other points, I don't have a clear enough understanding to judge, but I believe at least some of them have also been addressed by femr2 along the way.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zřmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2010, 08:03 PM   #172
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
For your values to be of any worth, they have to maintain the aspect ratio.
No. When translating from pixel units to real world units, separate horizontal and vertical scalars are used. This is detailed numerous times in the thread.

Quote:
it diminishes any movement in the axis by 50%
Both fields are used.
It is utterly incorrect to leave the video interlaced, as you should well know. There is no option but to deinterlace.
You should already know this if you have either a) read the thread, or b) know what you are talking about.

Quote:
Then you're comparing a point in field 1 of an NTSC image with what you think is the same point in field 2 even though field 2 is sampling a different spot at a different time.
No. Same spot (within reason). Different time, yes, absolutely, and absolutely necessary. Separated field traces are subsequently interleaved. Read the thread in full.

Quote:
You also use a best-case scenario with the motion your white dot on a black background
Absolutely.

Quote:
and declare victory
No. The best-case is exactly that, as is clearly explained earlier in the thread. It's purpose is to determine the limits of accuracy possible, in order to correctly quantify the increase in noise in the WTC 7 traces.

Quote:
even though your source video is shades of grey
I prefer the Cam#3 footage. If you have a better quality version of the Dan Rather viewpoint, please let me know.

Quote:
not knowing whether the frame order has been compromised by repeated consumer-grade compression/decompression
Quality will most definitely have been compromised. You mean field order by the way, and it's been checked and is fine.

Quote:
and clear misunderstanding on your part of what the difference is between a field and a frame in an NTSC environment.
Not in the slightest.

Quote:
And I'm a broadcast television editor (since '91) and a cameraman for 8 years before that.
Good. Then you should understand that a field of an interlaced frame is only a field whilst it's associated with that interlace frame. When, to use your words, I take those two images out of the NTSC environment, I simply have two images. If I put them in a video, they are frames. To hammer the point home...If I deinterlace an interlaced video, sort out the aspect ratio and stick it out there as a non interlaced video, each frame is a frame. There is no longer any association with interlacing, and no fields. Compromised video quality, depending upon how the original was interlaced, and how I deinterlaced to produce my shiny new video, sure

Last edited by femr2; 26th August 2010 at 08:07 PM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2010, 08:18 PM   #173
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
And there is just one reason why beachnut's challenging of you isn't for nought. For your values to be of any worth, they have to maintain the aspect ratio. The images that you're citing are clearly compressed on the vertical (as jay was pointing out). You toss this off as if it doesn't matter when clearly it diminishes any movement in the axis by 50%.

Not a small factor.

If you don't recognise why this is, you should stop what you're doing before you appear even more foolish
I disagree with this point. There's no need to maintain the original aspect ratio, as long as separate appropriate (preferably directly measured) horizontal and vertical scale factors are applied when converting from image raster lines or pixels to real world spatial positions. Which is exactly what femr2 has stated he is doing.
There's no reason to be compressing the video in one axis and not the other especially when one is using a low-resolution version off the Internet.rowing away resolution only introduces more potential for error and/or compounding existing errors.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Maintaining the original aspect ratio would require either throwing away half the horizontal resolution (to squeeze it down to match the vertical), or restoring the original vertical size by interpolating to add extra lines (uselessly confusing the tracking issue), both of which sound like bad ideas.
If this were referring to an original field of NTSC SD (standard definition) video, you'd see that each field has active lines separated by a line of black which corresponds to line that will be read in the next field. For measurement to be useful requires maintaining the greatest amount of original, unimpinged, unmediated data from which to draw your conclusions from.

It also requires in this instance knowing the difference between field 1 and field 2 of an NTSC frame and the understanding to know what should be happening in a given circumstance.

There shouldn't be any need for interpolation because interpolation at anything other than the final stage needlessly muddies the final result.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Far from "a real hoot," I find it rather disheartening, to come into a thread and read what appears to me to be unthoughtful criticism arising from careless and uncharitable reading.
My criticism is far from unthoughtful. femr2 is making grand-sounding assertions that could flumox a layman while betraying a lack of understanding of even the most basic building block of video .

