Ts ts Carmen Taylor ua175 photo and Hezarkhani CNN WTC Video

Link to the 'discussion' of the 19 Rector Street / Virtual reality video fakery dispute.... not pretty.








(updated 24 August 2007)

Location of the two cameras!

CLICK ME FOR MORE INFO

A month ago

Mon Jun-11-07 01:08 AM
William Seger posted this:

2. "2D animation"

It's funny that ol' bsregistration would say the CNN video is a "2D animation," but sorry, he is completely wrong. Amazingly, two frames from the amateur video (included in the CNN DVD, but not shot by CNN), paired with two digital stills taken by Carmen Taylor, apparently from very near the same spot, form very good stereo pairs -- i.e. 3D pictures. The left two images in each of the following sets can be viewed by "parallel freeviewing" and the right two images in each set can be viewed by "cross-eyed freeviewing": (To view the parallel pair, look at the left and center pics, but then try to diverge your eyes as if looking far off into the distance. When you diverge enough for the left and center pairs to overlap, try to focus on them without changing the angle of your eyes. For the "cross-eyed" pair, center and right, you cross your eyes as if looking at something close until that pair converges. Most people find this easier to do than the parallel, and one trick is to hold your finger about 10 or 12 inches in front of your eyes directly in front of the pair. Focus on your finger tip and move it back and forth until you can see that the pair are perfectly overlapped, then try to focus on the image without changing the angle of your eyes, then move your finger out of the way.) Or, if you happen to have red-and-cyan (blue-green) 3D glasses (such as those used for some 3D movies like Spy Kids), then here are the "anaglyph" versions: If the CNN video is an animation, then the fakers were not only clever enough to fake (almost!) the same scene in Taylor's still pics (which she emailed to a newspaper shortly after they were shot), but they were also smart enough to fake the 3D stereo effect perfectly by offsetting the relative perspectives by a few feet. Much more probable, of course, is that bsregistration is just full of bs, since he also claims that he has already "proved" that the CNN video was a fake. His "proof" was that he was unable to find the location that it was shot from. Unfortunately, all that set of videos proved was: A) he is completely incompetent to analyze videos if he doesn't understand something as simple as perspective (forget about the complicated stuff); and B) he is a totally intellectually dishonest "truther" because when I informed him (three times) that the video must have been shot from the same ferry deck that Taylor took her pictures from, he just deleted the posts and kept claiming nobody could explain where it was shot from. Looking at this video, it appears that bs is still having great difficulty understanding perspective, among other things (and I presume still deleting any posts pointing out any facts that interfere with his delusions). Source

Submitted by WilliamSeger on Sun, 2007-06-17 19:17.

I find it odd that some people who claim to be able to glean so much knowledge from images have difficulty understanding simple concepts like perspective and simple applications like stereo photography. The still pics taken by Carmen Taylor form 3D stereo pairs when matched with frames from the Hezarkhani video taken at approximately the same moment because they are views of the same scene from two different angles (which is how our two eyes see 3D). In this case, the images are at least several feet apart -- my guess is about 20 feet -- so with 100% confidence, these are not two images from the "same animation." If the video and Taylor's stills are faked, then someone went to a lot of trouble to fake the different perspectives perfectly, and then left that clever fakery for someone to accidentally discover years later. Since "no-planers" don't seem to put any plausibility limits on their theories, I expect people on this site will have no trouble imagining that that's exactly what they did -- this, despite the fact they also claim that the fakes are so bad that people who apparently know nothing at all about videos and imaging can spot the flaws. I am posting to simply clarify what it is you're claiming, since the original poster obviously didn't "get it."

-- William Seger

http://911researchers.com/node/579

Submitted by WilliamSeger on Mon, 2007-06-18 14:34.

The video and the still pictures were taken from at least several feet apart (more likely, several yards apart). The obvious parallax in the two images is not "psycho babble," and the complication arises for those who want to claim that both images were faked, not for those who accept the most plausible explanation: It's just two images captured by two tourists who were on the same ferry at the Battery Park dock.

And sorry, but "the same people took both shots" hardly makes enough sense to comment on, but I assume you're just trying to imply that Taylor and Hezarkhani were both "in on it." Knock yerself out on that one, since I'm sure you don't have difficulty imagining that the Grand Conspiracy either had control over every tourist with a camera in Manhattan on 9/11, or replaced all the tourists with agents.

