Chopper 5 Velocity Study Proves Video Composite, Reveals Sloppy Photoshopping

[TruthSeeker1234]

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/Pinocch...5Velocity.html

Edited by Darat:

Breach of Rule 6 removed.

Several of your other posts have just been deleted since they were nothing but spamming this Forum with your own material.

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:Darat

[WildCat]

PS - Photoshop doesn't do video.

[Corsair 115]

Great. Now you've only got about forty other camera angles which recorded the impact to prove are fakes. After you've managed that, then you can move on to proving what thousands of eyewitnesses saw was fake.

Good luck with that.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Other researchers in the 9/11 truth movement have argued in favor of real planes.

[Brainster]

Well, I'm certainly convinced.

[CurtC]

So your thesis is that the airplane must have passed behind the tower, because you can see part of it coming out the other side? Man, it sure would be nice to check out your idea by having another video taken from a different angle. It's too bad that this crappy video is the only one we have of the South Tower impact.

Oh, the "pixel halo" around the object is just a compression artifact. Sorry.

And, the formatting of your web page overlaps several of the paragraphs and paragraph section headings.

[332nd]

... Even if you were right (which you're not) There are a helluva lot of other videos out there and all you will have proven is 1 chopper cam faked the vid with photoshop.

Also you wouldn't be here because you would have figured out a way to fake video with photoshop and would be very rich enjoying you cash.

[gumboot]

Ace,

What is the source for the video you used?

-Gumboot

[WildCat]

Ace, did you mean to post this in this thread? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=84009

[Miss Anthrope]

Regardless of whether he's the author or not, isn't this a rule 4 violation?

[DarkMagician]

TS1234, You might want to change the title to "Velocity Study of Chopper 5 video...". The way you're wording it, it sounds like the people of Chopper 5 did the study themselves.

Of course, you haven't done it correctly yourself, but we don't need to stretch the credit (read "blame") unfairly.

[cloudshipsrule]

Truthseeker,

Are you calling all the eyewitnesses who say they saw an actual plane hit the towers liars? Are you saying ALL of the videos of flight 175 striking the tower were faked? Are you that freaking delusional?

Why don't you do a little investigating as to where the 2948 confirmed dead 9/11 victims are buried and just spit on their graves? Jerk.

[TruthSeeker1234]

"Photoshopping" is a generic term for "digital photography manipulation". It's possible they removed the backgrounds with Photoshop/Image Ready, but it needn't be so.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

"Photoshopping" is a generic term for "digital photography manipulation". It's possible they removed the backgrounds with Photoshop/Image Ready, but it needn't be so.

I know someone who saw the plane hit the building, they even could see it was United. Darn, all your work a big giant waste of time. So sad for you; but you have to be the most challenged person I have see post junk about 9/11. You are not very good an anything to do with 9/11. But you seem to be persistent. Like a repeat offender.

[Zep]

Originally Posted by cloudshipsrule

Are you that freaking delusional?

Affirmative.

[Alareth]

Ace, are you calling Alt+F4 a liar when she says she saw the plane hit the tower?

[Arus808]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

"Photoshopping" is a generic term for "digital photography manipulation". It's possible they removed the backgrounds with Photoshop/Image Ready, but it needn't be so.

you dont know wtf you are talking about

one, you can't do "photoshopping" in video, especially video being done LIVE in front of millions of people and of course WHO was there and witnessed it first hand


your article is an embarassmetn to those who work with these tools on a daily basis, and shows your ignorance and of course your non-expertise on the subjet.

your article wouldn't even be worth putting against those experts who frequently post to worth1000.com ... before attempting to discredit the millions of professional digital imagers and editors out there, you might want to get their opinions on it


As for video, what you want to look for is gREen SCREENINg. can you point out any witness that noticed a 3 mile wide, 1 mile tall green screen?


sorry, for got my lolcat

[capracus]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/Pinocch...5Velocity.html

Chopper 5 Composite An analysis of the live WNYW helicopter video of UA Flight 175 striking the World Trade Center

by
http://www.acebaker.com/images/Parts...wWhiteAnim.gif
11/PinocchioStudy/Chopper5Graph_both.jpg

Ace, if you could make the font in your introduction just a little bit larger, I might be persuaded to back your position.

