Humint Events Online: Real Footage for TV Fakery Proof

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Real Footage for TV Fakery Proof

At this point in time, I think that the goal of the 9/11 video fakery "movement" should be to obtain "official" high resolution copies of orginal footage of at least one of the videos that was shown of the second hit.

While the videos that have been saved digitally on various websites are extremely useful at showing the fake nature of the footage, I think only by trying to obtain one version of faked footage can we really blow this thing open for good. The digital footage archived digitally from TV broadcasts or from official DVDs simply does not have the quality we need to prove CGI fakery for once and all.

If the original videos can not be found, have been destroyed, or the authorities won't allow copies to be made, then we also have proven our point.

As I pointed out last week, a good place to start would by filing a "freedom of information act" request with the FBI for the video they took from Evan Fairbanks.

Or contact some of the "amateurs" who have posted these videos online and ask for a high-res copy in order "to prove the conspiracy theorists wrong". Perhaps even offer them money for a good copy.

As I see it, the problem with the analyses done by me, by Marcus Icke, by bsregistration, by Webfairy, by Gerard Holmgren, by Ewing2001, by Scott Laughrey (911 hoax), Killtown, etc, is that they are ONLY going to appeal to a small group of (very intelligent) people who are already open minded about massive 9/11 fakery.

Whereas someone different, a patriotic citizen, who can obtain original video and then show it is (surprisingly!) altered, has a better chance of really getting some attention to this incredible aspect of 9/11.

Don't get me wrong, I think the evidence for video fakery is extremely strong. But I am talking about a strategy for blowing the story open once and for all.

UPDATE: Marcus Icke critiques "Still Diggin'" here, in a new article that relates to my point. That is: analyzing the 2nd hit videos carefully is both very tricky and time consuming. It is easy to get fooled by optical illusions and sloppy measurements-- I know this from personal experience. That is not to say that there isn't evidence for fakery, but rather it needs to be done carefully and precisely. Marcus Icke has done the most careful work I know on the video fakery subject, and has developed some pretty damn good proofs for video fakery. But how many people has he convinced even with his careful analysis?

That is why we need better proof.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

they will never release evan fairbanks original. have they released any pentagon surveillance camera footage yet?

if an original clip of "ua175" is released under FOIA and found to be different (altered before being released?) from the clips on the internet and the "CNN remembers" dvd, and someone is then able to prove the point that it has been altered, using the internet clips, wouldn't that also prove the point that the internet clips were authentic to begin with?
see what i'm saying?
anyway, your FOIA idea is a good one and i hope that someone will embark upon that.

12:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More great "scientific" acumen from Spooky!

"If the original videos can not be found, have been destroyed, or the authorities won't allow copies to be made, then we also have proven our point."

Sounds like a child ending a temper tantrum - even if things DON'T turn out my way, it STILL proves I'm right!

Bullshit. Pure and simple. Your "story" will never be "blown open" because there is no story.

But I certainly hope you keep slinging the bullshit and your minions like Early and the douchbag Rob and the idiot Fred and the shit for brains Ha etc keep sucking your toes. We can only hope!

1:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"shit for brains ha etc"

that's better than brains of shit you @ 1:02pm!

hey wouldn't your time be better spent *debunking* something?

all of the official images of ua175 are phony:
*debunk* this!

1:11 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Hey Pinch-- so what WOULD be the reason for them not releasing good copies of the videos at this point?

1:23 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

That is, if the videos have never been manipulated, what do the authorities have to hide?

Now, on the other hand, what I could imagine is someone manages to get a "bona fide" copy, and they show that it is fake, the authorities will claim that the person who got the copy manipulated it themselves. Then the media would get involved and look at the video themselves, and then magically conclude the video was NOT manipulated. So this is a risk for people interested in the truth. But I still think this needs to be done.

After all, the Fairbanks film was dubbed the "new Zapruder film".

1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fairbanks himself said that "FBI took my film and when i got it back it resembled a hollywood special effect":

evan fairbanks

but pinch knows that already - that's why he merely remarks on the quality of our brains rather than the authenticity of all the phony images of ua175.

1:39 PM  
Anonymous Homeland Insecurity said...

The eternal 'argument' for increased surveillance by governments of their own people is that 'if you've done nothing wrong, then you've nothing to fear'.
Seems like they don't want it to work the other way round. 'Open' & 'transparent' government? Gimme a break!