I tend not to wade in on many 9/11 topics as there are plenty of others here better versed than I. But when it comes to television-related ones, I pay special heed because it's what I do for my daily bread.

This is not a lack of charity on my part. It's being blunt about the Emperor's choice in fashion.
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!"
Howard Beale, "Network"
fitzgibbon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2010, 08:31 PM   #174
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
There's no reason to be compressing the video in one axis and not the other especially when one is using a low-resolution version off the Internet.
There is no compression occurring in the slightest. The change in aspect ratio is due to unfolding the interlaced frame. You really should know this.

Quote:
Throwing away resolution only introduces more potential for error and/or compounding existing errors.
No resolution is being thown away in the slightest.

Quote:
If this were referring to an original field of NTSC SD (standard definition) video, you'd see that each field has active lines separated by a line of black which corresponds to line that will be read in the next field.
You are blinded by environment. You are talking about the form implied by displaying the field on an interlaced projection device, such as a television. It would be utterly stupid to introduce the blank scanlines. Subsequent tracing of the separated fields would be impossible. If you do not understand, I'll explain, but read the thread in full first.

Quote:
For measurement to be useful requires maintaining the greatest amount of original, unimpinged, unmediated data from which to draw your conclusions from.
Absolutely.

Quote:
It also requires in this instance knowing the difference between field 1 and field 2 of an NTSC frame and the understanding to know what should be happening in a given circumstance.
Absolutely.

Quote:
There shouldn't be any need for interpolation because interpolation at anything other than the final stage needlessly muddies the final result.
There is no interpolation of image data. Indeed, the image data is unaffected from the source video entirely (unfolding does not change any data). If I catch where you misunderstood, I was referring to the separated field traces data being interleaved. That is joining the separate traces such that the original field timing is reconstructed, and so producing a 60*1000/1001 fps feature trace dataset from an interleaved 30*1000/1001fps video.

Quote:
My criticism is far from unthoughtful.
However, it is far from correct.

Quote:
femr2 is making grand-sounding assertions that could flumox a layman while betraying a lack of understanding of even the most basic building block of video.
Incorrect, and I suggest you make sure you understand both my answers and read the full thread in order that you do not continue to make incorrect assertions.

Quote:
I tend not to wade in on many 9/11 topics as there are plenty of others here better versed than I. But when it comes to television-related ones, I pay special heed because it's what I do for my daily bread.
As I said, it is easy to be blinkered by environment. Please take heed.

Quote:
This is not a lack of charity on my part. It's being blunt about the Emperor's choice in fashion.
Being blunt then...take your time. You are not bathing in glory right now.

Last edited by femr2; 26th August 2010 at 08:37 PM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2010, 09:23 PM   #175
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
For your values to be of any worth, they have to maintain the aspect ratio.
No. When translating from pixel units to real world units, separate horizontal and vertical scalars are used. This is detailed numerous times in the thread.
WTF do you mean "real world units? You're measuring something. Throwing away half your data is a quick invitation to enhance inaccuracy.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
it diminishes any movement in the axis by 50%.
Both fields are used.
It is utterly incorrect to leave the video interlaced, as you should well know.


You either maintain an interlaced image from the get-go or you end up with a dog's breakfast that provides you with meaningless data. As I said I in my reply to Myriad, you maintain clean data to the end. You've got the dog's breakfast of progressive video and you seem happy to draw conclusions from it and wonder why the likes of me think you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
There is no option but to deinterlace.
You should already know this if you have either a) read the thread, or b) know what you are talking about.
A) I have
B) I do
C) You're trying to pull an Ace Baker. He didn't know what he didn't know either.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
No. Same spot (within reason).
On that length of lens? Not bloody likely! Unless your definition of "within reason" is far looser than mine. I'd ballpark a field's difference in the original video from that range to be roughly 6' (not to mention the temporal differentiation) And that's just an educated, experience guestimate.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Different time, yes, absolutely, and absolutely necessary. Separated field traces are subsequently interleaved. Read the thread in full.
Read it. Field 1 =/= field 2 and field doubling doesn't create an accurate full frame.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
You also use a best-case scenario with the motion your white dot on a black background
Absolutely.
and declare victory
No. The best-case is exactly that, as is clearly explained earlier in the thread. It's purpose is to determine the limits of accuracy possible, in order to correctly quantify the increase in noise in the WTC 7 traces.
You're comparing an apple and an orange and quailing that I call you on the difference? Your comparison might have had some validity had you been dealing with a test with grey-on-grey as I suggested in my previous post. Your analogy's closer to saying that you're capable of driving at 200kph on an open-road straightaway and then comparing that to your to drive through rush hour traffic.