ABOUT making red-green 3d images:
to account for vertical perspective. Since the camera is looking upward, the tops of the buildings should appear farther away than the bottoms, which means the tops should be separated farther than the bottoms in the pair, which would make the building images appear rotated relative to each other -- just as they do in the Taylor-Hezarkhani pair,

Submitted by WilliamSeger on Sat, 2007-07-14 14:05

The Hezarkhani video was apparently shot about 20 feet to the left of Carmen Taylor's pic, and Taylor says she was on the ferry, still at the dock in Battery Park. That looks about right, since it would be farther south and 10 or 12 feet higher than the ridiculous bsregistration video, which clearly doesn't show the right perspective for the buildings.

I will be going to NYC in September, and yes I will be glad to send you a badly needed report and some pics from the real world. In fact, you may not have to wait that long, so try to hang in there...

WilliamSeger on Sun, 2007-07-15 05:33.

If you have an estimate for the distance to the trees, then you could estimate the height, or vice versa. Trying to do it just from the height of the buildings and their distance apart doesn't make any sense at all.

Anyway, I believe your 100m between the buildings is wrong. Looking at Google Earth, it seems you probably measured the distance from the close side of the Athletic Club to the close side of the Whitehall Building. But the higher part of the Whitehall Building (with the arched facade) is the addition that was added behind the original building, which appears to be be about 80m from the Athletic Club.

Using 80m between the buildings and accepting your other dimensions, a line from the top of the Whitehall Building to a point 158m up the Athletic Club would be about 19.9 degrees. Extending the line southward, it would hit the ground about 355m from the Whitehall Building, which is in good agreement with the distance to the ferry pier. If the Taylor and Hezarkhani pictures were taken, say, 3 meters above ground level, the distance would be about 347m, still within range of a ferry at one of the docks (since it's hard to say from those pictures exactly which dock the ferry was at). But of course, those estimates assume your 3m difference is accurate.

As for the trees, I believe I've located the position that bsregistration shot his video from, and I believe the tree blocking the Whitehall Building is only about 20m to 25m from where he was. From that estimate, I'd say the tree is about 12m tall, maybe a little more. Of course, the bearing to the Whitehall Building would need to be verified before assuming that same tree is in either the Taylor or Hezarkhani pictures, and bsregistration's video is a little too grainy to be sure about that. The point still remains that the trees would appear much lower in shots taken from the top ferry deck than from where bsregistration was,

Submitted by WilliamSeger on Tue, 2007-07-17 01:12.

OK, let's do it a little more precisely (but recognizing that these are still approximations). I used Google's 3D buildings (to make sure I was looking at the right buildings and also because the satellite image shows the buildings at an angle, which makes it hard to determine the correct points, whereas the 3D buildings are perpendicular to the ground). I get 84m:

(This pic is zoomed out and looking from the side, but I zoomed in and looked vertically at each building to align the points carefully with the highest walls of both buildings.)

In bsregistration's video from the pier, the tops of the building appear to be closely aligned. Using 84m between the buildings and your heights, I get an elevation angle of arctan((161-129)/84), about 20.8 degrees. That line would hit the ground at about 129 / ((161-129)/84) = 338.6m from the building. However, the pier where bsregistration is standing is lower than the base of the buildings, but he's holding the camera somewhat above the level of the park (and presumably the building base), so it's not quite that simple; it would be a little less than that to a camera held above the ground level. I measure approximately 334m from the Whitehall building with the arched facade to where I believe he was standing, so that looks like a good approximation.

In the Taylor and Hezarkhani pics, if I use your estimate of the Athletic Club appearing about 3m over the top of Whitehall, the elevation angle would be arctan(((161-3)-129)/84), about 19 degrees, which would hit the ground level at about 129 / (((161-3)-129)/84) = 373.6m from Whitehall's arched facade wall. However, if those pics were taken by a person standing on the top deck of the ferry, that could be somewhere around 4m or 5m above the base of the building (probably more than that). If we assume 4m to be conservative, that would be (129-4) / (((161-3)-129)/84) = 362m from the building. And again, that seems to be a good approximation of the distance from the building to a ferry boat at the second dock (which I would estimate at between 335m and 360m, depending on where they were on the ferry deck).

So, assuming the pics were taken from the top deck of the ferry is completely consistent with the alignment of the tops of the two buildings.

As for the trees, I think your estimate of 75m to the "tree line" is way off, which throws off your estimate of the height. In bsregistration's video where a tree blocks Whitehall, that tree is clearly not that far from the steps:

The trunk appears to be just beyond a rectangular "planter" (or some such thing) at the corner of the steps. I think that tree can be seen in Google, and it's only about 17m from where I believe he was standing, or about 30m to 40m from where I believe Taylor and Hezarkhani were on the ferry:

In the video, the tree has an apparent size of about 55% greater than the Whitehall Building. If the visual angle of Whitehall is about 21 degrees (it would be a little more than the elevation angle because he's also looking somewhat downward at the base of the building), the visual angle of the tree would be about 32.6 degrees. At 17m, that would be a height of less than 11m (but with so many approximations and rounding, I wouldn't take that as a precise estimate).

