Whitehall from Battery Park

Whitehall from Battery Park
At Dusk



Cold-Calling "Plotline" Participants and Selected Experts


Wednesday, May 2, 2007

New "Overlay" Comparison by "Johnny Farmfield" of Sweden

New "Overlay" Comparison by "Johnny Farmfield" of Sweden

"The pictures on your blog from Feb 4th 2007 gives a clear view what I was reacting to! ["Something was just "off"... Too many years as a graphic I suppose..."] My thought is that this:

...is the correct position for the plate used in the CNN clip, you're just off by 10-15 years of tree growth...

I don't believe you'll need to virtualize beyond your cropped image, this is the location for the primary plate [which] might, in my opinion, even been taken from an old still image."

"Found the (original?) CNN clip on youtube with a major zoom-out in the end which enabled me to composite your current picture and the CNN version clearly showing the impossibility of the shot due to HUGE TREES! "



Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Apologies for being off topic- I won't clog your blog for long.

My understanding is that Nico is a mate of yours. I'll leave it out on whether that's a good/bad thing. Thing is, we(Nico and I)might be able to deal--I need to compare notes, but I think I might have a lead on his imposter.

But I want something in return--that I'm only speaking to him about privately. I told him to say the word and I'd give him my email address, but he's scarpered. If you don't count the cameo "sock" that visited 911Blogger last night...

Right now I don't care about your views on 9/11--I just want to know if Nico really wants a possible lead on his "imposter". Because at this point, from his sudden lack of interest, one might suspect HE is his "imposter".

Just saying.

Cheers, in advance--tell him to just comment in my blogspot blog like he has. Ta.

Anonymous said...

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee, Jenny Sparks.

If you have info you post it. That's how the world works.

Only infiltrators play telephone across blogs with mates of mates.

War On Suckers said...

It is certainly interesting to see these photos as it is only this kind of leg work which will help solve some of the riddles.

Judging by the slight discrepency in the apparent height of the building behind Whitehall it would seem the camera was not at ground level on 9-11. This also explains the apparent height of the trees. Which raises the question, how was the elevated camera angle achieved? The first thing that comes to mind is a cherry picker or perhaps the extended ladder of a fire truck.

It should be noted that the nAUdEt mockyoumentory makes extensive use of this kind of elevated filming technique.

Peggy Carter said...

It's an exact match.

There's no discrepancy.

I was standing on the ground.

The building behind Whitehall shows an exact match. You can tell by the overlay.


We tested higher up - on the Tourist Boat, which docks right behind. That's not it. Not close.

Fom the Tourist Boat

A lot of why people can't make up their mind to accept it is because the "authorities" don't. And people are afraid of being laughed at and shunned. Which *is* what happens when you say something the authorities don't approve.

Here's something that bears upon the issue of when we can decide...."yup, we've got enough evidence."

It's by "Pan Man" of MySpace:

"Debunking the debunkers makes 9/11 Truthers look lame!"

Body: "The longer we argue the obvious, the weaker we get as Truthers.

If you catch a child covered with chocolate and ask him if he has been in to the Hershey's Syrup, you fully expect to be told the obvious Truth.

If the child, afraid of punishment for being naughty, makes up an incredible story about how 19 Arabs broke in to the house in broad daylight, "hijacked" him out of bed, flew him down to the kitchen, managed their stealth without being detected by the security and defense system, poured the forbidden substance all over the kitchen and the innocent youth and then caused themselves to vaporize before they could be discovered, leaving the poor child to explain this entire scenario to his incredulous mother, it should be expected that a responsible parental authority would not engage the wayward lad in a 5 and a half year debate about such an obvious and deceitful story.

There should not be a reason to line up countless "experts" on both sides to affirm or debunk the fanciful account. The child should be cleaned up and given a "time out" with some solitary confinement to consider the consequences of both his crime and his attempted cover up of the indisputable evidence of his wrong doing...wouldn't you think?

Shouldn't we think?"

Pan Man

Peggy Carter said...

I messed up the tiny URL's:

Here is it amended:

Shot I took, heavily zoomed and cropped

From CNN Video, by Brianv:

Overlay by Killtown:

YOu can also see the full screen shot from the vid here:


Peggy Carter said...

