EYEWITNESS CHALLENGE: Are the NO PLANE witnesses better than PLANE SPOTTER witnesses?

[Jack by the hedge]

Speaking of YouTube, I took another look at the Courchesne video and at 1:33 there's another falling object near the right hand side of the tower. Looks quite feasibly man-sized.

So, I think it's fair to say that we've reasonably established that;

* Yes, objects were falling off the tower despite this being invisible in the video evidence yankee451 originally relied upon.

* Video cameras have much inferior vision to human eyes.

* Humans with normal vision can identify man-sized objects considerably further away than the approximately 500m between the towers and the general location of Dash80.


That pretty much wraps up the 'no jumpers' claim so far as I can see, unless yankee451 comes up with some actual evidence.

Which leaves the matter of his claim that missiles dunnit. Well, we eagerly await any appearance of the Legion of Enraged New Yorkers Who Know What Really Happened, although more than a decade of 100% consistent no-shows might make one begin to doubt... Still, who knows what tomorrow may bring?

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by swright777

I agree with your assessment. I saw at least two jumpers in the video that is more clear.

Surely you can use your words to describe what time stamp and from whence they jumped.

I am happy to provide the screen capture for the class's perusal.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by BangBang

Non-entity:A person regarded as being of no importance or significance.

In this case the only guy with any evidence.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Speaking of YouTube, I took another look at the Courchesne video and at 1:33 there's another falling object near the right hand side of the tower. Looks quite feasibly man-sized.

So, I think it's fair to say that we've reasonably established that;

* Yes, objects were falling off the tower despite this being invisible in the video evidence yankee451 originally relied upon.

* Video cameras have much inferior vision to human eyes.

* Humans with normal vision can identify man-sized objects considerably further away than the approximately 500m between the towers and the general location of Dash80.


That pretty much wraps up the 'no jumpers' claim so far as I can see, unless yankee451 comes up with some actual evidence.

Which leaves the matter of his claim that missiles dunnit. Well, we eagerly await any appearance of the Legion of Enraged New Yorkers Who Know What Really Happened, although more than a decade of 100% consistent no-shows might make one begin to doubt... Still, who knows what tomorrow may bring?

Got any evidence to back up anything you say, ever?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

No, she's lying. Video proves it.

You're too late. We have spent the whole day showing you that you are wrong. You are wrong.

1:33, right hand side of the tower, man-sized object falling.

You are wrong.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Got any evidence to back up anything you say, ever?

What about you? Where is your legion of witnesses who saw your imaginary missiles instead of the jet that all the actual witnesses saw?

You haven't a leg to stand on. You bring zero evidence. All the actual evidence contradicts you. How can you be so blinkered?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

In this case the only guy with any evidence.

You have zero evidence.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by yankee451

From watching the video, it appears to have fallen straight down.

...

Originally Posted by yankee451

You do know it would appear BIGGER the closer it is to the camera, right? Whatever it is, it is smaller than a human.

Yes. I know it also makes your measurements irrelevant. Also irrelevant:

Originally Posted by yankee451

Can anyone else point to the jumpers Anneliese saw?

Originally Posted by yankee451

No, she's lying. Video proves it.

Nope. Many of us have shown that you're dead wrong about this and you owe the lady an apology.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

If any of you have any evidence, this is the place to bring it.

Apparently your idea of skepticism and critical thinking means to believe any story that fits the official story, and to ridicule everything else, regardless how much evidence says otherwise. Reminds me of religious zealots.

On the contrary, it is you who needs to bring evidence, as the established evidence contradicts everything you claim. Sadly the 'evidence' you have attempted to bring has proven useless at proving the point you want to prove.

It is you who merely gainsays all real evidence. It is you who ridicules fact. It is you who is the zealot, clinging to an obvious falsehood.

You need to remember that the falling objects in the video are merely an illustration of the fact that you were dead flat wrong when you insisted that you had proven that there were none. It is not our claim and nor is it our burden to show that the few seconds of good quality video happen to include images of a person falling from the tower. You do not get to move the goalposts like that.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

You're too late. We have spent the whole day showing you that you are wrong. You are wrong.

1:33, right hand side of the tower, man-sized object falling.

You are wrong.

Are we looking at the same video? Are you wearing jumper-colored glasses?

