On Aug 23, 2004, at 7:58 PM, Adam Bruce wrote:
<x-tad-bigger>-Caveat Lector- </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>While I do not doubt what you have provided here, I would like to state something for clarity's sake:</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>If Webfairy got these images directly from an actual film of the "attack" then the initial images were either doctored or invented (the first images she provided showed a close up of something with great detail though it looked ridiculous). We are also left with the question of why in the images she provides there is a series from one frame to the next, in what is currently available at her website, where the object actually jumps BACKWARD for a single frame, then resumes its course forward. Is this not evidence of tampering?</x-tad-bigger>
i have seen nothing that looks like the object jumping backwards for one frame in the naudet DVD version of the first footage, which is the benchmark. can you point me to the best example of a file that shows this 'jump'? this certainly deserves a careful look as possible evidence of tampering by somebody or other.
aside from this, the main point to keep in mind is that the original naudet footage has a very low resolution image of the aircraft, which doesn't have enough detail to make fine judgements about anything. deductive logic, plus witness statements and the perfectly 767-shaped entry hole, support the existence of a 767 and not something else. the notion that one can get more resolution from nothing by using a fractal enlargement program and see details that aren't already visible in the video is pure BS.
-brian
