[Moderated][Merged]Real or Fake? Video Challenge

[TruthSeeker1234]

One of the planes in the video is real, the other one is fake. Can you tell which is which?

Download the video clip here (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Plane1Doubled.mov).

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Plane1Doubled.jpg

[Pardalis]

Look, a transformer!

5kThJGtcVqU

[The Doc]

Ace, what's your point?

Do you not understand how posting a video of two planes on the internet is different to live broadcasting a plane hitting a building in a packed city with hundreds of thousands of witnesses?

[TruthSeeker1234]

The point is to test whether or not we can composite an airplane into video convincingly. A number of JREF members have agreed to take this challenge, and I encourage all.

[Pardalis]

There's alot of things we can do now with video technology.

Real people died on those planes when they crashed into the towers, real people saw it with their own eyes.

[Jonnyclueless]

My vote is on the middle one.

[Redtail]

I take it you use a Mac?

[The Doc]

The point is to test whether or not we can composite an airplane into video convincingly. A number of JREF members have agreed to take this challenge, and I encourage all.

No, you have missed my point.

I doubt anyone here denies that a plane can be composited into video in a convincing manner. That technology has been available for years.

Technology that is not available, though, is making it appear to thousands of eyewitness that a plane has struck a building, and doing so on live TV.

[gumboot]

The point is to test whether or not we can composite an airplane into video convincingly. A number of JREF members have agreed to take this challenge, and I encourage all.



Don't you mean it tests whether you can clone an object in a video and do it convincingly?

-Gumboot

[The Mysterian]

Those were too small. Make then at least twice the size.

On edit:

I think the first one is the fake one.

[TruthSeeker1234]

The distance and quality are quite similar to the Chopper 5 video.

(psssst. I knew it would be impossible to tell the difference, so I left a clue).

[Pardalis]

Ace, please read this (http://www.healthgrades.com/local-doctors-directory/by-specialty/psychiatry/california-ca), I'm serious.

[stateofgrace]

Ace, please stop.

Flight 175 had innocent people onboard it, it was flown at high speed into the side of a building, killing them instantly.

Please before you go any further show you have an ounce of decency and give this insanity up.

[Arus808]

The distance and quality are quite similar to the Chopper 5 video.

(psssst. I knew it would be impossible to tell the difference, so I left a clue).


ace, are you just ignoring that:

1) posting a still image of a screenshot from a video is not the same of inserting the same type of sfx into a LIVE FEED footage and have the thousands of eyewitnesses WHO WERE THERE THAT DAY, see a plane hit hte building?



why do you continue to ignore that there were REAL eyewitnesses who were there that DAY

Are you going to ignore (damn what's his name, the chinese guy that was in WTC 2 and ACTUALLY saw the plane coming toward him....he stayed in the building trying to call emergency services within the building).....his claims that he saw the plane approaching the building????


no amoutn of you trying to prove that hte "video" was faked will disprove what those who were there that day saw.

[Redtail]

I don't run QT so I'm gonna go by the Pic and say the one on the right is fake. Now then Are you using tech that was available in 2001 and can you prove it?

[Pardalis]

It's like the Shoah survivors. One day, sadly, the witnesses will be gone, and the deniers will have free reign to spout their nonsense...

:(

[qarnos]

Maybe it would be a good idea if we took the approach we did with christophera and (attempt to) stop encouraging him by responding to this nonsense?

[Arus808]

dont know how it proves what he claims since he has yet to prove that it was able to be done for live video feed and the thousands of witnesses including those in the buildings who saw the planes approaching and crashing

[gumboot]

This is stupid. He has taken a video of an aircraft, and cloned it to make two aircraft. That's not even remotely related to the subject under discussion in his other thread.

Ace, get help. Please.

-Gumboot

[8den]

The point is to test whether or not we can composite an airplane into video convincingly. A number of JREF members have agreed to take this challenge, and I encourage all.


Ace I agreed to take this challenge, if you posted up high quality quicktimes on an FTP site. I don't consider a 12mb compression to be satisfactory.


You were also going to be given bonus points if you did it real time, using software/hardware available in 2001. Did you do either of these things?

[Shrinker]

Hey Ace, I was easily able to isolate the mask you created (shown in black in the movie below). Shoddy work mate - jittering all over the place. Professionals don't use hand drawn masks anymore. Rotosplines are much smoother.

View the quicktime (http://www.shrinker.plus.com/misc/rotobyace.mov)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

One of the planes in the video is real, the other one is fake. Can you tell which is which?

I'm going to go stark raving silly and pick the one that was seen by 10,000+ witnesses.

[twinstead]

Ace, this is like somebody claiming the famous film of the Kennedy assassination was fake not because it showed that Oswald wasn't the shooter, but that the bullets didn't exist and Kennedy wasn't really shot and anybody who actually witnessed the shooting is lying or mistaken.

There are really no words to describe what kind of chemical imbalance you need to have to discount what was observed by thousands of people on live TV on 911.

I have one word: COINTELLPRO

[jhunter1163]

Are you going to ignore (damn what's his name, the chinese guy that was in WTC 2 and ACTUALLY saw the plane coming toward him....he stayed in the building trying to call emergency services within the building

Stanley Praimnath. He also saw every one of his co-workers killed by the same plane that Ace claims doesn't exist.

Words fail me.

[8den]

Hey Ace, I was easily able to isolate the mask you created (shown in black in the movie below). Shoddy work mate - jittering all over the place. Professionals don't use hand drawn masks anymore. Rotosplines are much smoother.

View the quicktime (http://www.shrinker.plus.com/misc/rotobyace.mov)

Theres a textbook example of a pwnage if I ever saw one.

[qarnos]

Theres a textbook example of a pwnage if I ever saw one.

There is so much pwnage there, we need to invent a new word for it.

[H'ethetheth]

Hey Ace, I was easily able to isolate the mask you created (shown in black in the movie below). Shoddy work mate - jittering all over the place. Professionals don't use hand drawn masks anymore. Rotosplines are much smoother.

View the quicktime (http://www.shrinker.plus.com/misc/rotobyace.mov)Hehehe. This is why I like the JREF forums. You never know what you're going to get.

[The Doc]

Oh I just cannot wait until Ace responds to this one.

[qarnos]

Hehehe. This is why I like the JREF forums. You never know what you're going to get.

No, no, no! That's a box of chocolates.

[qarnos]

Oh I just cannot wait until Ace responds to this one.

We need to create an "Annual Inaugural Gravy Award for Pwning a Truther". I nominate Shrinker.

[qarnos]

Hey Ace, I was easily able to isolate the mask you created (shown in black in the movie below). Shoddy work mate - jittering all over the place. Professionals don't use hand drawn masks anymore. Rotosplines are much smoother.

View the quicktime (http://www.shrinker.plus.com/misc/rotobyace.mov)

What was the white squiggly thing following the black wobbly thing?

[MortFurd]

Hey Ace, I was easily able to isolate the mask you created (shown in black in the movie below). Shoddy work mate - jittering all over the place. Professionals don't use hand drawn masks anymore. Rotosplines are much smoother.

View the quicktime (http://www.shrinker.plus.com/misc/rotobyace.mov)

Would it be asking too much if I asked for you to place a copy of Ace's film on your site as well? I can't access YouTube from where I am.

Could I also ask how you made your video from his? I can think of ways to do it manually, but not so as to do as quick(timely) as you did.

[MortFurd]

We need to create an "Annual Inaugural Gravy Award for Pwning a Truther". I nominate Shrinker.

Seconded.

[MortFurd]

What was the white squiggly thing following the black wobbly thing?
Also seconded.

[Shrinker]

Thank you guys. The process works like this:

I stand behind a young technician with large glasses and a huge monitor. I say 'enhance sector 12G' and he does so. Then I say 'invert the quantum pixel threshold.' He does so, and all fakery is magicaly revealed. I then say 'bingo'.

[MortFurd]

Thank you guys. The process works like this:

I stand behind a young technician with large glasses and a huge monitor. I say 'enhance sector 12G' and he does so. Then I say 'invert the quantum pixel threshold.' He does so, and all fakery is magicaly revealed. I then say 'bingo'.

So, were you in the CSI lab or in the Navy CIS lab?

[Zep]

Were there lots of blue uplights in the dark behind the myriad giant screens, plus full-length glass walls?

Or was it in a converted church with whitewashed walls, bright mercury lamps, shiny steel instruments and an echo?

[qarnos]

Thank you guys. The process works like this:

I stand behind a young technician with large glasses and a huge monitor. I say 'enhance sector 12G' and he does so. Then I say 'invert the quantum pixel threshold.' He does so, and all fakery is magicaly revealed. I then say 'bingo'.

You forgot to sublimate the reverse computation matrix.

[The Doc]

You forgot to sublimate the reverse computation matrix.

That's what I was thinking.

Although, he could simply use the flux capacitator instead.

[cloudshipsrule]

Shrinker,

Did you use WHOPPER or HAL?

[Shrinker]

Shrinker,

Did you use WHOPPER or HAL?

Umm, actually I used my hands...

[MRC_Hans]

There is so much pwnage there, we need to invent a new word for it.Amen!

- Ace B posts totally irrelevant strawman movie

- Within hours, even that is debunked.

That's gotta hurt even someone like Ace.

Hans

[Shrinker]

By the way, I haven't said which is the 'fake' one, because they're both equally real. Ace needs to define fake first.

[Zep]

Amen!

- Ace B posts totally irrelevant strawman movie

- Within hours, even that is debunked.

That's gotta hurt even someone like Ace.

HansNot if he's as nutty as we suspect he is... :rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

If so, he probably already hurts.

.. But of course, he mentioned he had left a clue, so he'll prpbably say that was the clue :nope:.

Hans

[peteweaver]

My friend's uncle was injured by debris in those attacks, he saw flight 175 crash with his own eyes, and was then hit by a piece of debris that broke off in the impact; that piece of debris nearly killed him.

Have some decency Ace, accept you were wrong.

[MRC_Hans]

By the way, I haven't said which is the 'fake' one, because they're both equally real. Ace needs to define fake first.I recommend he looks in a mirror to see a genuine fake.