It doesn't wash

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
I prefer the Cam#3 footage. If you have a better quality version of the Dan Rather viewpoint, please let me know.
I'm sure you'd have no problem licensing a much higher resolution copy of the footage from any reputable footage library. The problem in this equation is that it costs money. You're the one trying to make a silk purse; pony up or be prepared to be called on short-comings of your footage.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Quality will most definitely have been compromised.
Yet you draw all kinds of informed-sounding opinions based on compromised data?

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
You mean field order by the way, and it's been checked and is fine.
My bad. Typing too quickly. And just how did you determine the validity of the field order? By experienced eye and judgement?

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
and clear misunderstanding on your part of what the difference is between a field and a frame in an NTSC environment.
Not in the slightest.
ORLY?

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
And I'm a broadcast television editor (since '91) and a cameraman for 8 years before that.
Good. Then you should understand that a field of an interlaced frame is only a field whilst it's associated with that interlace frame.
You see, this is where you demonstrate your lack of understanding of what a field is. It's 1/59.94th of a second in an SD NTSC world. It's the capture of that moment in time only and on those particular field lines only.

Doubling it doesn't make it 2/59.94ths anymore than holding a freeze of it for an hour makes it an hour-long documentary. It always is a field and only has relevance in terms of measuring something when you team it up with all the fields that properly precede it and follow it in their proper order.

Trouble is from where I sit is that you seem happy to throw away accuracy and misrepresent what a field actually is, something that flies in the face of what presumably was the intent of this thread.

[quote=femr2;6270174]
When, to use your words, I take those two images out of the NTSC environment, I simply have two images. If I put them in a video, they are frames.

There are duplicates of the fields but for the intent of this thread they don't magically become frames. You've been throwing terms around that clearly you don't understand in any meaningful way and just because you may have a copy of an editing program doesn't mean you actually understand what it's doing.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
To hammer the point home...If I deinterlace an interlaced video, sort out the aspect ratio
The aspect ratio needn't have needed any sorting out. That it did so (in your opinion) speaks more to operational shortcomings. And that you 'sorted it out' was clearly evident to two television professionals. Any properly extracted field should've been maintained it's original aspect ratio.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
and stick it out there as a non interlaced video, each frame is a frame.

But herein you've made it (and whomever you sourced your video from) something that it wasn't without realising the shortcomings of your process. It's just a little bit of a headscratcher that you seem pleased by this.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
There is no longer any association with interlacing, and no fields. Compromised video quality, depending upon how the original was interlaced, and how I deinterlaced to produce my shiny new video, sure
None so blind....
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!"
Howard Beale, "Network"
fitzgibbon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2010, 10:07 PM   #176
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
WTF do you mean "real world units?
Feet and inches.

Quote:
You're measuring something.
Yes.

Quote:
Throwing away half your data is a quick invitation to enhance inaccuracy.
I am not throwing away any data at all. What is it about the need to deinterlace that you don't understand ? The frame CANNOT be left interlaced for the purposes of tracing.

Quote:
You either maintain an interlaced image from the get-go or you end up with a dog's breakfast that provides you with meaningless data.
Absolutely not.

I am tracing very fine movement of image features. Leaving the frame interlaced is fine for everything EXCEPT moving features. That leaves each and every interlace artefact in place. An absolute no-no for the purpose in hand.

Quote:
As I said I in my reply to Myriad, you maintain clean data to the end.
Absolutely.

Quote:
You've got the dog's breakfast of progressive video
You are suggesting leaving the frame interlaced, and so attempting to trace a moving feature in an interlaced form containing the position of that feature in two different places at two different times.