1:33

[BenjaminTR]

I often find it helpful to lay out an argument with all the premises made explicit. Here is my reconstruction of yankee451's argument:

1. No jumpers in the video.
2. No jumpers in the video.
3. No jumpers in the video.
4. No jumpers in the video.
5. No jumpers in the video.
6. No jumpers in the video.
7. No jumpers in the video.
8. No jumpers in the video.
9. No jumpers in the video.
10. No jumpers in the video.
11. No jumpers in the video.
12. No jumpers in the video.

13. Therefore, Dash80 is lying.

We have now seen that premises 1 through 12 are all false, and the premises do not support the conclusion in the first place.

But yankee451's claims do achieve highest possible scores in the categories of how boring they are and how offensive they are, a difficult combination.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

What about you? Where is your legion of witnesses who saw your imaginary missiles instead of the jet that all the actual witnesses saw?

You haven't a leg to stand on. You bring zero evidence. All the actual evidence contradicts you. How can you be so blinkered?

We are discussing Anneliese's claim that she witnessed jumpers from an impossible distance.

You claimed the video quality was poor and that the cameras wouldn't be able to see as clearly as Anneliese could, even though she does not have a zoom lens and was further away. I was then supplied with a much better quality video, for which I am very grateful, however even with the better quality, no one can point to a jumper.

There are no news reports of jumpers from between the first and second crashes (the jumpers came later). There are no photographs of the jumpers from the south face of the North Tower. Anneliese cannot verify her apartment building, nor what flloor she was on, nor her identity, nor whether she was even in NYC on that day.

Any reasonable person reading this thread would conclude Anneliese's story is specious at best.

[Redwood]

Steve, you do know that there's plenty of video available, some shot by the firefighters themselves, that shows jumpers, right?

Steve, you do know that the first firefighter to die on 9-11 was killed when he was struck by a jumper, right?

Steve, you do know that many reports of something "sounding like a bomb" were firefighters describing the sound of jumpers hitting the ground, right?

Steve, you can easily verify all of this via the internet, but do NOT attempt to contact any FDNY personnel. If you treat them with the same teenager-type snottiness you display here, they could beat you to within an inch of your life, and no jury would convict them.

Steve, you do realize that even if you could somehow impeach one particular witness, who may be simply mistaken, or has drawn an unwarranted conclusion, it still does you no good, right? You do realize you have to impeach ALL the evidence, right?

Steve, your obsession is getting worse and worse. Even I, a rather clinical-minded person, am starting to get creeped out.

Steve, seek out help NOW, before it's too late. If your problem is chemical or neurological in origin, it may be treatable.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by BenjaminTR

I often find it helpful to lay out an argument with all the premises made explicit. Here is my reconstruction of yankee451's argument:

1. No jumpers in the video.
2. No jumpers in the video.
3. No jumpers in the video.
4. No jumpers in the video.
5. No jumpers in the video.
6. No jumpers in the video.
7. No jumpers in the video.
8. No jumpers in the video.
9. No jumpers in the video.
10. No jumpers in the video.
11. No jumpers in the video.
12. No jumpers in the video.

13. Therefore, Dash80 is lying.

We have now seen that premises 1 through 12 are all false, and the premises do not support the conclusion in the first place.

But yankee451's claims do achieve highest possible scores in the categories of how boring they are and how offensive they are, a difficult combination.

I wonder how many hundreds of new no-planers are being born after reading this forum.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Are we looking at the same video? Are you wearing jumper-colored glasses?

1:33

1080p is a bitch, ain't it Steve?

Oh sorry, you don't do "TeeVee". My bad.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Redwood

Steve, you do know that there's plenty of video available, some shot by the firefighters themselves, that shows jumpers, right?

Steve, you do know that the first firefighter to die on 9-11 was killed when he was struck by a jumper, right?

Steve, you do know that many reports of something "sounding like a bomb" were firefighters describing the sound of jumpers hitting the ground, right?

Steve, you can easily verify all of this via the internet, but do NOT attempt to contact any FDNY personnel. If you treat them with the same teenager-type snottiness you display here, they could beat you to within an inch of your life, and no jury would convict them.

Steve, you do realize that even if you could somehow impeach one particular witness, who may be simply mistaken, or has drawn an unwarranted conclusion, it still does you no good, right? You do realize you have to impeach ALL the evidence, right?

Steve, your obsession is getting worse and worse. Even I, a rather clinical-minded person, am starting to get creeped out.

Steve, seek out help NOW, before it's too late. If your problem is chemical or neurological in origin, it may be treatable.