Hans

[Shrinker]

What was the white squiggly thing following the black wobbly thing?

That's the possible position of the 'real' plane. The plane shaped dark object in front is also a possible position of the 'real' plane. I had to do a little more analysis to figure out which one was correct. I'll reveal that when Ace defines real.

[Dave Rogers]

I'll reveal that when Ace defines real.

An unusual source for a definition of reality.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Ace, what strikes me about this video is that, in order to make it, you had to start with a video of the real plane doing exactly the same thing you wanted the fake plane to do; in other words, on 9/11 you could have faked a video of flight 175 hitting WTC2 only if you already had a video of flight 175 hitting WTC2.

Incidentally, how steady is the apparent velocity of the plane?

Dave

[Shrinker]

For the record, I just made a change to the quicktime file, for the sake of easier interpretation.

[SpitfireIX]

We need to create an "Annual Inaugural Gravy Award for Pwning a Truther". I nominate Shrinker.


I think it should be for all conspiracy theories; not just September 11. And I'm not sure we should call it the Gravy Award--if Gravy wins it, the woo-woos will claim it's like dictators awarding themselves medals, or having their rubber-stamp legislative bodies do so.

[pomeroo]

The distance and quality are quite similar to the Chopper 5 video.

(psssst. I knew it would be impossible to tell the difference, so I left a clue).



Pssst. Thousands of people watched from the street and their office windows as Flight 175 hit the South Tower. You are insane.

Do not use insults or accusations of insanity to argue your point.

[e^n]

For the record, I just made a change to the quicktime file, for the sake of easier interpretation.

I don't know how he's encoded the quicktime file but none of my normal Linux decoders like it at all, I can only just play it with gstreamer :(

[T.A.M.]

just a quick check in...

ACE convert anyone yet?

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

My friend's uncle was injured by debris in those attacks, he saw flight 175 crash with his own eyes, and was then hit by a piece of debris that broke off in the impact; that piece of debris nearly killed him.

[quote]Have some decency Ace,


Ace has no decency. He is insane and not very bright.


accept you were wrong


His illness will not permit that.

Do not use insults or accusations of insanity to argue your point.

[pomeroo]

My last post appeared twice.

[CHF]

Ace,

No one doubts that it's possible to manipulate film.

The issue here is how one can fake a plane crash in real time in front of thousands of witnesses.

If you know how, please tell me.

[Totovader]

The fact that Ace took a COPY of the real plane and pasted it into the same video, which is no longer LIVE has debunked his own claims.

Ace- here's YOUR challenge. If what you are saying is true, you should be able to go out into the street, take an amateur video camera, and- while broadcasting live- insert realistic and indistinguishable cars into your live shot.

Can you do that? (and could you do it in 2001)

If you can, then I will consider your theory something more than just pure lunacy.

ETA: Ace even so-much as admits this; the name of the video is "Plane1Doubled"...

[T.A.M.]

So the answer to my question, as of now, would be ZERO people convinced so far.

TAM:)

[Belz...]

ace, are you just ignoring that:

1) posting a still image of a screenshot from a video is not the same of inserting the same type of sfx into a LIVE FEED footage and have the thousands of eyewitnesses WHO WERE THERE THAT DAY, see a plane hit hte building?

It's obvious from his previous threads that he doesn't understand that one.

If you can fake ANY picture or ANY video, then people didn't see 175 crash into the south tower. Simple as 'dat! :rolleyes:

[negativ]

I have one word: COINTELLPRO

There is certainly some "counter-intelligence" afoot here.

[pomeroo]

My friend's uncle was injured by debris in those attacks, he saw flight 175 crash with his own eyes, and was then hit by a piece of debris that broke off in the impact; that piece of debris nearly killed him.




Ace has no decency. He is insane and not very bright.





His illness will not permit that.

[quote]
Do not use insults or accusations of insanity to argue your point.



Whenever Ace introduces a new twist in his campaign to demonstrate that no planes hit the Twin Towers, there is never a shortage of knowledgeable forum members to dissect his fabrications and expose his incompetent efforts to distort reality. The elephant in the parlor is his mental state. It is less than honest to discuss complete nonsense without mentioning the reason why the person who created the nonsense is incapable of recognizing it for what it is. To describe Ace as ill is not an insult. It is an accurate observation that explains a whole lot.

[Anti-sophist]

I actually want to discuss this issue but I'm afraid any rational discussion of this issue is gonna get lost in the noise of all you guys jumping down his throat.

Ace, I don't believe what you have created is representative, at all, of the actual challenge required. This is because you made one plane exactly follow the other across a fairly static background. The only reason your second plane is going to be hard to distinguish is because a -real- plane did the exact same thing. This means you can copy pixels. This defeats the whole purpose of "faking" video. If you have -real- video then making a direct copy of it doesn't make it "fake".

If you want to do a proper test you will need to make the plane either in a different video sequence entirely, or even travel a different (parallel) line in the image.

Having the two planes follow one behind the other, against a static background, is not representative, at all, of what you claim happened.

All that being said, I'm still fairly confident I can identify the fake. I'd just prefer you'd do a proper test.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Real - The one which would still appear had I not edited the video.

Discussion of "real" for the purposes of this challenge.

A real airplane landed at Burbank airport yesterday. Many people saw it with their own eyes, including me. I videotaped it. Nobody saw two airplanes.

Only one airplane is allowed on that flight path at a time, because of wake turbulence. There appear to be two airplanes in the video clip.

Therefore, since we know there was only one airplane on that path at that time, one of them must be real, and one must be fake. They can't both be fake, because I saw a real airplane with my eyes.

[Pardalis]

A real airplane landed at Burbank airport yesterday. Many people saw it with their own eyes, including me. I videotaped it.

Exactly, and on 9/11, hundreds of people saw the second plane hit, and quite a few of them videotaped it.

Nobody saw a cloned plane behind it.

[twinstead]

A real airplane landed at Burbank airport yesterday. Many people saw it with their own eyes, including me. I videotaped it. Nobody saw two airplanes.


What if somebody told you that they had analyzed a video of that plane and declared it to be fake, therefore you and everybody else who saw it is either lying or mistaken.

How would you react to them?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace, I don't believe what you have created is representative, at all, of the actual challenge required. This is because you made one plane exactly follow the other across a fairly static background. The only reason your second plane is going to be hard to distinguish is because a -real- plane did the exact same thing. This means you can copy pixels. This defeats the whole purpose of "faking" video. If you have -real- video then making a direct copy of it doesn't make it "fake".



Copying pixels defines (not defeats!) the purpose of video fakery. This is exactly what I allege the 9/11 perps did. I think they videotaped a real plane, removed the background, and "copied pixels", later inserting it into a "fairly static background".

The only tricky part is masking off the building in real time. They had the technology in 1998, and it almost worked for them on 9/11. They screwed it up, and let the darn nose of the airplane come out the back side.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace, what strikes me about this video is that, in order to make it, you had to start with a video of the real plane doing exactly the same thing you wanted the fake plane to do; in other words, on 9/11 you could have faked a video of flight 175 hitting WTC2 only if you already had a video of flight 175 hitting WTC2.

Incidentally, how steady is the apparent velocity of the plane?

Dave

Yes, Dave, I shot a steady plane, a camera shake plane, a helicopter and some birds. They will serve as the control cases for my Chopper 5 study, as per your advice.

[twinstead]

The only tricky part is masking off the building in real time. They had the technology in 1998, and it almost worked for them on 9/11. They screwed it up, and let the darn nose of the airplane come out the back side.

You can speculate about technology all you want, but how did they fool all the eye witnesses? You keep sidestepping that.

It appears that not only did they edit live video in such a way as to only be possible with your hypothetical extension of limited 1998 technology, but they were able to somehow fool thousands of people watching it happen.

These witnesses are the bane of your theory. You can't just wave them away as being mistaken.

[Anti-sophist]

Copying pixels defines (not defeats!) the purpose of video fakery. This is exactly what I allege the 9/11 perps did. I think they videotaped a real plane, removed the background, and "copied pixels", later inserting it into a "fairly static background".

The only tricky part is masking off the building in real time. They had the technology in 1998, and it almost worked for them on 9/11. They screwed it up, and let the darn nose of the airplane come out the back side.

No, this is not what you claim they did. You copied a plane onto the -exact same background-, 7 frames later. That is -not- at all what you claim they did. All you've done is overlaid a "delayed" version, which is far simpler then actually moving the plane to a different location.

You have chosen a specially contrived case that is far simpler that what you allege happened.

[Anti-sophist]

By the way, without any sophisticated analysis at all, it's fairly easy to guess that the first plane is fake because it begins 1 frame later then the second plane (ie, the location of plane #2 in frame 8 has no analogue for plane #1). The "missing" first frame would have been the easiest to detect pixel manipulation so my guess is it was left off intentionally.

[Shrinker]

Real - The one which would still appear had I not edited the video.

Discussion of "real" for the purposes of this challenge.

A real airplane landed at Burbank airport yesterday. Many people saw it with their own eyes, including me. I videotaped it. Nobody saw two airplanes.

Only one airplane is allowed on that flight path at a time, because of wake turbulence. There appear to be two airplanes in the video clip.

Therefore, since we know there was only one airplane on that path at that time, one of them must be real, and one must be fake. They can't both be fake, because I saw a real airplane with my eyes.


How do you react to the fact that I have isolated all your sloppy-brush strokes in the video? Weren't they supposed to be undetectable? Wasn't that the whole point?

[TruthSeeker1234]

How do you react to the fact that I have isolated all your sloppy-brush strokes in the video? Weren't they supposed to be undetectable? Wasn't that the whole point?

They are undetectable. You ran difference filtering between pairs of frames 8 frames apart. If you ran difference filtering in the opposite direction, you would end up with a mask around the other plane. You can't tell which one is real.

If I hadn't put both planes in the same clip, you wouldn't be able to run difference filtering at all.

[Anti-sophist]

They are undetectable. You ran difference filtering between pairs of frames 8 frames apart. If you ran difference filtering in the opposite direction, you would end up with a mask around the other plane. You can't tell which one is real.

If I hadn't put both planes in the same clip, you wouldn't be able to run difference filtering at all.