[Blue Monk]

You assert that this video was intentionally faked, right?

At the risk of being redundant at pointing out what others have already said let me simply note a few key points that would have to be true for the government to pull something like this off.

All of the videos would have to be faked. The ones that were shown live would have had to been faked before the event plus every single 'home-grown' video that surfaced would have had to have been faked.

Even if such a daunting task were possible how on earth could ANY entity suppress every single video taken of this event. Think of the population around this area. Who knows how many videos cameras and cell phones were pointed at this event. No government could even know who was filming and who was not, much less track them all down.

This is not to mention the tens of thousands of tourists that legally travel between the US and hostile states on a daily basis. Am I to presume that Custom agents sit down and watch every minute of every 2 hour video that leaves this country? Of course not.

To believe that all of the videos could be doctored is absurd.

To believe, in an age of the World Wide Web and mass communications where a short clip could be sent by cell phone to any part of the world an instant after it was taken, that any clips that do not correspond to what is commonly available were either not taken or somehow suppressed is absurd beyond belief.

You have a mountain of clips showing planes hitting the buildings and zero ( as in 0, nada, zip, zilch ) showing anything to the contrary.

I am sorely unimpressed by your colorful charts and displays.

[Brainache]

I only have one thing to add to this thread: Why?

Why do you make this stuff up, Ace and why do you think anyone would believe it?

[Arus808]

remember, BIG WORDS MAKE THEM TRUE IN TEH TROOOFER WORLD

[NeoRicen]

Dude, you have completely failed to notice the so called nose of the plane coming out the other side of the building is a different shape than before it went in.

And you CANNOT, increase the brightness and contrast of a video to prove anything! This isn't *********** CSI with their magical computers. Have you ever heard of compression artefacts??

Movies today even have a hard time with convincing Blue/Green Screen work, this is extremely realistic looking and done LIVE, in 2001!

You should be ashamed of yourself, the fact you're even willing to change properties (brightness and contrast of a highly compressed video) of a video to prove anything completely discredits your argument.

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

"Photoshopping" is a generic term for "digital photography manipulation". It's possible they removed the backgrounds with Photoshop/Image Ready, but it needn't be so.

If they used ImageReady, they would deserve to be caught.

[Shrinker]

Ace, I only skimmed your article so forgive me if I missed something important. I notice you talk alot about video compression, and how it could not do this thing or that thing. From that I assume that your source is compressed.

Do you have any idea what a video compression algorithm does? In basic terms, it removes huge amounts of visual data, easily of the order of 99% of the data captured by the camera, and replaces it with computer generated content, which is determined to be 'close enough' to the original source for viewing purposes. The smart part is just removing the parts the viewer probably won't notice, or in extreme compression just removing the data the viewer doesn't need in order to understand the image. You also state you increased the image size by 200%. You must realise that this doesn't add extra data, it just adds more interpolation! If your video was only 10% genuine data, your enlargement process has reduced it to 2.5% genuine data! The idea of doing frame by frame scientific analysis on such data is just laughable. I hope you can understand why.

If you suppy the actual video source you used, it might be possible to determine how much of it is actual data captured by the camera, and how much is just a computer generated guess.

Secondly, stabilising camera footage does not 'effectively remove camera movement' it only appears to do so, again, such that it may, or may not fool a human viewer. The effectiveness is dependent on the accuracy of the track, the amount of parallax, and lens distortion.

Thirdly tracking a shape through a video frame by hand will produce masses of human induced error, especially if that human is hoping to find such errors. You should use automated tracking solutions to get a more scientifically accurate and unbiased result. These will analyse the picture and find, mathematically, the best fit. They also do not match pixel by pixel or on half-pixels as you seem to be doing, as this introduces quantization errors. A good, accurate track often requires tracking at the 1/64th of a pixel level. This is beyond the skill of a manual (and untrained) tracker.

