-Caveat Lector-

On Aug 24, 2004, at 2:33 AM, The Webfairy wrote:

All it takes to see the backup frame is to look at Eric Salter's
excellent and supurb enlargements.
His rendition also has the "flash frame" mysteriously missing from some
versions.
...
This is a work in progress.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/missilegate

as for the disappearnce of the "flash" from some versions, there is nothing mysterious about it. eric has already explained that this is a result of the flash only appearing in one field (i.e. half of a frame, or 1/60th of a second) and this being removed in the de-interlacing process that happens in many types of digital format conversion. incidentally, recently mark robinowitz argued that the absence of the flash in some versions of the footage, for example in zwicker's 'great deception', was proof that the flash was a fake addition. eric corrected him on this with a post to the 911truthalliance list.

now, concerning the WTC1 footage: previously, you attempted to claim,
to great comic effect, that the naudet DVD footage was a "filtered"
version and that your versions represented the real images!  having
been completely disproven on that point and shown to be taking a
foolish position, you are now changing your tune yet again, in your
typically shifty way, and trying to claim the opposite -- suddenly now
eric's superior quality conversions of the footage SUPPORT your
analysis!!?!   given that you clearly lack the principle and honesty
first to acknowledge where your past mistakes have been proven by
eric's and others' critiques -- not to mention failing to come up with
a logical rebuttal, of course -- i'm not surprised to see you adopting
this new diversion.

what intelligent person is going to fall for this?  i have to admit,
this does fit the cointelpro-style tactics of 'engagement' that kris
described so well, using misrepresentations and hollow arguments just
to try and force a new response.  as for your 'analysis' of
perspective, it is so incoherent and erroneous as not to warrant a
response; it's just more of the same garbage that you've offered before
which has already been debunked.

moreover, i've gone back to review the footage, playing it forwards &
backwards in slo-mo and frame by frame dozens of times, and i do not
see where the plane jumps backwards -- although i do see a part where
the plane passes near or in front of reflective parts of the building
where, possibly, someone with an poor, unskilled eye who was not
watching carefully and thoughtfully could get confused by their own
overactive imagination, just as is true for the entirety of this
inherently low quality, low detail section of footage.  the section
from approx. frame 27 to 32 in eric's file is where i suspect such a
mistake could easily be made by someone who is not keeping in mind
fundamental, basic issues like video "blooming" distortions of bright
specular highlights off the building that the plane is passing in front
of, the problem of the thin wings disappearing inbetween scan lines in
certain frames, and so forth.   so, can you give the exact frame # of
eric's file where you claim the plane jumps backwards?

and, are there any other takers to second the claim that the plane
"jumps backwards" in the naudet footage?

as these spurious claims continue to roll out of the disinfo sausage
factory, working overtime to churn out fresh new B.S. diversions as
fast as old B.S. is debunked, i find myself reflecting on the fact that
stubborn denial can be excused up to a point as the result of
self-delusion and ego, but after a certain point it can only indicate
some kind of willful malevolence.

-brian

www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to