If you hadn't just delayed the movie 8 frames the way you did, it'd be -easier- to detect the fake, not more difficult.

[Storm Warning]

Okay, this is my first shot at a debunking so I may be a little shaky, but here goes -
<snip>A real airplane landed at Burbank airport yesterday. Many people saw it with their own eyes, including me. I videotaped it. Nobody saw two airplanes.

Only one airplane is allowed on that flight path at a time, because of wake turbulence. There appear to be two airplanes in the video clip.

Therefore, since we know there was only one airplane on that path at that time, one of them must be real, and one must be fake. They can't both be fake, because I saw a real airplane with my eyes.
I've analyzed your video and the only conclusion that I can come to is that . . . they're both fake. There was no airplane landed at Burbank airport yesterday. Everyone who thought they saw it (including you) is either brainwashed by the evil gubmint or they're deluded. Your so called 'video' is a complete fake. GOVERNMENT SHILL! SHEEPLE!

How'd I do?

[T.A.M.]

Will someone PLEASE produce a sarcasm smilie...lol

TAM:)

[Undesired Walrus]

I had a friend with a very bad case of OCD once. She spent over 10,000 dollars (A yank) in a few years to check she didn't have bone cancer. Every time she got the all clear she went back.

If we could find someone who has a case of OCD that makes you ask consistently "How do you explain 10,000 people seeing a plane hit the building?" We should use him.

Don't attend to technical questions with Ace anymore, they are simply pointless and he will only divert to those. Wait until he answers how 10,000 people saw a plane if it wasn't there.

[beachnut]

One of the planes in the video is real, the other one is fake. Can you tell which is which?

Download the video clip here (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Plane1Doubled.mov).

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Plane1Doubled.jpg
Ace you are a disrespectful person. Zero capability to understand anything about 9/11. Sad you are so lacking the capability to have any feelings for those who died on 9/11 by making up false information about the planes on 9/11. You are such a little person, and unable to think rationally. You are the fake. All your ideas on 9/11 are fake. What a waste, making up lies about 9/11.

Cheating again? The speed is not real time, the compression of the video is really bad. You need to produce an original live fake plane. Just like we saw on 9/11. Now take your disrespectful tripe and stop being a liar. Fake, fake.

[MortFurd]

They are undetectable. You ran difference filtering between pairs of frames 8 frames apart. If you ran difference filtering in the opposite direction, you would end up with a mask around the other plane. You can't tell which one is real.

If I hadn't put both planes in the same clip, you wouldn't be able to run difference filtering at all.

In other words, if you'd done what you said you were going to do it wouldn't be detectable. At least, not the same way.

There were supposed to have been two videos. One fake, one real. Not one video with one fake and one real airplane.

[Spins]

Therefore, since we know there was only one airplane on that path at that time, one of them must be real, and one must be fake. They can't both be fake, because I saw a real airplane with my eyes.Yes and thousands upon thousands of people also watched Flight 175 with their own eyes hit the South Tower on 9/11, coincidentally backing up all the video you are trying to say is fake, correct? YES or NO? Reply please!

[pomeroo]

I had a friend with a very bad case of OCD once. She spent over 10,000 dollars (A yank) in a few years to check she didn't have bone cancer. Every time she got the all clear she went back.

If we could find someone who has a case of OCD that makes you ask consistently "How do you explain 10,000 people seeing a plane hit the building?" We should use him.

Don't attend to technical questions with Ace anymore, they are simply pointless and he will only divert to those. Wait until he answers how 10,000 people saw a plane if it wasn't there.



Ace contends that they are liars. They are members of the NWO. They have been paid. There are really only a few of them. They don't exist.

Trust me, he isn't inconvenienced by reality.

[Jonnyclueless]

I think I can answer for ace on the explanation of 10,000 or so people watching in person.

Osmosis.

[Shrinker]

They are undetectable. You ran difference filtering between pairs of frames 8 frames apart. If you ran difference filtering in the opposite direction, you would end up with a mask around the other plane. You can't tell which one is real.

If I hadn't put both planes in the same clip, you wouldn't be able to run difference filtering at all.

Your strokes are as clear as day. You tried to take the easiest possible route to faking your clip. It's tripped you up because that kind of forgery is easily detectable. Whoops. If you'd tried to do a proper fake instead of this pathetic child's play I would have needed a tougher technique. Tough luck, smartass.

I ran the difference matte both ways, as early contributors to the thread will note. I even specifically said, it showed 2 possibilities. You are correct, it doesn't tell which is which.

So...

One noticeable feature of your fakery is that you have chosen a scene where there is so little structure and movent in the foreground and background that you thought you could get away with some rough strokes. In other words you're cutting your plane out of one background and pasting it into an identical background. Amatuer stuff, seriously.

However on frame 33 you messed up, and painted in something you shouldn't have. A bit of the future pops in for one frame, then pops out again (far left, in the trees - see it?). Specifically, its a bit of frame 41. That shows that the layer you were clumsily painting in (represented by black in my filtered version), was the forward layer.

Therefore the plane in front is the one which is out of sync with the rest of the frame.

Also, am I right in thinking you took the sightly perverse route of putting your normal clip, over your slipped clip, then painted holes in the slipped clip to allow the 'fake' to show through? That's just an educated guess...

[Spins]

There is no way Ace is going to back down from this "Chopper 5" (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/PinocchioStudy/Chopper5Velocity.html) fakery nonsense because in effect he'll be admitting to wasting several months of his life researching it.

[chipmunk stew]

Real - The one which would still appear had I not edited the video.

Discussion of "real" for the purposes of this challenge.

A real airplane landed at Burbank airport yesterday. Many people saw it with their own eyes, including me. I videotaped it. Nobody saw two airplanes.

Only one airplane is allowed on that flight path at a time, because of wake turbulence. There appear to be two airplanes in the video clip.

Therefore, since we know there was only one airplane on that path at that time, one of them must be real, and one must be fake. They can't both be fake, because I saw a real airplane with my eyes.
They could both be fake if you are lying and the airplane was filmed elsewhere and never appeared in that shot, or if the airplane in the original shot was cloned twice, and the original removed completely.

[Anti-sophist]

Haven't run some of the most simple image processing stuff I can think of, it's becoming increasingly obvious to me that the first plane is the faked one.

I didn't even get to run the fun stuff.

[Anti-sophist]

Frame 34:
http://www.sourimage.com/img/2bf15eb33017b46386cf4cee37784a4c/34.jpg (http://www.sourimage.com)

Frame 41:
http://www.sourimage.com/img/81c7c1760c34e5670fca798f1e1c7d3a/41.jpg (http://www.sourimage.com)


Notice the reddish "tail" ghosting (from the compression, this is a high-frequency area) on the plane going behind the building. Notice how Ace didn't copy enough. The second plane is legit. The first one is a fraud. This could explained by "naturally" occurring noise via compression, but this pattern of plane #2 having "more" tail wash then plane #1 repeats numerous times.

Anyone who wants to reproduce these results just sharpen and edge-find. I used convert from imagemagick (-sharpen 1 -edge 1.0). If you have gimp, do a sharpen and then a laplacian edge find and it'll explode out on the screen.

[Shrinker]

Notice the reddish "tail" ghosting (from the compression, this is a high-frequency area) on the plane going behind the building. Notice how Ace didn't copy enough. The second plane is legit. The first one is a fraud. This could explained by "naturally" occurring noise via compression, but this pattern of plane #2 having "more" tail wash then plane #1 repeats numerous times.


Nice.

Now we should all get out our analysis tools and attempt to detect what all of this has proved.

[Anti-sophist]

Nice.

Now we should all get out our analysis tools and attempt to detect what all of this has proved.

That even in the most contrived cases faking video is hard?

[TruthSeeker1234]

By the way, I haven't said which is the 'fake' one, because they're both equally real.

Thank you.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Frame 34:
[/URL]http://www.sourimage.com/img/2bf15eb33017b46386cf4cee37784a4c/34.jpg (http://www.sourimage.com)

Frame 41:
[URL]http://www.sourimage.com/img/81c7c1760c34e5670fca798f1e1c7d3a/41.jpg (http://www.sourimage.com)


Notice the reddish "tail" ghosting (from the compression, this is a high-frequency area) on the plane going behind the building. Notice how Ace didn't copy enough. The second plane is legit. The first one is a fraud. This could explained by "naturally" occurring noise via compression, but this pattern of plane #2 having "more" tail wash then plane #1 repeats numerous times.

Anyone who wants to reproduce these results just sharpen and edge-find. I used convert from imagemagick (-sharpen 1 -edge 1.0). If you have gimp, do a sharpen and then a laplacian edge find and it'll explode out on the screen.

Excellent work. So you're saying that you apply some filters, and suddenly the plane is trailing anomalies behind it?

Let's apply some filters to Chopper 5, and have a look. http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/PinocchioStudy/PastedPlane-Contrast.jpg

Notice the left wing is trailing pixels decidedly more pink than the background sky. Seems like these are kept from the original in order to preserve the appearance of wake turbulence. The sky was a bit more pink on the day they shot the plane, than it was on 9/11.

[Arus808]

Notice the left wing is trailing pixels decidedly more pink than the background sky. Seems like these are kept from the original in order to preserve the appearance of wake turbulence. The sky was a bit more pink on the day they shot the plane, than it was on 9/11.


Did everything just posted in this thread just fly over your head?

You are taking a heavily compressed video and trying to enlarge it to focus in the tiny pixel coloration to see if there is an anomaly. Do you not see that what you are doing is comparing apples and oranges to the work that anti-sophist just did



And you still side step those PESKY 1000's of witnesses to the plane crash.

When are you going to address this?

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'd like to make two separate videos, as suggested, and have a poll.

1) I have not studied the two videos.
2) I have studied the two videos, and I can't tell which one is real and which one is fake.
3) I have studied the two videos, and I think number one is real and number two is fake.
4) I have studied the two videos, and I think number two is real and number one is fake.


How do I make a poll?

[boloboffin]

We must stop paying attention to this nonsense.

[Anti-sophist]

Excellent work. So you're saying that you apply some filters, and suddenly the plane is trailing anomalies behind it?