Here is easier to access:

Shot I took, heavily zoomed and cropped

From CNN Video, by Brianv:

Overlay by Killtown:

You can also see the full screen shot from the vid here:

War On Suckers said...

Its a very good match agreed but its not an exact match. It doesn't require an overlay to tell that either the vertical angle or the distance is wrong. Without the towers the only other guides are the buildings and perhaps even the tree line if you know how fast or slow those trees grow.

Just looking at the perspective view of the Whitehall building and the towers, the "Hezarkhani" video doesn't appear to have been taken with a powerful zoom from a more distant location but in fact from Battery Park as suggested in your Feb 4 blog entry.

The most obvious conclusion seems a slightly elevated camera angle. Perhaps a tripod on top of a van would be sufficient elevation?

While all evidence I've seen so far suggests the corporate media presented video overlays to the world as reality, wittingly or not. It would seem these videos were all created in a relatively simple and straight forward manner and not necessarily in the back room or a news office. I'm sure a bunch of "Art students" would be more than capable of this kind of video fakery for example.

Peggy Carter said...

I disagree.

The buildings themselves are enough to make the match. The fact that the towers are gone is irrelevant.

Whoever took the "shot," if it *was* taken at all and not manufactured, took it with a zoom from before those trees grew in.

Check out the vids by "bsregistration" at YouTube and you can see the views from closer to the street, whereby according to you, a zoom would not be needed. Those do not match and in fact show an entirely different view than the one presented in the "Ghostplane."

If you don't want to look at the vids and accept what your eyes are telling you, if you don't want to look at the ones "bs" took from all around that area, as well as the maps I drew of it, I suggest you go down there yourself and try to make the "better" match you say exists.

It's helps to walk around there, then you could see for yourself.

The boat itself is equivalent to a ladder. And as we demonstrated, if you are high enough to be over the trees, another building will show - 19 Rector St., which was not in the CNN "exclusive." So, either way, the shot won't match reality.

CNN Fake Footage: More Proof for the Hard Headed

"Bsregistration" has a whole series on it.You can find among those here.

War On Suckers said...

The location of the first scene in More Proof for the Hard Headed really looks the most accurate. However I still contend the camera angle is too low. Moving way back from the trees and at slightly higher elevation would not only lower the apparent tree line but increase the apparent size of the black building compared to the smaller but closer 19 Rector St building.

Of course this puts the cameraman out on the water and up the mast of a launch or yacht. Not a bad place to be perhaps if you intended to remain anonymous ie don't wish to appear in any genuine bystander snaps and videos.

War On Suckers said...

Looking at the HOAX if by land, HOAX if by sea youtube video, the only the alignment from on the water that is anywhere near correct is in the old tourist section at approx' 1:55. However this is from far too far away. Following that alignment in towards the towers, as the foreground buildings grow and spread apart you'd likely reach the location where the anonymous cameraman was positioned.

As to the 19 Rector St. building in the CNN clip. This is a morning shot and the building facade is in shadow making it hard to see through the leafy trees. However it can be vaguely made out at the edge of the tree line in this frame I lifted from the CNN America Remembers DVD some time ago.

Even the elusive scaffolding seems to be back. Video compression algorithms can make a mess of the smaller details if not erasing them completely.

Peggy Carter said...

19 Rector is not in that screen shot. If you'll notice, the place where 19 *should* be, if you measure the appropriate distance, is right where the tree line *dips* down.

The place where you claim the building is "hidden" - it is too far out and doesn't match the actual location of the building.

Also, video compression doesn't "change" any details. It might blur something, but that's it.

The cover-up artists who want people to doubt what there own eyes tell them want to lay the blame for the anomolies on poor reproduction of the videos.

When all else fails, that's the line that is used. That excuse is over-used.

When all else fails it can be, "The video is too blurry."

Sort of like the "hanging chad." When all else fails - who can really tell if a hanging chad is a vote or not? And if the name is blazoned across the ballot? Hells, who can read the handwriting?

Everything can be thrown in doubt - including, "Do cigarettes cause cancer?" ( as was the case for 30 years) - especially if billions depend on it.