You clearly do not understand the purpose in hand. Feel free to ask, or... read the thread.

Quote:
and you seem happy to draw conclusions from it
Not many conclusions thus far, but sure.

Quote:
and wonder why the likes of me think you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm afraid it's not me who sitting in that chair right now.
It is necessary to understand what implications interlaced video has for the purpose of tracing to understand why leaving the video in interlaced form is UTTERLY stupid.

I've been trying to give you some slack, but get a grip. You may well (possibly) be versed in broadcast video implications, but you clearly don't know jack about what I'm doing with the video data. Read the thread. Ask questions. Stop making yourself look silly.

I fully understand the preference in broadcast terms of retaining the full frame height, but it is not appropriate here.

Quote:
On that length of lens? Not bloody likely! Unless your definition of "within reason" is far looser than mine. I'd ballpark a field's difference in the original video from that range to be roughly 6' (not to mention the temporal differentiation) And that's just an educated, experience guestimate.
Traced feature position changes are relative, and are based upon a region of the image. Initial trace region center location between fields does not have to be identical. Again, be aware of the change in environment. You are not trying to broadcast an episode of Friends here.

Quote:
Read it. Field 1 =/= field 2 and field doubling doesn't create an accurate full frame.
I am not field doubling.

Quote:
You're comparing an apple and an orange and quailing that I call you on the difference?
No. The purpose of the test case is to determine the noise level in traces under ideal circumstances, as I've already told you personally, and has been stated repeatedly in the thread (which you claim to have read).

Quote:
Your comparison might have had some validity had you been dealing with a test with grey-on-grey as I suggested in my previous post.
No, the purpose is clear. It is not a comparison.

Quote:
Your analogy's closer to saying that you're capable of driving at 200kph on an open-road straightaway and then comparing that to your to drive through rush hour traffic.
No. The purpose is to determine the level of noise in in ideal circumstances, and in the case of the freefall test horizontal axis, SynthEyes internal algorithms, as opposed to noise in the tracked feature position in WTC7 video traces from other sources.

Quote:
You're the one trying to make a silk purse; pony up or be prepared to be called on short-comings of your footage.
Complain about the quality of the footage as much as you like. I agree. It's not great. If you have a better one, please let me know.

Quote:
Yet you draw all kinds of informed-sounding opinions based on compromised data?
It's the best quality version of that viewpoint I have available. Again, if you have a better, say so. I would remind you that this thread is not about a particular video, but techniques used to trace moving features.

Quote:
My bad. Typing too quickly. And just how did you determine the validity of the field order? By experienced eye and judgement?
Easy to do, isn't it Flag extraction was not possible, so tedious bob-double format jitter inspection.

Quote:
ORLY?
Yes.

Quote:
You see, this is where you demonstrate your lack of understanding of what a field is.
No, it is not.

Quote:
It's 1/59.94th of a second in an SD NTSC world.
It represents that slice of time, absolutely.

Quote:
It's the capture of that moment in time only and on those particular field lines only.
In interlaced form, absolutely.

Quote:
Doubling it doesn't make it 2/59.94ths anymore than holding a freeze of it for an hour makes it an hour-long documentary.
2/59.94 ? You've gone off into some tangent plane son.

You are forgetting that an interlaced frame contains 2 fields, in a video container at half framerate... 30*1000/1001fps.

You're going in the wrong direction.

Quote:
Any properly extracted field should've been maintained it's original aspect ratio.
You are blinkered by environment again.

For the purpose of tracing...

Interlaced video MUST be deinterlaced.

Deinterlacing CANNOT use and blend, weave or any other technique which attempts to merge data from the separated fields together.

Restoring aspect ratio by line doubling CANNOT be performed.

If you do not understand why, ask.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 06:43 AM   #177
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
a) Vertical variance of around 0.06 pixels.
This seems to be fairly constant in numerous test conditions.

I'll hazard a guess at a reason...

It's clearly linked to pixel transition, as can be seen by it's oscillatory nature, and that frequency increases with velocity.

Assuming a base hpix (half-pixel) start point, it is also of note that *8 upscaling is applied to the trace region.