Nowhere have I claimed that. First of all, the claim that you can just apply any filters you want and find them is silly.

More importantly, the evidence I provided disproves this conjecture. Please note plane #2 (the real plane) in the first frame... this is the one I did not call your attention to earlier. This is a "real" plane and it has absolutely no trailing anomalies behind it.

http://www.sourimage.com/img/2bf15eb33017b46386cf4cee37784a4c/34.jpg (http://www.sourimage.com/)

Please note the "real plane" in this image. The second one. It has no trailing anomalies.

The trailing anomalies are not omnipresent and only occur in places of high frequency who have received a too-low-bit rate for the compression. Furthermore, they are only noticeable under very specific filters. If you apply the above filter the entire scene, you will see the trailing anomalies several times... but not every time.

Lack of these particular compression anomalies is not proof of fakery, as the above example shows very clearly.

[jujigatami]

Back here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81890&page=3

I asked Ace the following:

Ace, TS, or whatever you call yourself,

Could you please explain to me how the NWO, Government, or whoever you think made these videos also somehow implanted the images of 2 planes hitting the WTC in to my EYEBALLS!

See, I was there, and I personally witnessed both planes hitting the buildings.

I saw everything, EVERYTHING!

I saw it firsthand, not on video, not by description after the fact. I saw BOTH PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS!!!

Please explain how I saw what you say didn't happen.

Please, this I gotta hear.

I was a few hundred yards from WTC1 walking towards it when the first plane hit. I looked up when I heard an incredibly loud jet engine sound a second or two before the plane hit. It was so loud that the ground was vibrating and I actually felt the sound. Of course the crash and resulting explosion was even louder, but I'll never forget the sound of the jet. Its what made me look up. Then there it was, an American Airlines jet flying full speed in to the north tower.

So please tell me Ace, how did the big bad NWO not only implant images in to my eyeball, but also have the accompanying sound effects so perfectly staged?

The answer he gave was to run away and completely ignore me. Not at all a surprise, but still very telling.

[chran]

How do I make a poll? Here are the instructions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_plug).

[Pookster]

<snip>

Therefore, since we know there was only one airplane on that path at that time, one of them must be real, and one must be fake. They can't both be fake, because I saw a real airplane with my eyes.

"And the truth shall set you free"

Congratualations, Ace! You've just debunked your "no planes at the WTC" theory! Your prize is a juice box. Enjoy.

It's truly amazing how if you just keep a twoofer talking, they'll eventually become their own worst enemy.

[H'ethetheth]

Please explain how I saw what you say didn't happen.

Why, you must be an agent, obviously.

[Jonnyclueless]

Chewbaka does NOT live on Endore!

[Mancman]

No, no, no! That's a box of chocolates.

Last box of chocolates I got, they were all the same. Saying debunked.

[H'ethetheth]

Chewbaka does NOT live on Endore!That's your answer to everything!

[Par]

That's your answer to everything!


Mine's living under the sea.

[peteweaver]

Ace, this is stupid. Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Nuff said. Get a beer, and stop worrying about it. You can't bring back the dead. But you can respect the living who survived the attack, real people were injured because of it, real people were traumatised to see it. Show some respect for them, and change the record.

[H'ethetheth]

Mine's living under the sea.I bet you say that to all the questions.

[Miss Anthrope]

Which of these is fake?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12517467affebdb496.jpg

[chipmunk stew]

Which of these is fake?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12517467affebdb496.jpg
im on ur cat
bein humpt by ur othr cat


edit:
Speaking of which:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/FUNNY_Cat_top_of_dog_small.jpg

[Par]

I bet you say that to all the questions.


H'ethetheth. Chris Waddle.

[8den]

To those of us joining us, I will explain. No there is too much information, I will summerise.

Ace baker claims that the no planes hit the WTC. He claims that all witnesses in Manhattan are either lying or confused. Manhattan being one of the most populated piece of real estate in the World. And y'know eyes were focused on the twin towers after the first plane hit. Anywho, he claims that the footage of the planes were inserted, real time, to disguise missiles or something on the day. He refuses to explain how exactly this occured, but does make vague claims for companies that make sport broadcasting equipment. He does not cite what specific equipment was used, and what occured. He then gives us an example of how easy it is to do perfect and unspotable CGI insertion, only to fail to demostrate how it was done real time, and for a forum member to demostrate the exact method that Ace used to insert his fake plane, and how easy it is. Ace then go goes back to his crappy compressed video, and uses this as vindication that it he was right all along, ignoring that he is working with compressed video and such artifacting is common place in compressed video.

So to summerise;

Ace has yet to adequately account for how you could crash a second plane into the WTC when in the middle of one of the most populous islands in the world thousands of people where already staring at the towers because of the first crash.

Ace cannot give an account of how the plane was inserted into the footage real time on the day, he account name software, cannot name hardware.

Also Ace cannot account for the fact that thousands of highly skilled professional have had access to 911 footage for over half a decade, can he really believe no one saw what he sees on crummy compressed youtube videos, that we don't see on the master tapes?

He cannot deny that it's entirelt possibly for this scheme to fail utterly by the simple existance of a single tourist with a video camera, the NWO couldn't forsee, or control what everyone saw or filmed on the day. If they were that almighty they'd not need to bother with 911 in the first palce.

He's a bloody joke.

oh new smiley?

http://smileys.75thtrombone.com/suspicious.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/Hephaestion/SuspiciousSmiley.jpg

[Jonnyclueless]

Ace, this is stupid. Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Nuff said.


Swamp gas.

[JimBenArm]

Swamp gas.
Sorry, had chili for dinner...

[A W Smith]

Ace, How bout I stand next to the world financial center and you play your little toy animation and project it into the atmosphere next to a real plane and then we will tell you which one is real and which one is fake. Fair enough? Am i making my point? Or you can tell us which one your psychiatrist picked.

[twinstead]

Ace, How bout I stand next to the world financial center and you play your little toy animation and project it into the atmosphere next to a real plane and then we will tell you which one is real and which one is fake. Fair enough? Am i making my point? Or you can tell us which one your psychiatrist picked.

Well to be fair, Ace doesn't have the access to the advanced reverse-engineered alien live hologram projecting technology available to the NWO.

[patchbunny]

Ace baker claims that the no planes hit the WTC. He claims that all witnesses in Manhattan are either lying or confused. Manhattan being one of the most populated piece of real estate in the World. And y'know eyes were focused on the twin towers after the first plane hit. Anywho, he claims that the footage of the planes were inserted, real time, to disguise missiles or something on the day.

How do these people explain the plane-shaped impact hole in the side of the building? Curious.

[WildCat]

Ace cannot give an account of how the plane was inserted into the footage real time on the day, he account name software, cannot name hardware.
Well when I was little I saw an episode of the Hardy Boys where they made a whole fake army using holograms. And that was in the 1970's!













;)

[JimBenArm]

Well when I was little I saw an episode of the Hardy Boys where they made a whole fake army using holograms. And that was in the 1970's!













;)
Oh, my god! Ace was right! The Hardy Boys did it!

[Corsair 115]

The distance and quality are quite similar to the Chopper 5 video.Uh, similar in quality compared to the Chopper 5 video as found on the internet at YouTube? Because the quality and resolution of a YouTube video is nowhere close to the resolution and quality of the actual recorded live broadcast.

You keep overlooking this point - you cannot do any serious analysis of a video taken from YouTube because it has neither the resolution nor the quality required. It'd be like trying to do digital photo analysis of a photograph which was first printed out, then a copy of that printout made on a colour copier, and lastly the colour copy scanned on a flatbed scanner to produce the digital file you're analyzing. The quality loss at each of these steps of reproduction makes it virtually impossible to do any meaningful analysis.

[gumboot]

I have a question...

Why does Ace think that taking a video of a plane flying through the air, and cloning said plane resulting in a quite obviously fake video of two airliners flying immediately behind each other, is even remotely similar to taking video in which there is NOT a plane flying through the air, inserting a different video of a plane flying through air somewhere else, inserting an explosion from somewhere else again, resulting in a convincing video of an airliner flying into a building and exploding, and then broadcasting the end result live without anyone noticing?

These are not even remotely similar.

-Gumboot

[MortFurd]

Uh, similar in quality compared to the Chopper 5 video as found on the internet at YouTube? Because the quality and resolution of a YouTube video is nowhere close to the resolution and quality of the actual recorded live broadcast.

You keep overlooking this point - you cannot do any serious analysis of a video taken from YouTube because it has neither the resolution nor the quality required. It'd be like trying to do digital photo analysis of a photograph which was first printed out, then a copy of that printout made on a colour copier, and lastly the colour copy scanned on a flatbed scanner to produce the digital file you're analyzing. The quality loss at each of these steps of reproduction makes it virtually impossible to do any meaningful analysis.
And saved in jpeg format.

[Zep]

I'm failing to see why people even bother putting effort into responding to Ace with detailed, coherent, and rational evaluation of his loopy efforts and claims. He's definitely not got all his oars in the water, so expecting him to respond rationally is a forlorn hope at best, a waste of time at worst. His track record suggests the latter is far more likely.

The only alternative I can think of is that he has your collective legs and is giving them an almighty pull.

[Obviousman]

I was thinking along similar lines.

He tried to introduce a clip which, presumably, would demonstrate it was possible to "fake" video clips of 9/11 (ignoring live broadcast & eyewitness accounts).

He failed to do so.

Then he seems to act like his efforts have demonstrated something significant.

Just paint me unimpressed.

[H'ethetheth]

H'ethetheth. Chris Waddle.
Ah! You're a Republiccan. Say buono estente to El Presidente for me!

[catbasket]

I'm failing to see why people even bother putting effort into responding to Ace with detailed, coherent, and rational evaluation of his loopy efforts and claims.

Yeah!

Kittens'n'cats time Ace - spot the Photoshopping in the following:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_343467b98773852a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6495)

[MRC_Hans]

Real - The one which would still appear had I not edited the video.

Discussion of "real" for the purposes of this challenge.

A real airplane landed at Burbank airport yesterday. Many people saw it with their own eyes, including me. I videotaped it. Nobody saw two airplanes.