2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re: update; the need for better proof -

i agree with that assessment - however, the definitive proof exists already. 9/11 tv fakery could be proven in court today.
if someone will not consider the existing proof then they are not going to consider even more obvious proof either.
we are way beyond the point of "proof" and into the realm of willful ignorance.

will any of you pinchers ever make any observations of substance?
or will you merely continue with your inept observations on the state of our mental being...

2:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If TV fakery can be proved in court NOW, then when are court proceedings going to start?

2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe you should press charges against me and get the ball rolling!
why are you monitoring this post so closely?

3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Icke's DVD captures don't show up for me. Can others see them?

3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Icke's DVD captures show up just fine on my connection.

4:33 PM  
Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

"they are ONLY going to appeal to a small group of (very intelligent) people who are already open minded about massive 9/11 fakery."

Stupid AND arrogant. Quite a combination...

6:16 PM  
Anonymous conspiracy smasher said...

wow. another stupid and irrelevant comment from the PHONY conspiracy smasher...

6:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The BBC has already given us "the dog ate my homework, Sir" excuse in response to an official copy of their archives.

I would like very much to get some sort of "official high-quality videos" to analyze. Why won't the TV stations release undoctored footage? CNN Pipeline has been edited to pieces, as many people have shown.

Fortunately we can prove TV Fakery just fine with low quality videos because some of the mistakes are so big. For example, the "moving bridge" and "spinning WTC" footage doesn't require higher resolution. We can see quite clearly at low resolution that major landmarks are in the wrong place.

StillDiggin has replied to Marcus Icke's KeepDiggin piece and as you can see, there are some problems with the CBS version of Manhattan.

Icke's analysis may work for real videos in which the buildings are in their proper places. When you're analyzing a virtual dreamscape of layered cut-outs, it no longer makes sense to think in terms of real planes flying past real buildings.

Low-grade traitors like Bukkake Terrance and the Reno Sword Pinching Posse are always complaining about things 'not looking like videogames'. Now it turns out the soon-to-be incarcerated traitors have to defend the ridiculous CBS skyline fraud. Let's see them scurry around trying to move the buildings into position.

If you see someone under the base of the Verrazano Bridge furiously scratching at it, trying to move it so that it matches the fake Naudet footage don't worry, he's just a Sword Pincher troll trying to save his own hide.

Terrance may get a chance to experience his favorite hobbie in the prison if he's not kept in solitary all the time (where he can enjoy his fantasy the way he does already--alone in his room.)


4:42 AM  
Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

Freddie, freddie, freddie. When are you going to figure out that your fantasy about rational people going to jail is not going to happen?

Even other 9/11 kooks think that you guys are a brick short of a load. How many no-planers are there out there? 10? 12?

If you joined forces with the flat-earthers and the David Icke Lizard People your "movement" might swell to a few hundred - still well short of anyone taking you seriously.

The reality is this: you're a few sad souls on an obscure blog that everyone (and I do mean EVERYONE) laughs at.

So either get back on your medication, or return to your star trek forum from whence you came...

6:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:01 is a PAID spook/shill...
it doesn't matter how many no-planers there are, this is the age of the internet and damaging information can spread rapidly. The PERPS are in damage-control mode, it's our job to make sure the damage gets worse--for THEM!!

7:34 AM  
Anonymous conspiracy smasher said...

it seems like the PHONY conspiracy smasher @6:01 knows very well that the images of ua175 are all bogus, but as long as there are "only 10 or 12 nut-job no-planers" then the lying liars have nothing to worry about!

11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i wasn't convinced about tv fakery until i saw a few Fred/BSReg vids...

9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fred's vids are awesome presentations of fakery!
of course by saying that i risk being accused of sucking his toes. right swort_?

1:30 PM  
Blogger StillDiggin said...

I always knew this site was a joke. Spooked is now using Fetzer language "strong evidence of TV-Fakery."

Asking for higher quality footage is like asking for a new investigation - completely pointless.

The proof behind TV-Fakery is the fact that a plane can't cut a profile of itself through steel columns.

Of course this evidence would stand up in a real court. The problem is that there is no real court in this country - and a drastic shortage of "experts" who would testify to the true nature of Newton's Third Law.

