-Caveat Lector-
On Aug 24, 2004, at 2:33 AM, The Webfairy wrote:
...All it takes to see the backup frame is to look at Eric Salter's excellent and supurb enlargements. His rendition also has the "flash frame" mysteriously missing from some versions.
This is a work in progress. http://thewebfairy.com/911/missilegate
as for the disappearnce of the "flash" from some versions, there is nothing mysterious about it. eric has already explained that this is a result of the flash only appearing in one field (i.e. half of a frame, or 1/60th of a second) and this being removed in the de-interlacing process that happens in many types of digital format conversion. incidentally, recently mark robinowitz argued that the absence of the flash in some versions of the footage, for example in zwicker's 'great deception', was proof that the flash was a fake addition. eric corrected him on this with a post to the 911truthalliance list.
now, concerning the WTC1 footage: previously, you attempted to claim, to great comic effect, that the naudet DVD footage was a "filtered" version and that your versions represented the real images! having been completely disproven on that point and shown to be taking a foolish position, you are now changing your tune yet again, in your typically shifty way, and trying to claim the opposite -- suddenly now eric's superior quality conversions of the footage SUPPORT your analysis!!?! given that you clearly lack the principle and honesty first to acknowledge where your past mistakes have been proven by eric's and others' critiques -- not to mention failing to come up with a logical rebuttal, of course -- i'm not surprised to see you adopting this new diversion.
what intelligent person is going to fall for this? i have to admit, this does fit the cointelpro-style tactics of 'engagement' that kris described so well, using misrepresentations and hollow arguments just to try and force a new response. as for your 'analysis' of perspective, it is so incoherent and erroneous as not to warrant a response; it's just more of the same garbage that you've offered before which has already been debunked.
moreover, i've gone back to review the footage, playing it forwards & backwards in slo-mo and frame by frame dozens of times, and i do not see where the plane jumps backwards -- although i do see a part where the plane passes near or in front of reflective parts of the building where, possibly, someone with an poor, unskilled eye who was not watching carefully and thoughtfully could get confused by their own overactive imagination, just as is true for the entirety of this inherently low quality, low detail section of footage. the section from approx. frame 27 to 32 in eric's file is where i suspect such a mistake could easily be made by someone who is not keeping in mind fundamental, basic issues like video "blooming" distortions of bright specular highlights off the building that the plane is passing in front of, the problem of the thin wings disappearing inbetween scan lines in certain frames, and so forth. so, can you give the exact frame # of eric's file where you claim the plane jumps backwards?
and, are there any other takers to second the claim that the plane "jumps backwards" in the naudet footage?
as these spurious claims continue to roll out of the disinfo sausage factory, working overtime to churn out fresh new B.S. diversions as fast as old B.S. is debunked, i find myself reflecting on the fact that stubborn denial can be excused up to a point as the result of self-delusion and ego, but after a certain point it can only indicate some kind of willful malevolence.
-brian
www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