Only one airplane is allowed on that flight path at a time, because of wake turbulence. There appear to be two airplanes in the video clip.

Therefore, since we know there was only one airplane on that path at that time, one of them must be real, and one must be fake. They can't both be fake, because I saw a real airplane with my eyes.



EHr, correct.

Mmm congratulations! You have deduced that if somebody pastes in an image of a plane in a video, then that is a fake.

Wow.

Any other interesting information you want to share with us?

Hans

[Dave Rogers]

A real airplane landed at Burbank airport yesterday. Many people saw it with their own eyes, including me. I videotaped it. Nobody saw two airplanes.

[...]

They can't both be fake, because I saw a real airplane with my eyes.

:id:

[MRC_Hans]

I'd like to make two separate videos, as suggested, and have a poll.

1) I have not studied the two videos.
2) I have studied the two videos, and I can't tell which one is real and which one is fake.
3) I have studied the two videos, and I think number one is real and number two is fake.
4) I have studied the two videos, and I think number two is real and number one is fake.


How do I make a poll?

You miss two more options:

5) I have not studied the two videos since I can think of better things to do with my time (like watching paint dry). No matter how, why or when you faked a video, it has zilch do do with the realities of 911.

6) On planet X, the videos are real and we fake the planes.


How do you make a poll? Well, the way everybody else makes a poll. Find out how, like anybody else. Remember, you are supposed to be such a smart guy.

Hans :nope:

[MortFurd]

Real - The one which would still appear had I not edited the video.

Discussion of "real" for the purposes of this challenge.

A real airplane landed at Burbank airport yesterday. Many people saw it with their own eyes, including me. I videotaped it. Nobody saw two airplanes.

Only one airplane is allowed on that flight path at a time, because of wake turbulence. There appear to be two airplanes in the video clip.

Therefore, since we know there was only one airplane on that path at that time, one of them must be real, and one must be fake. They can't both be fake, because I saw a real airplane with my eyes.
Here Ace, just for you. Reassurance of Reality. There really was just ONE plane:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10976467bb2d40bca4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6499)

[MRC_Hans]

There is no way Ace is going to back down from this "Chopper 5" (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/PinocchioStudy/Chopper5Velocity.html) fakery nonsense because in effect he'll be admitting to wasting several months of his life researching it.What makes you assume he has a life?

Hans

[MortFurd]

Slight correction. Gotta get ALL the details right.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10976467bbbe9e0811.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6500)

[Spins]

What's fake?

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PlaneRampage.jpg

[Totovader]

The fact that Ace took a COPY of the real plane and pasted it into the same video, which is no longer LIVE has debunked his own claims.

Ace- here's YOUR challenge. If what you are saying is true, you should be able to go out into the street, take an amateur video camera, and- while broadcasting live- insert realistic and indistinguishable cars into your live shot.

Can you do that? (and could you do it in 2001)

If you can, then I will consider your theory something more than just pure lunacy.

ETA: Ace even so-much as admits this; the name of the video is "Plane1Doubled"...

*bump*


Ace continues to shoot himself in the foot with his analogy- including the concession in his analogies: ie, people SAW the plane land, it was ONE plane, the video was of ONE plane...

He isn't capable of critically thinking about this- even to the point where he's debunking himself.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Uh, similar in quality compared to the Chopper 5 video as found on the internet at YouTube? Because the quality and resolution of a YouTube video is nowhere close to the resolution and quality of the actual recorded live broadcast.

You keep overlooking this point - you cannot do any serious analysis of a video taken from YouTube because it has neither the resolution nor the quality required. It'd be like trying to do digital photo analysis of a photograph which was first printed out, then a copy of that printout made on a colour copier, and lastly the colour copy scanned on a flatbed scanner to produce the digital file you're analyzing. The quality loss at each of these steps of reproduction makes it virtually impossible to do any meaningful analysis.

The copy of Chopper 5 that I use is not from YouTube. It is from Eric Salter, and is a 640 x 480 MPEG. Analysis should be done on the highest quality copies available. If there are any copies of any significant 9/11 events that are of higher quality than readily available, please let me know.

I have now shot a number of videos of planes disappearing behind buildings. The distance and zoom make them comparable to Chopper 5. The "double trouble" clone was exported to quicktime with quality set to "highest", colors on "millions" and compressor on "none". The picture was cropped, but not enlarged.

[T.A.M.]

No, it should be done on the minimal resolution allowing reasonable conclusions to be drawn, and for the size of the objects in your video, 640x480 is not sufficient...IMO.

TAM:)

[8den]

The copy of Chopper 5 that I use is not from YouTube. It is from Eric Salter, and is a 640 x 480 MPEG. Analysis should be done on the highest quality copies available. If there are any copies of any significant 9/11 events that are of higher quality than readily available, please let me know.

You should be able to get Beta SX copies of the original from the stations.



I have now shot a number of videos of planes disappearing behind buildings. The distance and zoom make them comparable to Chopper 5. The "double trouble" clone was exported to quicktime with quality set to "highest", colors on "millions" and compressor on "none". The picture was cropped, but not enlarged.

And we were able to prove it was a fake within minutes. Your point?

[TruthSeeker1234]

You should be able to get Beta SX copies of the original from the stations.



And we were able to prove it was a fake within minutes. Your point?

The only thing that allowed you prove anything was the fact that I gave you two copies of the same plane in one clip. You can prove they are identical, but you can't prove which one is real, as Shrinker said.

As far as getting broadcast quality copies, surely you jest. I'm all for it, but I ain't holding my breath.

[Unsecured Coins]

Ace, just how long did it take you to do this, if you don't mind me asking?

[8den]

The only thing that allowed you prove anything was the fact that I gave you two copies of the same plane in one clip. You can prove they are identical, but you can't prove which one is real, as Shrinker said.

Wow, thats a liberal interpretation.

And did you do it real time, on software available in 2001?


As far as getting broadcast quality copies, surely you jest. I'm all for it, but I ain't holding my breath.

Have you even tried?

I can just dial up the library from my edit suite, and be watching it in five minutes.

Most stations have an archive service, you ring em they charge a fee and courier a tape over.

[TruthSeeker1234]

No, it should be done on the minimal resolution allowing reasonable conclusions to be drawn, and for the size of the objects in your video, 640x480 is not sufficient...IMO.

TAM:)

By this standard, one cannot prove the 9/11 videos are real, any more than one could prove they are fake.

Actually, different resolutions can play different roles in piecing this together. For instance, the only legitimate complaint with my velocity study was margin of error. Everyone agreed that my overall premise and approach were exactly correct.

So if I can take videos similar in quality to Chopper 5, and demonstrate that the velocities of these plane are much more stable than the one in Chopper 5, then I will overcome the margin of error complaint.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Have you even tried? [to get 9/11 tapes]

I can just dial up the library from my edit suite, and be watching it in five minutes.

Most stations have an archive service, you ring em they charge a fee and courier a tape over.

Oh yes. About 6 months ago I made about 3 hours worth of phone calls. I called FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX news, and a couple of affiliate stations in LA> I was asking how to obtain archived video footage. I was asked "who I was with", and I was told that archives were only available for those with proper credentials.

Evidently, 8den, you have the proper credentials.

Please let me know how much I need to pay for broadcast quality copies of :

Chopper 5

ABC live shot

CNN darkplane

Aaron Brown live with the North Tower Spire.

Any other video showing a plane, or a twin tower exploding.

[pomeroo]

Oh yes. About 6 months ago I made about 3 hours worth of phone calls. I called FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX news, and a couple of affiliate stations in LA> I was asking how to obtain archived video footage. I was asked "who I was with", and I was told that archives were only available for those with proper credentials.

Evidently, 8den, you have the proper credentials.

Please let me know how much I need to pay for broadcast quality copies of :

Chopper 5

ABC live shot

CNN darkplane

Aaron Brown live with the North Tower Spire.

Any other video showing a plane, or a twin tower exploding.




Don't forget the surchange for not believing that planes hit the towers.

[Undesired Walrus]

I was asking how to obtain archived video footage. I was asked "who I was with",

[Ace Logic] Ask for network video footage and asked who I am with = Network worried about me prying the entire case open [/Ace Logic]

[twinstead]

Yea, Ace please watch your back. It appears you are getting WAY too close to blowing this huge cover up wide open; those black helicopters are fueling up as we speak...

[Unsecured Coins]

Yea, Ace please watch your back. It appears you are getting WAY too close to blowing this huge cover up wide open; those black helicopters are fueling up as we speak...

Here's one now
gH1WxcHCS74

[TruthSeeker1234]

I can just dial up the library from my edit suite, and be watching [broadcast quality 9/11 videos] in five minutes.

Most stations have an archive service, you ring em they charge a fee and courier a [broadcast quality] tape [of 9/11 events] over.

Standing offer, 8den. Tack on a nice finders fee for yourself, and let me know which ones you get.

[beachnut]

Standing offer, 8den. Tack on a nice finders fee for yourself, and let me know which ones you get.
Your ideas on 9/11 are all wrong. To be a disrespectful liar and not know you are making up junk about 9/11, how does it feel?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Is the video authentic, or did I paste in the airplane?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Plane2RealOrFake.mov

[Unsecured Coins]

how long did it take you to make this?

[pomeroo]

Is the video authentic, or did I paste in the airplane?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Plane2RealOrFake.mov



Thousands of people saw Flight 175 crash into the South Tower on 9/11/01.

No matter how skilled at video fakery you become, you can never hope to change history.

[MG1962]

But they did it live in situ, plus holographically projected it to fool thousands of New Yorkers watching on in horror

No soup for you

[chipmunk stew]

This test is more fun*:
Real or Fake? (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=4030924596596610276)


*Adults only! NSFW!

[DavidJames]

Here is the real challenge. Not giving this attention whore the attention he craves. Kittens and breasts, okay, that would be appropriate

[Spins]

Is the video authentic, or did I paste in the airplane?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Plane2RealOrFake.mov
It's a bird! It's a plane! No ... it's a cruise missile!

[Totovader]

How many times does the same claim have to be debunked?

[Miss Anthrope]

OP reported. How many threads on the same topic is he going to flood the forum with?

