Another Flight Path Discrepency Implying a CGI Plane
Still Diggin' does some analysis, and makes a good case.
Reminds of the pen and pencil stuff I used to do to analyze flight paths back in Spring of 2006*-- except he's doing it better and more precisely. It's not simple to do this sort of analysis, and because it involves relatively complicated and serious calculations, I think probably not very convincing to anyone who isn't ready to be convinced. People can find some little flaw and write it off too easily. Same goes for all the "proofs" Still Diggin' says he has made for a CGI plane. It is just not a simple task to prove this idea to people.
And I need to respond to this bit:
First of all, Flight Siumulator is NOT that easy to use to show plane path discrepencies. It is hard and tedious work lining up the plane angles and camera positions. Second, Grossman doesn't do Flight Simulator analysis, only Icke does. Third and importantly, while Grossman and Icke promoted some form of hologram theory two years ago**, that is not their theory now, so Still Diggin' needs to back off on the disinfo accusations a bit. Icke has shown probably more than anyone that the 1st and 2nd hits were pure video fakery, and this is his theory now for the 2nd hit.
*before I started using Flight Simulator.
**I believe primarily because of the Ghostplane footage that showed the second plane gliding into the tower , and other physical evidence involving the South tower, they proposed a hologram hoax. That was before Icke started looking extensively at the 2nd hit videos.
Reminds of the pen and pencil stuff I used to do to analyze flight paths back in Spring of 2006*-- except he's doing it better and more precisely. It's not simple to do this sort of analysis, and because it involves relatively complicated and serious calculations, I think probably not very convincing to anyone who isn't ready to be convinced. People can find some little flaw and write it off too easily. Same goes for all the "proofs" Still Diggin' says he has made for a CGI plane. It is just not a simple task to prove this idea to people.
And I need to respond to this bit:
Something has always bothered me about the work of Marcus Icke and Stephan Grossman. Here we have a case of individuals having the wherewithal to not only model the exact layout of the towers, but also overlay accurate plane models on top of the inserted plane CGI’s.
I’ve often wished that I had that model at my disposal so that I could use it properly. Instead of using it to try to sell hologram disinfo, the first thing I would do with that model is to flip to a plan [sic] view (view from directly above). From there, I would be able to demonstrate how vastly different all the flight paths of these cartoon planes are.
Well, rather than waiting for Icke and Grossman to retract their hologram disinformation (snip)
First of all, Flight Siumulator is NOT that easy to use to show plane path discrepencies. It is hard and tedious work lining up the plane angles and camera positions. Second, Grossman doesn't do Flight Simulator analysis, only Icke does. Third and importantly, while Grossman and Icke promoted some form of hologram theory two years ago**, that is not their theory now, so Still Diggin' needs to back off on the disinfo accusations a bit. Icke has shown probably more than anyone that the 1st and 2nd hits were pure video fakery, and this is his theory now for the 2nd hit.
*before I started using Flight Simulator.
**I believe primarily because of the Ghostplane footage that showed the second plane gliding into the tower , and other physical evidence involving the South tower, they proposed a hologram hoax. That was before Icke started looking extensively at the 2nd hit videos.
5 Comments:
i like icke's ghostgun site:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/
i fully see what he is saying about the images of what are alleged to be ua175 not being accurate representations of a 767.
still diggin says that this is disinfo? - whatever.
Icke's theory includes the possibility of an "airborne illusion" to account for supposed witnesses that saw a plane disappear into the tower.
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/conclusion/
That sounds like a hologram, or something similar, to me.
He furthers says in this conclusion, "The only choice was to use some form of hi-tech optical illusion to fool the masses into thinking that a real jet had hit WTC2 and then use pre-planed explosives to create believable structural damage and a impressive pyrotechnic display." He then says that the media hoax was a "stop gap."
He then says in this conclusion, "The problem was that the Perpetrators couldn't get the optical illusion to look 100% realistic so in order to conceal this weakness they used a media hoax to 'plug the gap' and leave the masses with believable live footage and/or pre-fabricated/modified footage of the event. The media hoax also concealed the type of aircraft, its livery and its trajectory."
All along, he seems to be saying there was a plane of some sort, but first it was disguised by an "airborne illusion," and then it was disguised by a "media hoax."
In his latest "Disinformation by Proxy" article in which he maliciously accuses Holmgren and Webfairy of disinformation, Icke makes the statement "But how do we know the video is genuine showing a hologram of a Boeing 767-200 or a modified Boeing 767-200 designed for high speed operation at low altitudes?"
I do not understand his meaning, but he uses the word "hologram," not Holmgren.
So I think that the hologram theory, or something similar, is very much alive in Icke's work. I'm not saying that is bad, just that it is.
I am still wondering why Icke attacked Holmgren and WebFairy
Ningen--
From what Icke has told me, he has been having trouble with his hosting site, and has wanted to update the Ghostgun article-- and even change the name-- to reflect more of a pure video fakery angle.
From what I understand, Icke promoted the idea of a hologram early on, but has moved away from it. I don't know how much he allows for that idea anymore.
That being said, the idea of a local hologram-like illusion to fool eye-witness, coupled with TV fakery, seems reasonable. As far as I know, he is not saying that the videos show holograms.
I guess he put the line about holograms into the Holmgren critique just to wonder how Holmgren could rule it out-- as a measure of Holmgren's critique.
I don't know why what Icke says is "disinfo". Obviously, accusations of disinfo get thrown about rather easily by lots of people. Ideally, people wouldn't use the term so lightly.
I think Icke went after WF and Holmgren because of Holmgren's sloppy video analysis and the fact that WF started accusing Icke of being a perp (in email exchanges I was party to).
I don't think Icke is right about his idea that WF disseminates disinfo to Holmgren and that they are both agents. But we have been over this before.
I concur with the trajectory analysis with Flight simulator... it's a pain the arse to say the least. I tried doing it instead in a 3D modelling program (Blender), but I didn't have the skills to make the plane look real as oppossed to all boxy and what not.
If we could somehow use the visualizations of Flight Simulator with the ease of use of Blender, we could get somewhere.
Also, determing the camera position and angle with a high degree of accuracy is also not trivial and can make a huge impact on whether the "plane" appears to rise, dive, or stay level on any given angle.
Just my 0.02
If you're talking about the chopper 4 footage, there's a faint blur that could very well be a small UAV or cruise missile flying in and attacking the south tower. I showed it to a figher pilot, and he confirmed that the video is of too low quality to ID the aircraft or missile. The white streaking thing which comes out of the South Tower looked like white phosphorus to him (a common ingredient in warheads... it gets very hot and can ignite napalm, and whatever other goodies made the big fireball.) Also, since we know there's TV fakery about, we can't really be 100% sure that what we see in ANY video wasn't yet another hoax.
Fortunately the hoaxers were sloppy, which makes it easy to prove that they aired fake videos on TV.
Fred
Post a Comment
<< Home