If Spooked really thinks the evidence is so strong, why isn't there a link to my site anywhere to be found here?

If Marcus Icke wants to compare apples to oranges, let him. Have him compare the flight path of the ABC "footage" versus the "two degree" CBS "footage."

There's at least 40 degrees of camera angle offset between those two "clips," so why do these flight paths look so similar?

Straddling the fence on TV-Fakery is an exercise in schizophrenia. There is no middle ground, so I suggest that you, Fetzer, and Icke go back to the strategy drawer and pick a standpoint that doesn't defy logic.

I think it should be obvious to anyone why I don't include a link to this joke of a site on my blog - so don't bother asking.

9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

still diggin i think that maybe you are missing the point of an FOIA of the fairbanks footage.
it is not to further analyze it, but simply to throw it in some faces when they either don't release it or it is released but differs from what we already have.

i don't see that spooked is "straddling the fence" as regards TV fakery - he was using the MS flight simulator to compare flight path discrepancies a good year and half ago. he did a very good job and he seemed to know what he was talking about throughout.

The proof behind TV-Fakery is the fact that a plane can't cut a profile of itself through steel columns.

actually the proof is that an aluminum plane can't cut thru the steel columns at all.

If Spooked really thinks the evidence is so strong, why isn't there a link to my site anywhere to be found here?

what, are you now the definitive last word as regarding a real 767 vs. a wtc? much less TV fakery?

your site:
is every bit the joke that this site is.
and furthermore if you paid attention you'd realize that your site is already linked to by this site - that's how i became aware of it.

12:16 PM  
Blogger StillDiggin said...

I was referring to the links down the right hand side of this page, not specific articles with a link to my site.

I apologize for not making that distinction.

My specific issue with Fetzer, Icke and Spooked is that they use weak language.

The evidence for TV-Fakery isn't strong - it's irrefutable.

TV-Fakery is fact. No planes is fact. The media hoax is fact.

We don't need better fake video to prove anything. And if Flight Simulator can't show what needs to be shown, then haul your ass to a computer store and get a better program.

What a profound correction that was about cutting through steel beams "at all" versus cutting through steel beams and leaving behind a plane shape.

Remind me never to make a statement about a car not being able to drive across the ocean - for fear someone might correct me by saying that a car can't drive across any body of water.

If you know all media footage showing a plane is fake, then just say it. No disclaimers, no pussyfooting, no bullshit.

Show me where Icke says that.
Show me where Fetzer says that.
Show me where Spooked says that.

I say that here and on my site. Fred/bsregistration, Webfairy, Holmgren, Nico Haupt, Peggy Carter, Rick Siegel, and many others KNOW that all the networks collaborated to create these fake planes.

As if "throwing it in the face" of the perps after an FOIA rejection is going to do any more than the Pentagon videos have.

We have what we have. I guarantee that the Fairbanks video I posted on Live Video is exactly as it was aired on the evening news of 9/11/01.

Perhaps I'm too quick to judge the wishy-washy. Perhaps I'm too harsh when I point out that recreating a relationship between the twin towers and other buildings in ANY SOFTWARE PROGRAM based on television "footage" is fundamentally unsound.

If an aluminum plane can't cut through steel beams "at all," then how can someone not be pointing at the media?

How can someone even suggest that ANY of these videos showing planes could be real?

That's my problem with Icke defenders.

If I haven't expressed that politely enough, so be it. I'm not doing this to make friends. I'm just trying to spread truth, while making sure that it doesn't get distorted along the way.

1:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmmm. i agree about pussyfooting wishy washy etc...
i say call a spade a spade and obviously you do as well - the willingness to do so does seem to be in short supply.
you were not harsh in the least, but i am simply pointing out that spooked is not "on the fence" re: TV fakery.

look, who cares what icke says or not?
his ghost gun analyses are excellent.
has anyone else analyzed the rake of wings or the exact reflection of the sunlight off of the alleged ua175?

What a profound correction that was about cutting through steel beams "at all" versus cutting through steel beams and leaving behind a plane shape.

your sarcasm is wasted in this case, because while you say that spooked and others do not go far enough, i could say that you and others do not go far enough as well.

hey, your blog is right on and this blog is right on also.
so is ningen's blog.

2:11 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Hey Still Diggin--

I have long linked to your site under "Useful and Recommended 9/11 Sites" and the link is still there.