:spam1

[WildCat]

Back here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81890&page=3 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81890&page=3)

I asked Ace the following:

Ace, TS, or whatever you call yourself,

Could you please explain to me how the NWO, Government, or whoever you think made these videos also somehow implanted the images of 2 planes hitting the WTC in to my EYEBALLS!

See, I was there, and I personally witnessed both planes hitting the buildings.

I saw everything, EVERYTHING!

I saw it firsthand, not on video, not by description after the fact. I saw BOTH PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS!!!

Please explain how I saw what you say didn't happen.

Please, this I gotta hear.

I was a few hundred yards from WTC1 walking towards it when the first plane hit. I looked up when I heard an incredibly loud jet engine sound a second or two before the plane hit. It was so loud that the ground was vibrating and I actually felt the sound. Of course the crash and resulting explosion was even louder, but I'll never forget the sound of the jet. Its what made me look up. Then there it was, an American Airlines jet flying full speed in to the north tower.

So please tell me Ace, how did the big bad NWO not only implant images in to my eyeball, but also have the accompanying sound effects so perfectly staged?

The answer he gave was to run away and completely ignore me. Not at all a surprise, but still very telling.
Answer this Ace. Stop ignoring it. Face reality for once regarding 9/11.

Everyone else in this thread, please don't let Ace wiggle away from this as he has time and time again.

[Unsecured Coins]

maybe this will get him back in here

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/salma_hayek_09.jpg

[Spins]

Just as long as you don't post another animated gif of her, I don't want to break another keyboard by drooling all over it!

[Mancman]

This test is more fun*:
Real or Fake? (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=4030924596596610276)


*Adults only! NSFW!

19/20.

That's expert level.

[Unsecured Coins]

19/20.

You missed one?

Rookie...

[a_unique_person]

The response is here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=85645

[gumboot]

I have now shot a number of videos of planes disappearing behind buildings. The distance and zoom make them comparable to Chopper 5.



I doubt that very much. What sort of camera were you using? I doubt very much it has a zoom on it like the Chopper 5 camera. We identified the helicopter's location, and it was some distance from the WTC. Much further than a typical commercial camera could reach.

-Gumboot

[JimBenArm]

You missed one?

Rookie...
20/20. Damn amateurs!

[fachverwirrt]

20/20. Damn amateurs!
[de-lurks]

To my shame, I must report that I scored only 15 of 20. In my defense, I was distracted by all the boobies.

[re-lurks]

[LashL]

20/20. Damn amateurs!

I have to admit to being slightly surprised that I scored 20/20, too.

[Brainache]

I have to admit to being slightly surprised that I scored 20/20, too.

That's hot.

[Unsecured Coins]

That's hot.

very

[Tbone]

I have to admit to being slightly surprised that I scored 20/20, too.

As was I. Of course, those are probably all porn star breasts and the universe knows I've seen enough of... err... I mean, lucky guesses, all of them!

[The Mysterian]

if you take it frame by frame you'll see that the tree that the plane comes behind doesn't start moving until the second plane comes.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Actually, the tree is authentic. If it didn't move, it didn't move. The clue is that the first plane starts in the picture. Other than that, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to know which plane is real.

Can you tell if the plane in the second video is real?

Is the video authentic, or did I paste in the airplane?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlane...RealOrFake.mov (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Plane2RealOrFake.mov)

[Redtail]

Actually, the tree is authentic. If it didn't move, it didn't move. The clue is that the first plane starts in the picture. Other than that, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to know which plane is real.

Can you tell if the plane in the second video is real?

Is the video authentic, or did I paste in the airplane?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlane...RealOrFake.mov (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Plane2RealOrFake.mov)

(Without looking)Authentic. Now could you do this live and convince everyone in the area that they saw a plane or pay off everyone who will not be convinced?

[beachnut]

Actually, the tree is authentic. If it didn't move, it didn't move. The clue is that the first plane starts in the picture. Other than that, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to know which plane is real.

Can you tell if the plane in the second video is real?

Is the video authentic, or did I paste in the airplane?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlane...RealOrFake.mov (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Plane2RealOrFake.mov)
You are the fake. Two planes hit the WTC on 9/11. You say they did not. You are wrong. So simple and you so wrong. Try seeking help for your mental problems now.

[gumboot]

There's a fundamental flaw in Truthseeker's methods of course. We have only his word for which given video is "real or fake", but conspiracy theorists are inherently dishonest.

-Gumboot

[tsig]

The distance and quality are quite similar to the Chopper 5 video.

(psssst. I knew it would be impossible to tell the difference, so I left a clue).



When you die I hope someone laughs at you.

[tsig]

They are undetectable. You ran difference filtering between pairs of frames 8 frames apart. If you ran difference filtering in the opposite direction, you would end up with a mask around the other plane. You can't tell which one is real.

If I hadn't put both planes in the same clip, you wouldn't be able to run difference filtering at all.

Do just lie when you type?

[8den]

Oh yes. About 6 months ago I made about 3 hours worth of phone calls. I called FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX news, and a couple of affiliate stations in LA> I was asking how to obtain archived video footage. I was asked "who I was with", and I was told that archives were only available for those with proper credentials.

Evidently, 8den, you have the proper credentials.

Please let me know how much I need to pay for broadcast quality copies of :

Chopper 5

ABC live shot

CNN darkplane

Aaron Brown live with the North Tower Spire.

Any other video showing a plane, or a twin tower exploding.

I have no reason to believe you did this. In fact considering your dishonesty on this forum, I have every reason to believe you are lying.

[Brainache]

I have no reason to believe you did this. In fact considering your dishonesty on this forum, I have every reason to believe you are lying.

To be fair, I should point out that the TV Station where I used to work wouldn't release original tapes to the general public. News footage was regularly exchanged with other stations, but we never sold tapes to Joe Public. Not sure why, possibly concern over breach of copyright and/or misuse.

So it's possible that Ace is not lying in this instance.

[gumboot]

I very much doubt a news station would release their footage without a fairly formal and explicit explanation of what it was being used for, and a contract specifying what use was permissible.

Simply ringing them up and saying "gimmie your footage" would not work. However writing in and requesting footage for, say, a research project on a specific topic, co-signed by your supervising tutor, would probably result in a successful application.

We purchased CNN footage of the Saddam statue being torn down in Iraq for a feature film without too much trouble.

-Gumboot

[8den]

I very much doubt a news station would release their footage without a fairly formal and explicit explanation of what it was being used for, and a contract specifying what use was permissible.

Simply ringing them up and saying "gimmie your footage" would not work. However writing in and requesting footage for, say, a research project on a specific topic, co-signed by your supervising tutor, would probably result in a successful application.

We purchased CNN footage of the Saddam statue being torn down in Iraq for a feature film without too much trouble.

-Gumboot

As I understand it, Ace is a composer for tv and film? It shouldn't be implausible for him to set up a production company and say he wants it for a documentary.

[Unsecured Coins]

now now, you know that no one on the truth side wants to ever put themselves into a position that would give them the opprotunity to be proven wrong

[8den]

now now, you know that no one on the truth side wants to ever put themselves into a position that would give them the opprotunity to be proven wrong

If I was convinced that the video of the towers were faked, and I could prove it, I think I'd spent just a little more effort than 3 hours on the phone, to secure the footage.

[Unsecured Coins]

If I was convinced that the video of the towers were faked, and I could prove it, I think I'd spent just a little more effort than 3 hours on the phone, to secure the footage.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... clam down now. It's too early to turn into Kevin Barrett just yet.

[gumboot]

As I understand it, Ace is a composer for tv and film? It shouldn't be implausible for him to set up a production company and say he wants it for a documentary.



I'm not saying he couldn't get it. I'm just saying the methodology he used - just cold calling them - is doomed to fail. The thing is, since he works in the film industry, he should know this.

-Gumboot

[Brainache]

I'm not saying he couldn't get it. I'm just saying the methodology he used - just cold calling them - is doomed to fail. The thing is, since he works in the film industry, he should know this.

-Gumboot

There are many things which Ace should know, but surprisingly few that he actually does know.

[pomeroo]

Brainache posted the following in a thread that was consigned, wrongly in my opinion, to AAH:

"Exactly how many people are on record who saw the events that day in NY, but didn't see planes flying into the towers? Anyone at all say, "I was looking right at the building and didn't see an airplane..."

If you are correct, there should be thousands of people saying something like that.

This NY remember, not bloody Sheepville."

My first thought was that this was a brilliant insight, that it hits the nail squarely on the head. It is the Dog That Didn't Bark in the Night. Thousands of people saw a plane hit a building, but no one says that he was looking at the sky and didn't see anything. In a saner world, the no-planer segment of the fantasy movement dies right here.

Then, something truly scary occurred to me. If you attempted to find people to describe exactly what they witnessed that terrible day for the purpose of compiling an oral history of 9/11, the "Truth" movement would organize furiously to assemble as many liars as possible to muddy the waters. Think about it: people who purport to seek the truth would be bursting to come forth and tell outright falsehoods to contradict the version of events presented by honest observers.

When you wonder if the time spent arguing with agenda-driven fools is worthwhile, reflect on how history can be rewritten by determined frauds.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Don Dahler fits that category. He was live on the air and was looking at the towers, and said he did not see a plane. There are firefighters who were south of the towers, and were there, and did not see or hear a plane.


The real question is, if real planes hit the towers, then why did they show fake videos?

My control cases are finished, I'll post them soon. You guys are absolutely wrong about margin of error. I have now proven that legitimate plane videos of even worse quality than Chopper 5 will still display velocity that is stable to within 1 pixel per frame.

[Unsecured Coins]

ace, you still haven't told me how long you have been working on those videos.

Right after you answer that, please show me how it's possible to inject that into a live feed with NO ONE NOTICING.

ETA - all within seven seconds, mind you. Delay time and all.

[beachnut]

Don Dahler fits that category. He was live on the air and was looking at the towers, and said he did not see a plane. There are firefighters who were south of the towers, and were there, and did not see or hear a plane.


The real question is, if real planes hit the towers, then why did they show fake videos?