In the bsregistration video from the ferry deck, although it's very grainy, it's clear that the trees are somewhat above the camera -- they appear taller as the boat gets closer -- but not a great deal. So, I think my 12m estimate, more or less, is closer than your estimate.

Now, we would really need to know the height of the ferry deck accurately to estimate what the trees should look like in the Taylor and Hezarkhani images, but we can take a guess and see if it's in the ballpark. Earlier in bs's video, you can see that the ferry deck is fairly high above the pier and the park ground. If we guess that the deck was about 4m above the park ground and the cameras were another 1.5m above that, that would put the tops of the trees perhaps 6.5 meters above the cameras. If the trees were about 35m away from the cameras, that would be an elevation angle of about 10.5 degrees, which would be a little more than half the elevation angle to the top of Whitehall. (If my estimate for the height of the ferry deck is too high, the trees would appear a little more than that, but not by much: e.g. one m lower would put the tree tops at about 12 degrees, or still less than two-thirds of the Whitehall height. But if they were more than 35m away, that would lower the apparent angle again, as would the fact that the trees have certainly grown some since 2001.) Just eyeballing the proportions of the buildings in bs's video, I believe we should expect to see the tree tops somewhat below the apparent level of the original Whitehall building (i.e. the wider rectangular one in front of the building with the arched facade on top). And that's precisely what we see in the Hezarkhani video.

Bottom line: Although I still intend to get the pictures to prove it, this analysis shows that the images are consistent with the view from the top deck of a ferry boat at the second dock,

Submitted by WilliamSeger on Wed, 2007-07-18 07:37.

That blue sky gap and the slightly different angle on the buildings is the difference in perspective caused by the separation between the two cameras; it's called "parallax" in optics and photography. Parallax is what produces the 3D view from two 2D images (as does the separation between our two eyes): our brain's visual processing system automatically interprets the slight differences in angular separation as differences in depth. I used that gap to estimate that Taylor and Hezarkhani were about 20 feet apart. (That large a separation makes it a "hyperstereo" pair, which exaggerates depth by increasing parallax, but it also causes objects to look smaller than they do with "natural," eye-width separation between the images.)

Submitted by WilliamSeger on Wed, 2007-07-18 08:42.

"trigonomics refutes your claim William."

No, zark, you are simply wrong about that. The easy proof of that is by simply looking at the images in 3D. (Are you able to do that?) The 3D effect is perfect between all four buildings (and the plane, btw) because the parallax is correct. Incorrect parallax would make the 3D image immediately look "odd" because things would not appear to be at the correct relative depth. Hezarkani was to Taylor's left, so his camera sees the A.C. building slightly to the left of where Taylor's camera sees it, relative to Whitehall; it sees slightly less of the sides of both of those building; and it doesn't see any gap between the A.C. and WTC1. There are absolutely no parallax inconsistencies.

"The AC/Whitehall positions should move towards an obtuse angle faster than the WTCNorth - AC.
The acute angle of the WTC/AC should increase less quickly than the acute angle of AC/Whitehall."

That almost doesn't make enough sense to figure out what you are trying to say, since you didn't specify what you mean by "move faster" and "increase less," but from what I can decypher from that, you've simply got things backwards: The A.C. and Whitehall buildings are much closer together than the distance between A.C. and WTC1, so ANY separation between the two images will make much less difference in angular separation between Whitehall and A.C. than the difference between A.C. and WTC1. Draw some diagrams and I think you'll figure it out.

==================

I find it odd that there could have been ANY people AT ALL that
had NOT HEARD the plane or saw "definetly a small plane, not a jet".

A 767 at full throttle at 600 feet is a spectacular event, that NOBODY in
a wider vicinity can miss or be unclear about. These turboprop engines make a very characteristic sound a deafening roar, droning sound. And they are LOUD when the throttle is on full.

People described a high-pitch whistle sound, there is a recording of it... (sept clues)

Look, I really like to believe it was 767s... but it doesn't seem right. Something is wrong.

If a real, noisy 767 had impacted there would be more footage of it, there would be lots of photos
that show the plane half-in, tail still out. People would have had enough time to press the shutter.

With a missile or whatever sneaky thing they used people did not have time to click.
There was no incredible roar.