About this author. I'm a visual effects supervisor with 6 years experience and a further ten years CGI and digital video exerience before that. Stabilising shots and tracking moving objects across video frames is part of my daily routine. We absolutely do not ever recommend any kind of tracking on significantly compressed video material because it produces erratic results. We do not track objects by hand unless it is absolutely necessary because it is very, very difficult to get it right. I have also done video analysis for law enforcement agencies, and believe me, it's nothing like your CSI fantasy world.

[MRC_Hans]

I think nearly all was said, but one thing: TS1234 claims that separate footage of a plane was comehow copied into the video. His evidence is apparant speed fluctuations in the movement of the plane, which would be impossible in reality. He fails to mention how they then occured in the plane footage that was allegedly copied in. If they are not possible for the plane approaching the tower, how are they possible for a copied in plane? If they are possible (presumably due to some artefact) for a copied in plane, then they are also possible in an original video.

There is a lack of internal logic in your argument, TS1234.

Anyhow, seeing that the alleged fluctuations are quite cyclic, I suggest they are an artefact of the frame-rate. The frame division is simply not equidistant.

Hans

[Dave Rogers]

Ace,

As far as I see it, your analysis can be boiled down to two anomalies that you claim to be able to see. I would like to know how much effort you have made to analyse your own conclusions critically with a view to determining their falsifiability; in other words, have you considered alternative explanations, or are you simply trying to "save the hypothesis"?

The two main issues, and my comments on them, are:

(1) The so-called "digital halo" around the plane. Other posters have suggested that these may be due to video compression artefacts. Have you studied the edges of the towers to see whether they show similar artefacts, or looked at compressed videos where you know no compositing has taken place, to compare effects and see whether what you observe is unique to digital compositing? Your analysis of this point suffers from the absence of a control sample, a basic principle of scientific analysis, and at present you have yet to prove that your explanation is superior to the alternatives that have been advanced.

(2) The variations in apparent aircraft speed. I accept that your normalisation technique is valid - measuring the difference in position between the aircraft and the edge of the tower is an effective way to eliminate camera movement. What you have failed to address is any kind of analysis of the random errors in your measurement of the airliner position. This is first year university course material. Your graph of speed against frame number looks very much like a horizontal line at 23 pixels/frame with a random error of +/- 4 pixels/frame, so your argument rests entirely on the unstated premise that you can measure the airliner position to an accuracy of significantly less than this. Given your own comments about the blurring of the edges of the airliner, and the clear grading of the edge in the stills you have posted, it appears to me that +/- 4 pixels is quite a reasonable measurement error, in which case your data would fall below the level of statistical significance. If you want to do some further work on this area, I would suggest you study the apparent movement of the tower side in the video and look for correlations between that and the velocity variation. If the video was truly composited as you suggest, there should be a very clear and strong anticorrelation between apparent movements of the tower (i.e. changes in camera angle) and velocity variations of the airliner, as in your scenario both arise from camera movement. Another possibility is to look at the movement of different parts of the airliner and see how well correlated are the velocity variations; strong correlation would help your argument.

As for the emergence of the nose, your suggestion as to how the video was composited is simply not plausible. Let us assume for the sake of argument that your hypothesis is correct, and a video of an airliner flying at constant velocity across a clear background was selected in advance of the events of 9/11 to produce a fake video. Given that the organisers of the attack had ample time to plan the events, and ample access to areas where airliners could be seen from the right angle and distance (I hope you are not trying to argue that either of these was not the case), what possible motivation could they have had for deliberately selecting a video in which the airliner appears to slow by a factor of four part way through the shot? To do so would then require that the camera angle from the helicopter be precisely set so that the airliner would enter the tower at exactly the right point on the screen, and any inadvertant camera movement would necessarily produce an unrealistic slowing of the airliner that would be obvious to a casual observer. It also makes no sense that the prepared video would have been taken from a helicopter, when a fixed ground-based camera would produce a video lacking any variations in camera angle or position, so that the manipulation of the video could start with a clip in which the airliner position was known precisely at all times.

So, to summarise, you've made a good effort, but your lack of a control experiment and the absence of any analysis of random measurement errors mean that your conclusions cannot be said to follow from your premises. I suggest you address these points and see what you find out.

Dave

[NeoRicen]

And Ace, which is the case:
a) The sky was removed from the original video of the plane and the result was composited into this video.
b) The sky was removed from the WTC video and the full video of the plane was put in the background.