My control cases are finished, I'll post them soon. You guys are absolutely wrong about margin of error. I have now proven that legitimate plane videos of even worse quality than Chopper 5 will still display velocity that is stable to within 1 pixel per frame.
So you were flying when you took the video. Your study is so flawed. Now you are not able to do much with it. But make posts like this. Very poor work.

You are the biggest fake on 9/11 subjects. You win. Beam weapon, dustification, video expert, but still not a single fact to support anything about your 9/11 conclusions. Zip

[Redtail]

Don Dahler fits that category. He was live on the air and was looking at the towers, and said he did not see a plane. There are firefighters who were south of the towers, and were there, and did not see or hear a plane.


The real question is, if real planes hit the towers, then why did they show fake videos?

My control cases are finished, I'll post them soon. You guys are absolutely wrong about margin of error. I have now proven that legitimate plane videos of even worse quality than Chopper 5 will still display velocity that is stable to within 1 pixel per frame.

Because you are wrong and are using circular reasoning.

[TruthSeeker1234]

If I was convinced that the video of the towers were faked, and I could prove it, I think I'd spent just a little more effort than 3 hours on the phone, to secure the footage.

If I was convinced that the video of the towers were authentic, and I had access to broadcast quality tapes, and a truther offered to pay the cost plus tip me, I'd secure the footage yesterday.

How 'bout it, 8den?

[calebprime]

The real question is, if real planes hit the towers, then why did they show fake videos?



Real planes hit the towers. The videos are real. Real terrorists flew the planes. If you're finding anomalies, this is because there are some in any event, and/or your analysis is wrong.

The debris or whatever coming out of the side of the WTC is visible on several videos--it just looks a little different from different perspectives--as it should. It is most prominent when seen from the side--surprise, surprise.

[Unsecured Coins]

but... you're [Dave Chappelle]rich, biiiiotch!![/Dave Chappelle] Is the quest for the truth and return of Americas to its peoples not worth a few dimes from your mountain of money or do the walls from your ivory tower drown out the screams from the masses calling for a new investigation?

[TruthSeeker1234]

ace, you still haven't told me how long you have been working on those videos.

Right after you answer that, please show me how it's possible to inject that into a live feed with NO ONE NOTICING.

ETA - all within seven seconds, mind you. Delay time and all.

Maybe all that riffing in C flat has gotten to your memory.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84829

Recorded video elements can be inserted into live video, in real time. This was operational in 2000.

[8den]

If I was convinced that the video of the towers were authentic, and I had access to broadcast quality tapes, and a truther offered to pay the cost plus tip me, I'd secure the footage yesterday.

How 'bout it, 8den?


You want me to go to all this trouble, and expense (and I have to take your word on that you'll actual reimburse me) to demostrate to a madman that something I know is true?

Really?

Oh I liked the bit about the tip. Nice and patronising.

[Unsecured Coins]

Maybe all that riffing in C flat has gotten to your memory.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84829

Recorded video elements can be inserted into live video, in real time. This was operational in 2000.

No, I'm asking how long it took you to make your fake videos so you could then explain to me how you would insert it into a live feed within seven seconds.

Take into account all the surrounding detail and please, honestly, with a straight face, tell me you could wave your image fakery wand around and have everything line up exactly as you wanted it to get the sight of a plane hitting a building.

In layman's turns... do it

[TruthSeeker1234]

You want me to go to all this trouble, and expense (and I have to take your word on that you'll actual reimburse me) to demostrate to a madman that something I know is true?

Really?

Oh I liked the bit about the tip. Nice and patronising.

Let's begin by your stating that you can get broadcast quality copies of specific 9/11 videos. Then state how much it would cost, including compensating you for your time and effort. If you will do that, then I will make a deposit to you in your PayPal.

The videos I am most interested in:

Any video of UA175 on 9/11.

Any video showing the "spire", e.g. the Aaron Brown.

I'm also potentially interested in any other "collapse" videos, if they are higher quality than is commonly available on the web.

Thank You.

[twinstead]

Maybe all that riffing in C flat has gotten to your memory.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84829

Recorded video elements can be inserted into live video, in real time. This was operational in 2000.

You need to prove that this technology would have been able to insert a plane into live video AND fool thousands of eye witnesses who were watching it without the aid of cameras. Remember, you can guess all you want about technology to insert a plane real time but you have NOT, nor will you EVER, be able to adequately explain the eye witnesses.

Again, I have to hand it to you for being true to yourself, but seriously; it's not dishonorable to admit your wrong. What's dishonorable is to continue to argue a totally untenable point. You're going down with the ship when there's a perfectly serviceable life boat within reach.

[beachnut]

Recorded video elements can be inserted into live video, in real time. This was operational in 2000.
Are you unable to take this to the press? Your story would be on national TV. What is wrong why not present this to someone instead of hiding online? Have you shown your friends and family your web page? When can we expect you to go public with your earth shattering video evidence?

The truth is your family would commit you if you made this public. It is public, your poor research and flawed analysis is public record. When your family decides to commit you all the evidence is here.

Beam weapon dustification of the WTC is enough, but you persist in making up a story about a video made from a flying platform and you are analyzing the video without knowledge of the motion of the camera or camera platform. You have failed to make point and left a trail of mental instability based on the fact you ignore facts. If someone were to find all your posts, they would have a lot of supporting evidence of your problem. Go ahead show your family the posts you have been making and how you ignore facts and believe in the lies of 9/11 "truth".

When will you go public?

[8den]

Let's begin by your stating that you can get broadcast quality copies of specific 9/11 videos. Then state how much it would cost, including compensating you for your time and effort. If you will do that, then I will make a deposit to you in your PayPal.

No you rule8ing rule8 I'm saying I regularly work with the footage, it's not mine to use as I want. If I were to crash record and make a Beta SX of this footage, Iwould be my making an illegal copy of copyrighted material, and y'know I like my job. There would also be no way to certify it's authenticity.



The videos I am most interested in:

Any video of UA175 on 9/11.

Any video showing the "spire", e.g. the Aaron Brown.

I'm also potentially interested in any other "collapse" videos, if they are higher quality than is commonly available on the web.

Thank You.

You want the footage you do the work. C'mon ace you're sitting on evidence of the greatest con in the history of humanity, and you cannot drum up the cash, and wherewithall to get your hands on the originals?

Pathetic.

[AZCat]

...

You have failed to make point and left a trail of mental instability based on the fact you ignore facts. If someone were to find all your posts, they would have a lot of supporting evidence of your problem.

...


Maybe Ace is far smarter than we think, and is merely laying the groundwork for evidence to be used in a "Twinkie" style defence in the future.

[MIKILLINI]

You can speculate about technology all you want, but how did they fool all the eye witnesses? You keep sidestepping that.

It's because TS interprets eye witness as I witness.

[uk_dave]

I wonder why Ace doesn't just take out a lawsuit against the TV companies.

He could then get the original footage admitted as evidence and force the tv companies to prove their authenticity.

Of course the tv companies might then counter sue him for wasting their time and then it's goodbye to the house and pool.

[chipmunk stew]

Ace, you never said how well you did on the boobies quiz. If you want people to participate in your party games, you should show some willingness to reciprocate. :nope:

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace, you never said how well you did on the boobies quiz. If you want people to participate in your party games, you should show some willingness to reciprocate. :nope:

I actually got 20 out of 20. I was surprised, I was guessing on a few.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I wonder why Ace doesn't just take out a lawsuit against the TV companies.

He could then get the original footage admitted as evidence and force the tv companies to prove their authenticity.

Of course the tv companies might then counter sue him for wasting their time and then it's goodbye to the house and pool.

In case this was a serious question . . .

Given an operating budget of millions, it's actually a good idea, for the reasons you state. Videos could be subpoena'd and entered into the public record. It would be an interesting test for just how corrupt the civil justice system is.

[The Mysterian]

Actually, the tree is authentic. If it didn't move, it didn't move. The clue is that the first plane starts in the picture. Other than that, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to know which plane is real.

Can you tell if the plane in the second video is real?

Is the video authentic, or did I paste in the airplane?



That's not what I said!

[MIKILLINI]

Ace, it boggles the mind to the extent of what length people will go to try and prove an inside job. Faking videos to appear as plane crashes as a means for disguising demolition explosions? What are the odds that the media and the government can control what you have seen on the very same day? Not only that, in addition to this, what are the odds of bringing in the detonating material, installing it in these towers without anyone noticing or any of those hired for this task, not coming forward?
And if you argue the government allowing it to happen, which I have in the past, (It was the only argument I had figured as logical out of all others) then what purpose is there to destroy buildings and fake the videos? It makes no sense to Me, and I have not been convinced of anything that makes this claim. You are beating a :deadhorse :monkey: Good luck with that!
:popcorn2

[twinstead]

Ace, it boggles the mind to the extent of what length people will go to try and prove an inside job. Faking videos to appear as plane crashes as a means for disguising demolition explosions? What are the odds that the media and the government can control what you have seen on the very same day? Not only that, in addition to this, what are the odds of bringing in the detonating material, installing it in these towers without anyone noticing or any of those hired for this task, not coming forward?
And if you argue the government allowing it to happen, which I have in the past, (It was the only argument I had figured as logical out of all others) then what purpose is there to destroy buildings and fake the videos? It makes no sense to Me, and I have not been convinced of anything that makes this claim. You are beating a :deadhorse :monkey: Good luck with that!
:popcorn2

All I can say is that it must suck to be Ace, what with all this slam-dunk evidence of video manipulation and inside job and holographic planes and such and nobody to listen to it.

History is full of brave men who go against the prevailing thought of the day going down in history as brilliant thinkers.

Well, history is also full of fools who don't know what they are talking about. Which one is Ace?

I'll let the crowd decide...

[negativ]

Videos could be subpoena'd and entered into the public record. It would be an interesting test for just how corrupt the civil justice system is.

Let me guess: Failure to produce video depicting a distinct lack of planes would, in your view, constitute proof of thoroughly metastasized corruption?

Please answer these two questions, because I am genuinely curious:

1. If I filed requested via FOIA all documents pertaining to enema fetish parties hosted in the White House during the Carter Administration, and was told that no such documents exist, would this constitute evidence that said parties are being covered up?