Anneliese claimed she viewed jumpers from an impossible distance.
I provided video which proves she was mistaken.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Are we looking at the same video? Are you wearing jumper-colored glasses?

1:33

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...bject-here.png

That's disgusting...

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Are we looking at the same video? Are you wearing jumper-colored glasses?

1:33

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...bject-here.png

Yes. It's right there on the screen. But it's a pale object, freeze-framed over a light coloured column. It's an awful lot clearer if you actually watch the video, particularly if you select 720 resolution. I presume you did actually watch the video before you posted the freeze frame, right?

The object is mostly covering a light coloured column at the right, but partly covers the second dark column. If you play on, between 1:33 and 1:34 where the picture fades, it drops most of the way to the bottom of the frame.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/...M8125/luc3.jpg

1080p is a bitch, ain't it Steve?

Oh sorry, you don't do "TeeVee". My bad.

The columns are about 18 inches wide.

Compare that to your "person".

Reality bites, huh "no name"?

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by yankee451

The columns are about 18 inches wide.

Compare that to your "person".

Reality bites, huh "no name"?

Not the point Steve, you know it and of course, you owe the lady an apology.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Yes. It's right there on the screen. But it's a pale object, freeze-framed over a light coloured column. It's an awful lot clearer if you actually watch the video, particularly if you select 720 resolution. I presume you did actually watch the video before you posted the freeze frame, right?

The object is mostly covering a light coloured column at the right, but partly covers the second dark column. If you play on, between 1:33 and 1:34 where the picture fades, it drops most of the way to the bottom of the frame.

I am going over the video frame by frame, as anyone can.

Once again, if you can't point to it on zoomed in video, Anneliese couldn't see them from further away. They aren't there. Everyone can see it for themselves.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Anneliese claimed she viewed jumpers from an impossible distance.

Impossible for who? Not me or the others who've proved you wrong,

Originally Posted by yankee451

I provided video, which proves she was mistaken.

No, you crapped on the floor and got your nose rubbed in it.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

We are discussing Anneliese's claim that she witnessed jumpers from an impossible distance.

Yeah, but we dealt with that. You were wrong. Now what about how you're wrong about missiles too?

Quote:

You claimed the video quality was poor and that the cameras wouldn't be able to see as clearly as Anneliese could, even though she does not have a zoom lens and was further away.

Correct. A person could see much better than a camera, even if it was zoomed in, unless it was a much higher grade of camera than was available for domestic use in 2001.

Quote:

I was then supplied with a much better quality video, for which I am very grateful, however even with the better quality, no one can point to a jumper.

That is not our burden of proof. You said there was nothing falling in the video you first used and we said the quality was too poor. You derided that claim until you were shown better quality video which proves you were dead wrong. The end. We do not claim that the few seconds of higher quality video contain footage of a jumper (however see 1:33 - 1:34).

Quote:

Anneliese cannot verify her apartment building, nor what flloor she was on, nor her identity, nor whether she was even in NYC on that day.

Dash80 chooses not to reveal her sister's home address to a strange obsessive on the internet. That seems like common sense to me.

Quote:

Any reasonable person reading this thread would conclude Anneliese's story is specious at best.

The reasonable people long ago concluded you got nothin'.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Not the point Steve, you know it and of course, you owe the lady an apology.

The fact that the 18 inch box column indicates the object is too small to be a person, is exactly the point.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by yankee451

The fact that the 18 inch box column indicates the object is too small to be a person, is exactly the point.

Perspective. Look it up.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

The reasonable people long ago concluded you got nothin'.

Seems like I struck a nerve. Thousands of people read this stuff.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Perspective. Look it up.

I guess I don't understand how you think perspective can help your argument here.

The object can't be behind the columns, can it?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Anneliese claimed she viewed jumpers from an impossible distance.

Dash80 said she saw jumpers from a perfectly plausible distance unless she had impaired vision. 500m is really not that far. Try it yourself sometime.

Claim rejected.

Quote:

I provided video, which proves she was mistaken.

No, you provided video which proved that you don't understand basic stuff like resolution and you got your ass handed to you when a better quality copy came along. You have proved nothing of your claim.

[swright777]

Originally Posted by yankee451

In this case the only guy with any evidence.

Originally Posted by yankee451

If any of you have any evidence, this is the place to bring it.

Apparently your idea of skepticism and critical thinking means to believe any story that fits the official story, and to ridicule everything else, regardless how much evidence says otherwise. Reminds me of religious zealots.