A would give a better comp I'd imagine but the plane going behind the building makes ZERO sense.

B would put the plane behind the buildings but the supposed artefacts of the compositing would also appear around the buildings, but I can't see them and you don't identify them. Also for B compositing the smoke onto the sky from another video of the plane would be VERY noticiable given the low quality of the video and the lack of a blue/green screen (calibrated to a correct colour), ESPECIALLY if done Live.

[bonavada]

Originally Posted by CurtC

And, the formatting of your web page overlaps several of the paragraphs and paragraph section headings.

OMFG his site has been artifactated and dustionified! run ace run!
roger wilco tally-ho over and out beep etti etti a shrubbery a shrubbery. you shall not pass.

BV

[gumboot]

You know what the funniest thing about all of this is?

His analysis clearly indicates significant deceleration during impact with the building - the debris exiting is travelling at less than half the speed of the aircraft at impact.

He has successfully managed to totally disprove one of his own earlier claims.

Bravo Ace!

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

Ace, I only skimmed your article so forgive me if I missed something important. I notice you talk alot about video compression, and how it could not do this thing or that thing. From that I assume that your source is compressed.

Do you have any idea what a video compression algorithm does? In basic terms, it removes huge amounts of visual data, easily of the order of 99% of the data captured by the camera, and replaces it with computer generated content, which is determined to be 'close enough' to the original source for viewing purposes. The smart part is just removing the parts the viewer probably won't notice, or in extreme compression just removing the data the viewer doesn't need in order to understand the image. You also state you increased the image size by 200%. You must realise that this doesn't add extra data, it just adds more interpolation! If your video was only 10% genuine data, your enlargement process has reduced it to 2.5% genuine data! The idea of doing frame by frame scientific analysis on such data is just laughable. I hope you can understand why.

If you suppy the actual video source you used, it might be possible to determine how much of it is actual data captured by the camera, and how much is just a computer generated guess.

Secondly, stabilising camera footage does not 'effectively remove camera movement' it only appears to do so, again, such that it may, or may not fool a human viewer. The effectiveness is dependent on the accuracy of the track, the amount of parallax, and lens distortion.

Thirdly tracking a shape through a video frame by hand will produce masses of human induced error, especially if that human is hoping to find such errors. You should use automated tracking solutions to get a more scientifically accurate and unbiased result. These will analyse the picture and find, mathematically, the best fit. They also do not match pixel by pixel or on half-pixels as you seem to be doing, as this introduces quantization errors. A good, accurate track often requires tracking at the 1/64th of a pixel level. This is beyond the skill of a manual (and untrained) tracker.

About this author. I'm a visual effects supervisor with 6 years experience and a further ten years CGI and digital video exerience before that. Stabilising shots and tracking moving objects across video frames is part of my daily routine. We absolutely do not ever recommend any kind of tracking on significantly compressed video material because it produces erratic results. We do not track objects by hand unless it is absolutely necessary because it is very, very difficult to get it right. I have also done video analysis for law enforcement agencies, and believe me, it's nothing like your CSI fantasy world.

Thanks Shrinker for your professional input. Very informative and easy to understand post.

-Gumboot

[xerox]

It seems quite obvoius that the jaggedness of the curve is due to Ace's own measurement error, expecially since there is absolutely no mention of this magnitude of this in the "paper". Looking at his screenshots I wouldn't be surprised if this could be several pixels. And magnifying the image 200% would of course magnify this error 200% as well.

And claiming the halo is evidence of cuting and pasting? Thats just stupid, it looks like a sharpening artefact to me or could be a compression artefact however I se not mention of the type or amount of comression used.

[Zep]

It's not often you see nutty so up close!

[twinstead]

Ace, did you know that real image analysts exist?

If I were one and saw your 'analysis' I would be pissed that you were embarrassing my profession.

Then, I would realize just how many videos and images would have to be faked, and how many eye witnesses there were, I'd stop being pissed and just feel sorry for you.