0.5/8 = 0.0625

It's conjecture, but it does seem possible that the blending between two pixels can cause cyclic lagging which would be related to upscale multiplier.

It's not a baseless assertion, and it's useful to see how upscaled pixel transitions actually look before dismissing the suggestion. Here's an animated GIF to (hopefully) illustrate the point.


Last edited by femr2; 27th August 2010 at 06:50 AM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 07:59 AM   #178
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,303
femr2, what do you know about the stream itself?

Is it taken verbatim from the DVD stream, without any reencoding, or has it been recoded somehow?

If the latter, do you know the original bit rate?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 08:04 AM   #179
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,889
In 2001, wouldn't it have likely been Beta first?

Here femr links to the "original" source video. The "original" wouldn't have been an mpeg or a DVD, but a piece of videotape, right?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 08:13 AM   #180
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
femr2, what do you know about the stream itself?
In terms of chain of custody, not a lot, though of the many versions of the same clip kicking around, it is by far the highest quality I'm aware of.

Quote:
Is it taken verbatim from the DVD stream, without any reencoding, or has it been recoded somehow?
In personal discussion with the file uploader it was stated that it was taken directly from the DVD stream without recode.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 08:18 AM   #181
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
In 2001, wouldn't it have likely been Beta first?
Probably DV. Very unlikely to be beta. It was not a piece of amateur footage. It would have been at least a semi-pro camera.

Quote:
The "original" wouldn't have been an mpeg or a DVD, but a piece of videotape, right?
Original, as in the actual video file I used, not a similar version of the same footage.

It is of course not the *original* footage.

For a start it has passed through a titling system for the overlays to be added.

That is one reason why it is very unlikely that it was non-digital from at least that point.

If you are aware of a better quality copy from the same viewpoint, please let me know.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 08:21 AM   #182
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,889
Why don't you get an original archive tape from CBS?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 08:32 AM   #183
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Why don't you get an original archive tape from CBS?
If you feel like doing so, by all means

I don't think the *original* will be much better to be honest.

I'd rather NIST let me get my hands on the full-length and full quality copy of the Cam#3 footage (before they messed with the contrast), even though that was transferred from tape, as it's a lot closer view, and spans 7 minutes prior to descent.

I've matched the inch-accurate position extraction stated by NIST from my current version of that footage, so it's really just the extra footage time that would be most useful there.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 08:35 AM   #184
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,889
When you asked NIST for the Cam #3 footage, what did they say?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 08:42 AM   #185
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
When you asked NIST for the Cam #3 footage, what did they say?
NIST stopped responding to me a long time ago

Perhaps someone else will have more success.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 09:45 AM   #186
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,889
So to sum up:
  • You have no alternative hypothesis to explain the events of 9/11/01
  • You refuse to state any credentials for video expertise or error analysis
  • You are conducting extensive analysis of a video of one of the building collapse, but can't be bothered to attest for its provenance beyond "a guy told me it's from some DVD"
  • You can't be bothered to get the original footage, or even to get someone else to do it for you
  • You refuse to state how this analysis will fit into the big picture


Got it. I don't suppose you have proof that you ever asked NIST for anything, including their responses?

Last edited by carlitos; 27th August 2010 at 10:28 AM. Reason: typo
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 09:51 AM   #187
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
As suggested by W.D.Clinger, a look at the data with multiple graphs based on sample interval.



The image alternates between fields.

Each image includes three graphs, each with a 3 sample interval.

Shows the clear difference between field traces, and as each interval graph is very consistent, shows why I trace each field separately.

Vertical shift between fields is as expected, roughly half pixel.

Shows a few jumps on one of the fields (which is not the fault of SynthEyes, but video quality).

I'll sort out the velocity and acceleration derived views later.

Will be wanting to move over to the better quality Cam#3 footage pretty soon, but happy to respond to technical quesries beforehand.

DeJitter processing has been deliberately very simple to date, to make released spreadsheet data simple, but may begin using more advanced techniques. No complaints about more complex spreadsheet data once I do though please
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 10:27 AM   #188
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,912
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post


... please
How will you model atmosphere errors? Why do you block people who post comments on your videos and expose your implied lies on 911? Censoring the truth?

