Saturday, January 19, 2008

Michael Hezarkhani - Carment Taylor WTC UA 175 "impact"

Do the math:

The graphics solution: (Google is wonderfully precise ;-)

Fly, robin fly...

Pinocchio Nose Out, seen from a Holographically WRONG (i.e. not pre-calculated) angle:


On Sept. 11, 2001, the Lavaca resident was in New York City when she and others in a tour group saw flames erupt from the tower.
{"We thought it was some sort of internal explosion," she recalled.
It was anything but.
A guide pushed the group to a docked ferry boat. Standing on the deck, Taylor pointed her Sony Mavica digital camera at the towers. One of her images, taken at 9:05 a.m., shows United Airlines Flight 175 nearing impact with the south tower. The situation made even less sense after the collision, Taylor said.
Taylor said she understands why. At first, she wanted pictures so people in Lavaca would believe what she was seeing. It soon turned into something more. Still near the park, Taylor showed her photos to those escaping the burning buildings. They had no idea what was happening, and her pictures told them at least part of the story, she said.
Before power went out at her hotel, she was able to send the images to a television station in Arkansas. When she returned to the hotel room several hours later, more than 100 messages waited for her. Each caller sought permission to use her photo. It eventually was broadcast by the AP and appeared on thousands of Web sites. It was later nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in photography.}

According to this 2006 article Taylor was: "Standing on the deck" of the docked ferry amidst her tour group (was Michael Hezarkhani part of, or separate from, this alleged tour group that was supposedly hustled onto the ferry by the guide?)

Now as implied by this article, the photos were sent, not from a tower office worker's loaner computer as other articles state, but her Hotel Room!

"Before power went out at her hotel, she was able to send the images to a television station in Arkansas."

Here's the conflicting story once again, for comparison:

""Taylor got off the ferry and showed her digital photos to the swarms of dazed office tower workers. One man suggested Taylor use his office nearby to e-mail her pictures to her local television station KHBS."?(As reported by CAROLINE BYRNE, Associated Press Writer)

"The Fort Smith Art Center will host an exhibit of Taylor’s photos from her New York trip beginning today. Many haven’t been seen before."

“Since I was in Battery Park (south of the towers), I was getting a completely different view of everything. The crashing. The people running."


These other pics might help establish Carmen Taylor's "movements" prior and after the "event."

It may be only a detail, but amongst other possible revelations that may surface as a result of a review of these photographs, I'm interested in getting a clearer picture of where the compositing work for the Taylor/Hezarkhani fakes was done.

Spoke with Carmen Taylor, my gregarious host of the Arkansas leg of this ongoing book tour.

On 9/11, Carmen, a tourist on her first trip to New York City, was waiting in line to board the State Island Ferry for a tour of New York Harbor and the Statue of Liberty. A couple standing in front of her mentioned that their nephew worked in the north Trade Center tower. "Just as she points up there," Carmen recalled, the upper floors of the building seemed to erupt in light and smoke "like sparklers." The first plane, which they could not see because of their position south of the buildings, had just collided with the north tower. "We thought it was an internal explosion, a Xerox machine went off or something. None of the people in my group thought anything ."

There were numerous press reports that stated "Staten Island Ferry" and other state that she was on the dock next to the ferry.

Fact Finder:

Though I can understand now where the confusion may have arisen. The Staten Island Ferry docks further east of the WTC site and as far as I am aware is a civic transportation ferry not a tour ferry.

The Ellis Island, Liberty Island and Staten Island ferries are all technically "State Island Ferries" I.e. they are New York State Ferries that route to the local islands. However, as far as I am aware, no Staten Island Ferry takes tourists for tours of the harbor. It instead transports people to the residential area of Staten Island.


DYEW! You seem to think that it is ALL virtual reality!

Or did you ignore the subtle iron-sight angles Athletic -to- Whitehall??

I have previously shown that there were two cameras because there are TWO iron-sight angles.

EVERY iron-sight matches up with a REAL camera position.
Of course YOU think this is because there are THREE layers?
That is demonstrably wrong. You would need AS MANY LAYERS as are iron-sight angles.

You should really retrace my pixel-counting math:

For your convenience, I just republished the relevant pics:

As you remember, I was VERY surprised myself.
I was very much of the opinion that MH-CT images were faked,
but since have changed my mind, because of Sherlock Holmes' favorite maxim:
When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

IMHO the cameras were real, the images are real, and the "plane" is a hologramme.

So, the "ua175 767 aeroplane" looks UNREAL! Why is that?

You think the FAKERS were not able to produce realistic images, huh?

If you look at the reflections of the aluminum body of the "aircraft", the pod, the change in lighting as it enters the shadow...
as marcus icke already noted: IT'S ALL (slightly) WRONG!! e.g. wings that have a wrong angle, engine nacelles that are wonky ... IMHO all to do with the complexity of calculating lighting angles for the DYNAMIC HOLOGRAM (terabytes per fraction of a second!)

IMHO the laser illumination and "projection screen (vapor)" was engineered to look "most realistic" from Battery Park.