Then, I'd read all your posts on this forum and I'd be pissed at myself for feeling sorry for you.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

An analysis A speculation of the live WNYW helicopter video of UA Flight 175 striking the World Trade Center

There. Fixed that for you.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Accoring to Newton's first law of motion, an approaching airliner flying through air will "keep on doing what it's doing". That is, the airplane is either travelling a constant speed, accelerating or decelerating. It cannot speed up and slow down repeatedly.

Wow, third sentence of the whole paper. Well done, Ace!

First Law

If no external force acts on a particle, then it is possible to select a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames, observed from which the particle moves without any change in velocity.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by mortimer

Wow, third sentence of the whole paper. Well done, Ace!

First Law

If no external force acts on a particle, then it is possible to select a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames, observed from which the particle moves without any change in velocity.

Remember, this is the same crowd that thinks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says 'Things Topple Over'.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Accoring to Newton's first law of motion, an approaching airliner flying through air will "keep on doing what it's doing". That is, the airplane is either travelling a constant speed, accelerating or decelerating. It cannot speed up and slow down repeatedly.

Grade Report

Student name: Baker, Ace

Course: Physics 101

Grade: F

[T.A.M.]

once again...not reading...title of op says it all.

Take your fakery BS and go home, or to a psychiatrist.

TAM

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

The WNYW "Chopper 5" video of UA flight 175 crashing into the World Trade Center which aired live on 9/11 must be a video composite. The moving plane image must have been recorded separately from the image of the twin towers.

Live, of course.

Quote:

Accoring to Newton's first law of motion, an approaching airliner flying through air will "keep on doing what it's doing".

Yes, that is EXACTLY what Newton said.

Quote:

That is, the airplane is either travelling a constant speed, accelerating or decelerating. It cannot speed up and slow down repeatedly.

They don't have throttles on planes ?

Quote:

Plotting velocity as a function of time, the approaching airplane must present a smooth line on the graph. Constant velocity would be a straight horizontal line.

Assuming your video is an adequate means of analysis.

Quote:

The apparent velocity of a jetliner on video can be contaminated by various noise factors including atmospheric interference, video compression artifacts, and, most importantly, camera motion. Simply moving the camera while recording can cause any object to appear to speed up, slow down, stop, go backwards, etc. Being on a helicopter, and also being controlled by an operator, the chopper 5 camera is never still. Rather it moves around, mostly to the left, but also up, down, and to the right. The camera movements appear to be quite smooth, however.

Translation: "A whole lot of problems can falsify my analysis, but I choose to ignore them."

Quote:

The raw video

...captured from Youtube...

Quote:

depicts rapid increases and decreases in velocity of up to 186 mph (a jagged line on the graph), which is assumed to be caused by some combination of noise factors, especially including camera movement, because atmospheric disturbances and video compression artifacts do not appear sufficient to explain the magnitude of such deviations.

I think Gumboot will tear this to shreds. EDIT: Nope, Shrinker got it covered.

Quote:

The line on the graph becomes even more jagged. Other noise factors are judged to be insignificant, so these data are explained by camera motion on the plane, camera motion not present on the twin towers, thus not removed during the stabilization process.

You'd think that their CGI composition would be a little smoother than that. Damn NWO and their ridiculously incompetent stormtroopers... I mean... shills.

Quote:

After a 0.3 second disappearance inside the tower, what appears to be the nose of the aircraft exits the building, apparently now coming from behind the tower.

Key word: apparently.

Quote:

Frame #7 shows a very evident "pixel halo" around the nose of the aircraft, indicative of a "cut and paste".

Honest researchers would also point out that video compression might have something to do with it.

Quote:

The planes of 9/11 remain a hotly controversial topic within the 9/11 truth movement.

Of course. Truth is VERY controversial within the movement.

Quote:

Other researchers in the 9/11 truth movement have argued in favor of real planes.

Gee, I wonder why. It may have something to do with thousands of people on site seeing that plane crash into the building. From the comfort of your basement, Ace, it may not be so obvious.

Quote:

The chopper 5 video is a composite.

That also means pretty much EVERY video ever made is a composite.

[T.A.M.]

Accelerate = speed up over time
Decelerate = slow down over time.

So what exactly are you trying to say about Newtons law and an airliner ACE?

lol

TAM