How much does the atmosphere affect the accuracy? If you model the distortion from the atmosphere what method will you use?

Distance from camera? Any chance on modeling the lens errors?

Last edited by beachnut; 27th August 2010 at 10:28 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 10:40 AM   #189
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
How will you model atmosphere errors?
It is very unlikely that I will.

Quote:
How much does the atmosphere affect the accuracy?
Not a lot. A lot less than noise due to low video resolution.

Quote:
Distance from camera?
Yet again, patience.

Quote:
Any chance on modeling the lens errors?
Possibly.

You are repeating yourself beachnut. Please do not continue to do so.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 10:55 AM   #190
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
A point that shows up in feild 1 on a line and then in the next FRAME it has moved out of that line will NOT be on the next line down in the same feild. IF the camera is solid, and IF no atmospherics distort the view then that point has moved to the next line down in feild 2.
It has NOT moved a half pixel, it has moved one pixel.

Further complicating matters is that the next line down on alternate feilds are separated by approx 1/60th of a sec
In fact the top line in any feild was traced for a time that preceeds the bottom line trace by about 1/65 of a second.

To see exactly what the effect is one need only reverse the feilds (top feild first interlaced versus bottom feild first interlaced) and notice how balls-up the resultant video is if anything at all moves in the image.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 11:06 AM   #191
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
If the camera was digital then the video would likely NOT have been sent to the studio in DV pro format. It would be converted to either ASI or SDI, with or without embedded audio. There, if it was being stored digitally and tapeless, it would be converted to mpeg , mov or avi format. Which one would depend most likely on what editor system the station uses. For instance if the station uses Final Cut and since Final Cut runs on PowerMacs they would likely store .mov files, whereas Leitch Velocity is much better off with mpegs. It might also depend on what video server they are using for instance if its a Grass Valley running on a PC OS then its likely mpeg

However, in 2001 there were still a lot of analogue Betacams around. We still have 2 BetacamPro recorder/players and still use them since some archives are on Beta.

Digibeta is now the standard with many studios rather than DVPro so if it were being stored on tape it would be either fed to a DigiBeta or DVPro machine.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 27th August 2010 at 11:08 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 11:18 AM   #192
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
A point that shows up in feild 1 on a line and then in the next FRAME it has moved out of that line will NOT be on the next line down in the same feild.
That depends upon how the fields are constructed.

Quote:
IF the camera is solid, and IF no atmospherics distort the view then that point has moved to the next line down in feild 2.
Again, that depends upon how the fields are constructed, and, of course, features are very rarely a single pixel in size, and so will affect multiple pixels over multiple lines.

Quote:
It has NOT moved a half pixel, it has moved one pixel.
I didn't say it had. It's a half pixel jitter... Alternating +/- 0.5 pixel.

Quote:
Further complicating matters is that the next line down on alternate feilds are separated by approx 1/60th of a sec
That's not a complication, it's great for the purpose in hand.

Quote:
In fact the top line in any feild was traced for a time that preceeds the bottom line trace by about 1/65 of a second.
No. You are confusing primitive analogue interlaced display retrace time with camera shutter time.

Quote:
To see exactly what the effect is one need only reverse the feilds (top feild first interlaced versus bottom feild first interlaced) and notice how balls-up the resultant video is if anything at all moves in the image.
Field order has been checked, as stated earlier.

All this waffle about video format is becoming rather tedious.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 11:24 AM   #193
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
If the camera was...
All rather irrelevant. Live broadcast environments were most likely using realtime processing via rack-mount hardware. Digital or analogue is also fairly irrelevant.

The video being used is what it is. It's a good quality version, compared to many other versions of the same footage, and as it has some timecode overlaid, it's probably closer to an *original* version than many other kicking around on t'interwebb.

Which, again, is fairly irrelevant.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 12:05 PM   #194
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
All rather irrelevant. Live broadcast environments were most likely using realtime processing via rack-mount hardware. Digital or analogue is also fairly irrelevant.

The video being used is what it is. It's a good quality version, compared to many other versions of the same footage, and as it has some timecode overlaid, it's probably closer to an *original* version than many other kicking around on t'interwebb.