2. What evidence could theoretically convince you that you are wrong? If you were going to start believing that the "official version" is the correct one, what would cause you to do so?

[TruthSeeker1234]

2. What evidence could theoretically convince you that you are wrong? If you were going to start believing that the "official version" is the correct one, what would cause you to do so?

That's a fair question, and I've answered it before. If you could convince me that all the videos and photos of the twin towers exploding and ground zero were fabricated, and the videos of the WTC7 demolition were fabricated, that would go a long way.

[Brainache]

That's a fair question, and I've answered it before. If you could convince me that all the videos and photos of the twin towers exploding and ground zero were fabricated, and the videos of the WTC7 demolition were fabricated, that would go a long way.

Well there's your problem Ace.

The videos and photos show the towers collapsing from the damage and fires caused by those enormous planes flying into them at full throttle. Just because you think they look like explosions, doesn't mean you are correct.

The videos of WTC7 falling down show none of the characteristics of a demolition, beyond the fact that a building fell down.

I know none of this will convince you Mr Baker, I only say it so you realise that I'm not agreeing with you.

[pomeroo]

That's a fair question, and I've answered it before. If you could convince me that all the videos and photos of the twin towers exploding and ground zero were fabricated, and the videos of the WTC7 demolition were fabricated, that would go a long way.



I think you've given us a fair assassment of your mental state.

[negativ]

That's a fair question, and I've answered it before. If you could convince me that all the videos and photos of the twin towers exploding and ground zero were fabricated, and the videos of the WTC7 demolition were fabricated, that would go a long way.

Isn't that sort of like replacing heroin with methadone?

[MRC_Hans]

That's a fair question, and I've answered it before. If you could convince me that all the videos and photos of the twin towers exploding and ground zero were fabricated, and the videos of the WTC7 demolition were fabricated, that would go a long way.Mmm, let me get this straight:

You believe that

1) All the videos that show planes fly into the buildings are faked.

2) The same people who faked those videos did nothing to hide signs of explosions in videos taken by the same sources a little later in the day.

Is that it?


:jaw:
Hans

[TruthSeeker1234]

"Signs of explosions"?? For crying out loud, the twin towers mostly disintegrated.

Yes, Hans. Inserting an airplane into live video is possible. Not one video, live or otherwise, shows the airplane changing shape or being damaged in any way.

Smoke, debris, flame, explosions, clouds etc are very complex. These would be impossible to fake in real time, and very difficult to animate even offline.

[Rolfe]

Has he yet answered (in this thread) the point regarding the thousands of people who saw the plane with their own eyes, in real time? Especially the eyewitness who has posted here in person and asked for the explanation?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Rolfe.

[jujigatami]

Has he yet answered (in this thread) the point regarding the thousands of people who saw the plane with their own eyes, in real time? Especially the eyewitness who has posted here in person and asked for the explanation?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Rolfe.

Nope, as always, just crickets.

[A W Smith]

Are you unable to take this to the press? Your story would be on national TV. What is wrong why not present this to someone instead of hiding online? Have you shown your friends and family your web page? When can we expect you to go public with your earth shattering video evidence?

The truth is your family would commit you if you made this public. It is public, your poor research and flawed analysis is public record. When your family decides to commit you all the evidence is here.

Beam weapon dustification of the WTC is enough, but you persist in making up a story about a video made from a flying platform and you are analyzing the video without knowledge of the motion of the camera or camera platform. You have failed to make point and left a trail of mental instability based on the fact you ignore facts. If someone were to find all your posts, they would have a lot of supporting evidence of your problem. Go ahead show your family the posts you have been making and how you ignore facts and believe in the lies of 9/11 "truth".

When will you go public?

Thats who I feel sorry for. His wife and kids. No I wouldn't laugh when/if he died. It must be frustrating for them having to deal with this. You can medicate and keep the illness in check but there are episodes when brain chemistry changes and the illness takes over. It would explain the bursts of posts followed by calmness. lets just say I have experienced such a person in the past who is/was close to me. There are long periods of high functionality bordering on brilliance. Then overnight something changes and they are not the same person you were conversing with the day before.

[Corsair 115]

"Signs of explosions"?? For crying out loud, the twin towers mostly disintegrated.Uh, what does one have to do with the other? Or are you unfamiliar with how explosions usually look?

[JimBenArm]

Hi guys!
Ace has been suspended for a week.

[calebprime]

...You can medicate and keep the illness in check but there are episodes when brain chemistry changes and the illness takes over. It would explain the bursts of posts followed by calmness. lets just say I have experienced such a person in the past who is/was close to me. There are long periods of high functionality bordering on brilliance. Then overnight something changes and they are not the same person you were conversing with the day before.

I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. My claim to knowledge is mental illness in the family, an "artistic" temperament, and a lot of reading. Plus, one highly regarded doctor said I was hypomanic bordering on manic. It wasn't true. I was trying to flirt with her.

Having established my credentials,

I think there are no signs that Ace is suffering from hypomania or bipolar disorder, or any other disorder with a neurological component, including use of psychedelics or other drugs.

He doesn't seem belligerant like Lyte or Malcolm or Nonbeliever.

He is persistent but fairly polite.

His writing is clear, and he doesn't beat around the bush. He doesn't say "propitious."

He usually observes the rules, indeed, he seems obsessed with staying just this side of infraction--but he's stepped over the line a few times.

In the past, he would fixate on some minute point and beat it to death, such as "pull it", but this could be explained by a strong desire to win some invisible debating contest.

His writing is not variable--his posts tend to be fairly short and to the point.

He never clangs or goes on tangents like this poster loves to do.

No, his psychology is best explained by living in the artificial environment of a studio too much, overinvestment in a bad idea, and narcissism.

The only thing that would change his views is going to Iraq and being kidnapped by jihadists, or something. Not medication.

[jmercer]

Ok. This thread is going on moderation status as of now. I and Chillzero have made it abundantly clear that the personal attacks in this forum must stop. This continue reference to Truthseeker1234's sanity is an example of that.

There may be further actions taken after I review recent posts.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<<SNIP>>

We purchased CNN footage of the Saddam statue being torn down in Iraq for a feature film without too much trouble.

-Gumboot

Wasn't that statue "pulled"? :eye-poppi

[pomeroo]

I have been warned several times by moderators to stop calling Ace Baker insane. I respect the moderators and understand how difficult their job is. It is difficult--for me, anyway-- to deal with a relentless onslaught of irrationality that targets the victims of the jihadist attacks without alluding to the mental state of the person responsible. And, as I have written, it is intellectually flabby to equate someone who promotes views that are pernicious and preposterous with someone who advances a reasonable position that you happen to disagree with. People like Ace don't merit civility. But, I really like it here. So, I will simply avoid participating in any thread started by Ace. I won't comment on any of his posts. There is too much to learn on this forum to get kicked off for losing my temper.

[MIKILLINI]

Ace, just how long did it take you to do this, if you don't mind me asking?

Probably more time than it took to find a Selma Hayek picture.

[MIKILLINI]

Here's a poll;
Is this an exercise in futility?

1.) Yes

2.) No

[JimBenArm]

Here's a poll;
Is this an exercise in futility?

1.) Yes

2.) No

1.) Yes. Ace will never admit this is wrong.

Also:

2.) No. There are others who may not understand why Ace is wrong, and may see how flawed his reasoning is, by your pointing it out.

Additionally:

Q.) On Planet X, everyone agrees on what happened.

[grmcdorman]

Here's a poll;
Is this an exercise in futility?

1.) Yes

2.) YesFixed that for you. :D

[R.Mackey]

I have been warned several times by moderators to stop calling Ace Baker insane. I respect the moderators and understand how difficult their job is. It is difficult--for me, anyway-- to deal with a relentless onslaught of irrationality that targets the victims of the jihadist attacks without alluding to the mental state of the person responsible. And, as I have written, it is intellectually flabby to equate someone who promotes views that are pernicious and preposterous with someone who advances a reasonable position that you happen to disagree with. People like Ace don't merit civility. But, I really like it here. So, I will simply avoid participating in any thread started by Ace. I won't comment on any of his posts. There is too much to learn on this forum to get kicked off for losing my temper.

Wise move, and welcome to the club. :D

[MIKILLINI]

Q.) On Planet X, everyone agrees on what happened.

You added the Jeopardy one.

[MIKILLINI]

Fixed that for you. :D

Thanks :p
I'll answer Ace's question in a futile type of exercise; Both planes are real in the video, unless one was taken from a picture, but if it was a picture of a real plane then that would make it a real plane, unless it was it was a computer graphic of a plane based on a real plane, therefore making it a real plane. So I say both are real planes: The first and second ones are real planes. :D

[BillyRayValentine]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Hi. Can you please remove the spam from this thread?...Thanks. Video fakery is a very serious issue, and I'd appreciate the discussion not be derailed.

Serious issue? Not until you have something - anything - to say about the thousands of eyewitnesses, i.e. people who were there (including myself), who watched the plane fly into the building. Many people have asked for your thoughts in this regard. Time and again, you fail to respond.
Moderated thread

[beachnut]

"Signs of explosions"?? For crying out loud, the twin towers mostly disintegrated.

Yes, Hans. Inserting an airplane into live video is possible. Not one video, live or otherwise, shows the airplane changing shape or being damaged in any way.

Smoke, debris, flame, explosions, clouds etc are very complex. These would be impossible to fake in real time, and very difficult to animate even offline.
No the twin towers did not disintegrate. There was no beam weapon. A simple energy model will show you. Take a few courses in Physics and Engineering. Music does not hack it.

You need high speed photography to capture the details you desire. Low resolution TV cameras are not good enough. Plus planes going 500 mph just enter the building, physics.

People saw the planes, and if you keep telling people there were no planes you will loose credulity, but I do not think that it is a problem since you believe in beam weapons big enough to destroy the WTC. (once again, an energy thing, and you could do the numbers, but you have not)

[Matthew Best]

[COLOR=black]People saw the planes, and if you keep telling people there were no planes you will loose credulity

I don't think there's much chance of Ace ever losing credulity (which is defined as "readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence").

And I don't think he has any credibility left to lose.