Same with the JFK murder: Hey, his brains were spread on the top of the back trunk of the car....but um, don't you know brains spray out *toward the direction the bullet comes from.*

Dontcha know?


War On Suckers said...

In the video HOAX if by land, HOAX if by sea pre 9-11 tourist video, the black building streaks from one side of 19 Rector St. to the other like a roller blader on steroids. Yet I doubt many would claim this too is video fakery.

Apparent moving backdrops was one of the straw-man arguments turned against those trying to expose the Apollo hoax. I notice in several of the videos a challenge is made for someone to make their own video that proves the shot was possible. My guess is that, if CNN ever find themselves feeling any heat due to their part in the video fakery. They will go out on their own launch, some future September morning, and prove that this shot was in fact taken exactly from such and such location. And then go on to say this totally discredits the 911TVfakery crowd as a bunch of loons. Joe 6pack and his wife will nod in agreement and switch over to I Love Lucy.

War On Suckers said...

I'd just like to add. The effort you and others have put into collecting this information is extremely valuable to everyone. Even if we cannot agree on the whether or not the foreground is also fake. It does at least prove to my satisfaction that this video was not taken by Rose Arce, contrary to what Dylan Avery was insisting in the KillTown interview. Which is what brought to your excellent blog in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Hi "Peggy" of course none of this namby pamby NON SCIENCE is really necessary and it's all quite embarassing. being one of the ONLY experts in New York in the early 1990's onward who was an expert on MATCHMOVING AND CAMERA POSITION EXTRAPOLATION FROM TWO DIMENTIONAL VIDEO SEQUENCES I WILL GIVE YOU THE MISSING LINK THAT YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR.


The first program to achieve this was a program I worked with in the 1990's called 3d equalizer. My company used this program which was an offshoot from a french canadian defense contractor. This program could devine your camera position, movement, rotation, inclination and elevation.

However years later when I decided i wanted to actually have a life and get out of 3d matchmoving and such the last program that I had the pleasure to use was a COMPLETELY AUTOMATED VERSION of this camera position and movement extrapolation program called Boujou. the program called Boujou by a company called 2d3 which can be downloaded for free from many of the crack sites (because the program is very very expensive) can, from your video sequence alone give you THE EXACT POSITION, FOCAL LENGTH OF THE ORIGINAL LENS USED, MOVEMENT AND ELEVATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO KNOW.

The science of what you are looking for is RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES NOW. So you see it will be a simple matter to run this sequence video through BOUJOU and THAT PROGRAM WILL GIVE YOU THE EXACT CAMERA POSITION AND IT WILL BE COMPLETELY ACCURATE TO WITHIN A METER WITHOUT FAIL. That's what Boujou does, that is all it does, and so why not then use it.





The fact is that with so many focal length possibilities you cannot expect to OVERLAY an image on top of another image shot with different cameras and lenses and expect to get any accurate results. THE ONLY WAY IS TO USE A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH THAT IS PROVEN ACCURATE WITHOUT FAIL EVERY TIME AND THAT WOULD BE TO USE BOUJOU.


With Love and CLARITY

Anonymous said...

So it's been months, where is VOXFUX's magic location from BooJou? Why can't anyone find a location that matches what was shown on TV?

Anonymous said...

in the CNN photo the roof of the deutsche bank bldg lines up more closely with the red stripe on the whitehall bldg than it does in your legwork photo which would indicate that the CNN location was indeed taller.
see what i'm saying?

what about those lampposts - can you find out if they were there on 9/11?

james ha.

Anonymous said...

VOXFOX wasnt offering to do it for you, she was letting you in on a tool that could definiteively test your own theory. Since you are concerned with exposing the truth, I would think you would want to check your hypothesis with a tool that can check it. If it proves your hypothesis correct, youll be heroes. If you choose not to use it, you'll remain bumbling pseudo scientists using bravado and words to claim bizzarre angle theories. This is not JFK, there are new technologies available. Use them! Arent YOU curious?

Peggy Carter said...

Taylor's camera could not store the images fast enough and the zoom was barely strong enough. How did she and Hezarkhani zoom it, each, to the exact precision, each to the other?