'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.' -Inigo Montoya

Evidence != Insane claims, lies and BS.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

The columns are about 18 inches wide.

Compare that to your "person".

Reality bites, huh "no name"?

Photoanalysis is another of your skills, right? The falling object is wider than the column.

Now, you're still not forgetting that we have no burden of proof here, right? It is not our claim that these few seconds contain pictures of falling people. It simply illustrates that the video showing 10 minutes of soft mush which you trumpeted as proof was completely worthless, and we have established that to any reasonable person's satisfaction.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by AdMan

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...2-jumper_x.htm

To make its estimate of the number of people who plunged from the Trade Center, USA TODAY reviewed videos and photographs, interviewed witnesses and analyzed the time and location of the jumping. The newspaper discussed its conclusion with officials in the fire department and medical examiner's office who, while not making calculations of their own, deemed an estimate of 200 jumpers as accurate.

The New York Times counted 50 different jumpers in a review of photographs and videotapes. USA TODAY's estimate attempts to include people whose falls were not documented. Nearly all photos were of the north tower's north and east faces, which were more accessible to photographers coming from uptown Manhattan. But witnesses reported that numerous people leapt from the north tower's south and west sides as well.

On the south side, firefighters reported 30 to 40 bodies on the roof of the 22-floor Marriott Hotel, adjacent to the north tower.


Is everyone lying, yankee?

I can't speak for everyone. Only for Anneliese.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

I am going over the video frame by frame, as anyone can.

Good for you. And of course everyone else can too.

Quote:

Once again, if you can't point to it on zoomed in video, Anneliese couldn't see them from further away.

Firstly, I can point to it on the zoomed in video and secondly the video proves nothing with regard to what a human observer could see. The witnesses were not watching on Tee Vee, they were looking with their own eyes.

Quote:

They aren't there. Everyone can see it for themselves.

Perhaps you need new glasses.

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Photoanalysis is another of your skills, right? The falling object is wider than the column.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Now, you're still not forgetting that we have no burden of proof here, right? It is not our claim that these few seconds contain pictures of falling people. It simply illustrates that the video showing 10 minutes of soft mush which you trumpeted as proof was completely worthless, and we have established that to any reasonable person's satisfaction.

That's been clear for some time.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by yankee451

That's been clear for some time.

You don't understand what burden of proof means. Laughable.

You may want to look it up before making an even greater fool of yourself.

[swright777]

Originally Posted by yankee451

I wonder how many hundreds of new no-planers are being born after reading this forum.

My guess would be zero. You may have even shown some no-planers how crazy that position is and converted them to reality.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

Seems like I struck a nerve. Thousands of people read this stuff.

Don't flatter yourself. There's no lurking crowd nodding at your every word. You are failing and failing rather badly.

I'm wryly reminded of another true believer, in an Apollo hoax thread, who tried to appeal to the silent lurking masses. Even went so far as to start a poll to see how many people supported him. That was funny.

[The Platypus]

Originally Posted by yankee451

If any of you have any evidence, this is the place to bring it.

Apparently your idea of skepticism and critical thinking means to believe any story that fits the official story, and to ridicule everything else, regardless how much evidence says otherwise. Reminds me of religious zealots.

That's a weird statement coming from a guy in a conspiracy cult, that has him so totally convinced that here is is clinging to his cult's dogma and ridiculing everything else regardless of how much evidence says otherwise, and he only came here because he's programmed to spread the word and recruit for the cult, like a religious zealot...

I notice that self projection is a bad habit of those in conspiracy cults. You keep forgetting that it's YOU that came here to convince us.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

I'm wryly reminded of another true believer, in an Apollo hoax thread, who tried to appeal to the silent lurking masses. Even went so far as to start a poll to see how many people supported him. That was funny.

I was going to suggest doing something similar, for a laugh.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yankee451

That's been clear for some time.

Yet you still appear not to understand it.

Let's for a moment pretend that you grasp the concept.

So now we can move on: When are you going to show us the thousands of New Yorkers who saw imaginary missiles fly into the tower? You can do that, right? I mean, they can't not exist, can they? Those thousands of people, all over New York, wherever there was a view of the WTC. They must all have seen your imaginary missiles instead of a plane. So why do they appear not to exist?

[swright777]

Originally Posted by AdMan

You don't understand what burden of proof means. Laughable.

You may want to look it up before making an even greater fool of yourself.

It seems that someone is confusing Burden Of Proof with Preponderance Of Evidence. Or maybe something even worse.