There are no photos that show the exhaust trail of a 767 in the air.

There are no photos that convince me. They all look like inserts.

airplane seat?

Here's someone who didn't see a plane

Submitted by Ningen on Thu, 2007-06-21 05:16.

He was in a position to see it and doesn't say he looked away, just that he didn't have a wide enough view like people behind him that he says saw it.

http://www.tgeneva.com/~davethom/

Tower 2 hit on the far side. Plane debris arcing to left.
After a while, I saw a huge fireball on the second tower -- being on the far side, I didn't see the plane and assumed a bomb or something had gone off. Other people behind me on land had a wider view and said they saw the second plane approach from far away, figuring it was a rescue plane of some kind. The second image shows the puff of the second impact, with arcing debris on the left side. HE SAW NO PLANE (but should have, for SURE!) http://www.tgeneva.com/~davethom/
This photo shows a high flying helicopter and a bright flash, like Rick Siegels Helicopter

“Kill My Landlord” “Genocide And Jews”

The original cover of The Coup's upcoming album, Party Music, will be replaced with a new design, the group's label said. The cover for the upcoming CD from a popular hip-hop group portrays an eerily familiar sight.
Against a backdrop of morning skies, the towers of the World Trade Center stand engulfed in flame from the impact of twin explosions. Clouds of smoke spew from the upper stories, all but obscuring the tip of what was once the epicenter of the New York City skyline.
If it weren't for the super-imposed images of the Oakland, California, hip-hop duo known as The Coup, the scene could pass for a remarkably precise replica of the horrific tragedy that befell New York City on Tuesday morning. The cover design predates Tuesday's twin attacks on the World Trade Center by months. And now that reality has in fact imitated art, The Coup's label, 75 Ark, is finding itself in a messy predicament. "This was done long ago and never meant to be any literal interpretation of an event," said Toni Isabella, label manager for 75 Ark. Luckily, she said, the release date of the CD, entitled Party Music, got pushed back 2 months from early September to November.

In light of Tuesday's tragedy -- and a barrage of e-mails and phone calls regarding the image -- the label is now in the process of choosing a new album cover. Timing of the original album printing was disturbingly in sync with real-world events. The printers were set to crank out copies of the fiery World Trade Center image on Tuesday, Isabella said, when the label put in a last-minute call, urging them to stop the presses. The fictional picture depicted on the cover, it seemed, was a bit too close to the horrific images occupying the television screen. Isabella said the label hasn't decided on a new cover. They're looking at pictures from an old photo shoot as well as an image based on the group's logo. However, the decision making is particularly difficult due to the fact that 75 Ark has been unable to reach officials with The Coup's publicist, Girlie Action, which is located in lower Manhattan.

The move to switch covers has not been without opposition. Coup founder Boots Riley said he argued with the label to keep the original design, which a distributor had threatened not to release. Riley said the cover design, completed in June, was "supposed to be a metaphor for the capitalist state being destroyed through the music." It should not be interpreted as a call to violence, particularly in light of Tuesday's tragedy, he said. "My condolences go to the families of the victims and all their friends and anybody affected at all by the catastrophe," Riley said. "But they can't sidestep that the reason this is being censored is a political one, not a sympathetic one. It's not out of respect to the victims." Riley said he lobbied to keep the cover intact because he wanted people to consider that it is not only foreign terrorists, but the United States as well, that have committed atrocious acts. Chris Funk, The Coup's manager, said it's most likely that 75 Ark will prevail in its plan to change the cover, however. "Ultimately, they reserve the right to use whatever cover they want because they're the label," he said. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the original CD cover had already gone out to members of the press, distributors and others. Before the album's release got pushed back to November, The Coup received reviews in several publications, including print editions of Wired Magazine, Spin and CMJ. Naturally, many of the reviews came accompanied with pictures of the original CD cover, complete with exploding buildings. Funk said The Coup, known for lyrics with an edgy, anti-establishment bent, chose the original cover for its powerful imagery. And, as was the case with The Coup's previous three releases, "Kill My Landlord," "Genocide and Juice" and "Steal This Album," not all harsh statements are meant to be taken at face value. "We're not saying go out and blow up the buildings," Funk said. "But it's politically charged music."

This photo by David Handschuh of the bombs going off in the World Trade Center is likely authentic.

Analysis of the 2nd WTC crash, shows the video trick... the amazing self-healing building!

---

Video removed for violation of terms.

YouTube - Fake Battery Park Actor-Patsy Hezarkhani Tight ...

The diamond dealer is a mummy if he knows what's good for him ...
7 min -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhVKrcDwDCM&sdig=1