Which, again, is fairly irrelevant.
Reading thru this discussion, I think it's fair to say that Femr2 is dismissing a number of criticisms made by video professionals, but is not successfully defending the accuracy of his techniques in doing so.

From my perspective I'm skeptical that this data are capable of proving anything much of value vis-a-vis a conspiracy discussion.

I certainly don't see why this thread is on a conspiracy forum, and it doesn't build confidence in Femr2 to see him dismiss the opinions of professionals. Doesn't seem to be much point to any of it.

ETA I suspect that the graphs Femr2 is generating will be used as some kind of 'proof' of controlled demolition by his 'inside job' friends - they certainly look impressive and sciency, not unlike the nice graphs produced by Jones/Harrit et al. which 'prove' the presence of nanothermite.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

Last edited by alienentity; 27th August 2010 at 12:08 PM.
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 12:14 PM   #195
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,889
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
However, in 2001 there were still a lot of analogue Betacams around. We still have 2 BetacamPro recorder/players and still use them since some archives are on Beta.

Digibeta is now the standard with many studios rather than DVPro so if it were being stored on tape it would be either fed to a DigiBeta or DVPro machine.
Thanks. I was dating myself a bit with the reference, but back then I actually used to do a fair bit of video work*, and thought we were mostly using Beta. I still have a few Beta tapes of original footage kicking around.(*Meaning that I hired people to make and edit videos, not make them myself)

Originally Posted by alienentity
Doesn't seem to be much point to any of it.
No, for many of the reasons I listed above. Counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin. femr's latest obsession isn't much different from the various other one trick ponies on this forum, with the added non-bonus that he won't make any assertion at all.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 12:18 PM   #196
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
I do realize there is a strong agenda operating on the 9/11 forum, from which much of this discussion has originated, to find fault with anything and everything that NIST did and discredit NIST as much as possible.

But it's strange that while Femr2's work on WTC1 seems to be central to their attack on NIST, the work on WTC7 doesn't seem to do anything but perhaps reinforce the 2008 NIST report on it.
And, as usual, WTC2 is M.I.A. for this group since it fell in a substantially different way, yet from a similar affliction. So it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for this group to demonstrate how a demolition mechanism could rationally be applied in all 3 cases, backed up by any serious engineering analysis.

Because any serious analysis is going to lead right back to --- gravitational collapse induced by fires and plane damage. Because that's the best fit for all the data, regardless who generates it.

The CD/Conspiracy stuff is literally spinning its wheels while stuck deep in the mud of reality. The smart, honest truthers will continue to leave, and only the charlatans and truly misguided will remain.

I predict Femr2 will also abandon 9/11 Truth and for the right reasons.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 12:20 PM   #197
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
I suspect that
By all means highlight any technical errors, and provide corrections. If you cannot, your suspicions are baseless, and your post rather pointless.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 12:27 PM   #198
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
I do realize there is a strong agenda operating on the 9/11 forum
If that's what you think, become a member and sort it out then. I'll buy you a drink (one) when you arrive

Quote:
But it's strange that while Femr2's work on WTC1 seems to be central to their attack on NIST, the work on WTC7 doesn't seem to do anything but perhaps reinforce the 2008 NIST report on it.
You clearly do not have the capacity to consider the phrase *honest research*

Please stay on topic.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 12:31 PM   #199
Carll68
Critical Thinker
 
Carll68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 324
By all means highlight any technical errors in the NIST reports, and provide corrections that support your uneducated insane CD delusions. If you cannot, your suspicions are baseless, and your post's rather pointless.
Carll68 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2010, 12:31 PM   #200
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,889
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
The CD/Conspiracy stuff is literally spinning its wheels while stuck deep in the mud of reality. The smart, honest truthers will continue to leave, and only the charlatans and truly misguided will remain.

I predict Femr2 will also abandon 9/11 Truth and for the right reasons.
I hope that you are right. I forget who, but someone here has a signature quote about google removing context automatically. That's why I encourage people to place their pet issue in the context of the larger situation. Most refuse to do so, which indicates to me that they realize the whole thing is a delusion, and they are just wasting time.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.