Your "layer theory" is not tenable. Too many real-world events match what we know MH and CT did that morning.

Then there are other vids, witnesses etc... The MAJOR PROBLEM is that they all seem to have seen dissimilar "fata morganas". amputee wings, dark planes...

If you want to explain it all with video fakery you will be busy inventing scenarios.

Just like the good people who try to explain the towers' collapse ... they invent exploding transformers, liquid jet fuel running down elevator shafts...

I don't understand why you insist on TVF. DynHolos is so elegant! It even explains the nose-out, you see.
Parts of the Vapor-(or EMF "-projection-screen") -missile really came out the other side... and since EVERY smither of the hologramme recreated the WHOLE image.... and the Laser illuminator (747 at a distance) was still engaged... we saw the NOSE!!

The alternative explanation, namely that they faked a photo TO FIT THE LIVE-TV nose-out ... I am sorry. I have a feeling this is not what happened.

(dark if viewed side-on, shiny with artificial reflections from below, street level, and NOT VISIBLE from the front. Since the "plane" was ALSO NOT visible from the FRONT as it approached the tower they *possibly did* use TV-Fakery for the frontal shots on TV.)

Fred, I am sorry, but I don't have time to elaborate further. I hope that your wishful thinking

"good to see the layers broken apart into their elements and demonstrate how they've just recombined the key elements of the shot to create an independent video"

and easily disproven phantasies

"If you were so inclined, you could use your skills to demonstrate that the vast majority of supposedly amateur 9-11 videos are just re-combinations of the network news fakes

don't block your mind.

And I hope that me telling it to you doesn't bring out the beast in you and you can refrain from spending many hours on again producing videos that call me a member of the perpetrators' club.

I am sure you will debate everything at length but you know that, instead, you ought to be investigating the case for (or against) hologrammes.

But, Fred, until you have redone my pixel-counting-triangulation math -- to rid yourself from your video-layer phantasy -- you probably will most likely stay ignorant and blather on with ever more wishful thinking clogging your antennae.

Of course we perps are on your case because you are on to us, because you are such a brilliant researcher. Just kidding.

malaprop aka izzy Posted on Jan 16 2008, 03:47 AM
They're one in the same....look at the identically matched reflections in the windows of Whitehalls.

The angular resolution is too small to say that. They were 20-30feet apart
at a good distance. However the angles of the other buildings, measured against THE GAP BETWEEN THE TOWERS... makes a perfect match for height and position and CT-MH distance. Do you dispute this? Did YOU do the math?
go to "LETS DO IT MORE PRECISE.", click on the wide-picture.

user posted image

There I stopped working on it, but to prove my point further an analysis (triangulation) of the TREE-TOPS was to happen. I have put coloured boxes around the sycamore tree-tops. The PARALLAX SHIFT can determine the exact distance between Michael Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor, I am sure.

Another good illustration is the FIRST PHOTO here:
Amazingly, it is a perfect vector from the viewpoint of the camera.
I wrote this blog-entry when I was still convinced of Fred's argument of the blocking trees.

Anyway, check it out:


There has been a lot of debate regarding the pictures Carmen Taylor took of 'Flight 175' hitting WTC 2 and the Michael Hezarkhani video. It appears that both CT and MH must have been very close to each other, when they captured these images. The claim that two people captured very similar images has been used to bolster the proof that indeed Flight 175 did hit the 2nd Tower.

But are these different images from two different cameras? I think not. My take is that there was an original hi res video, set up in advance to capture the hit. From this original, both CT's still shots and MH's video were manipulated copies. Neither CT's stills or MH's video are originals. Then the same clipart 'plane' was inserted into both CT's pics and the MZ video, but the one in CT's pics was a little larger then the one they put in the videos. That's why it's hard to make everything match up. This is no longer a problem, when you break the CT pics into three separate components that can be manipulated separately. Then all the pieces of the puzzle fit back together nice and neat.

Since we will probably never have access to the hi res original, it is not possible to reverse some of the manipulations, but it's still possible to show how both of these images did indeed originate from the same camera.

Plate #1: The top right image is the one CT supposedly took. I used the highest resolution version of this image that I could find. The top left image is a screen capture from MH's video at about the same time that CT took her picture. Again, I went back to the original long version of the video and did my own screen capture.

From there I've broken CT's image into three pieces, WTC 2, the Whitehall Building and the Plane. Then I was able to stretched and slightly rotated these pieces individually.

user posted image

Plate #2: With the pieces from CT's image, individually stretched and rotated, first I've show how each one fits over the HM screen capture and then the last image is a composite of all three pieces from CT's image, overlaying the image from MH's video. The last picture on Plate 2, is all 3 pieces overlaying the original MZ video. They fit perfectly now.

user posted image

The main difference now is that CT's image was sharpened and MH's image was darkened and blurred. If I had access to the original, I could probably recreate these effects too. One thing is for sure though, CT did not take these pictures with a crappy Sony Mavica and floppy disks.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder on Jan 12 2008, 09:47 AM

Do the math!

Layers my arse.
Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 6:07 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home