I think you have done some nice work. But in fact I was bloggin on video fakery long before you, and I have written far more articles talking about no-planes than you. Please look through my archives if you don't believe me. So I don't need any lectures from you on this.

As far as how i talk about TV fakery/video fakery, I refer to it in different ways, depending on the audience I think is reading. I try not to take for granted that my audience believes everything I saw automatically and so I try to craft language that will be more appealing to people who might be on the fence.

I think there is no doubt there was live video fakery used on 9/11, and that no conventional plane hit the south tower.

But I don't pretend to know exactly what happened or how exactly they did it.

I still think the FOIA filing would be useful, even if it doesn't prove anything.

3:39 PM  
Blogger StillDiggin said...

This reply was originally posted in response to Spooked's identical comment on my site, but for the sake of this discusssion's continuity, I'm posting it here as well.


Thanks for your tempered reply. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of my character flaws.

I also concede that just about everybody who has been at this has been at it longer than me.

I can't speak for everyone else, but the reason I get touchy is because the only thing I absolutely and positively KNOW is that no planes crashed into the World Trade Center.

It's like you having a son that you named Brian, and every time I come over to your house, I call him Dave.

You insist to me that you should know because you named him yourself, but I argue that he could still be Dave.

Should it matter if I'm older and I've met more kids than you have?

Even in your comment, you use the phrase "no conventional plane hit the south tower."

That statement is absolutely maddening to me. What is the logic behind an unconventional plane hitting the south tower?

Do you think planes crashed in Shanksville or at the Pentagon?

If you don't believe that planes crashed in Shanksville or at the Pentagon, then we have some extra hijackers to account for, don't we?

Or do we just mentally throw them on the other planes to balance it out?

But wait - the other planes may not be "conventional," so do they take passengers?

Intentionally or not, you are part of the reason why my position is so "extremely rare." You take your readers to the waters edge, and then you try to sell them Coke.

I don't take for granted that my audience believes everything I say either, but I know what I know - and I'm certainly not going to lie to them to make them feel better.

Take a second and read my Theresa Renaud or Richard Davis article (if you haven't yet). Ask yourself why these people are on the air, lying their asses off.

Ask yourself why all these fake videos with planes in them exist in the first place.

Ask yourself why they are using layered bluescreen on the NETWORKS.

It's just illogical to go through all that trouble to try to hide an "unconventional" plane.

You've either got planes or plane-shaped holes stuck in your brain that you need to purge if you're going to start making sense.

I have much more tolerance for people who just don't understand Newton's Third Law than I do for someone who can get past that part, and then start shooting blanks when it comes to the media being used as a weapon.

You've gone through all that trouble to get the kids to WallyWorld. All you have to do now is get past John Candy and get on the damn rides.

When you take that step, I'll be more than happy to put a link to your site in my right hand margin.

In fact, I look forward to that day.

As far as my comment about not being linked, I retract my complaint. And if you don't believe that what I'm saying is true, please remove me.

As far as the FOIA filing, it certainly can't hurt. But if we don't expose the media, we'll just be leaving the bullets in the gun for the next guy to use.

I'm all out of metaphors, similes, and analogies - so I guess I'm done.

Good luck breaking through the last bit of logic between your current perspective and the truth.


8:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SD, spooked has done nothing but reveal facts & oddities re 9/11 and then speculate endlessly about it all on this tireless blog.
you take umbrage with his having said "no conventional plane hit the south tower".
do you also take such umbrage with WF who has said that blob11 was "a flock of uavs of various sizes"?
that also sounds suspiciously similar to a "plane that is not conventional" to me.

Good luck breaking through the last bit of logic between your current perspective and the truth

hmmm. what exactly is spooked's current perspective? and what exactly is the truth? i'm pretty sure that he realizes that no-planes actually crashed anywhere on 9/11 and that TV fakery was employed against the american people in order to promote the "evil other guys" meme.

if he doesn't seem to hammer that point home often enough lately then maybe he is simply tired of sounding like a broken record, because in reality he has made that point repeatedly and tirelessly for a long time.

12:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

futhermore why don't you go tell your next door neighbors about no-planes and tv fakery etc and see what they have to say about it - tell every stranger that you meet and your co-workers etc.
that is what i do and even though 9 of 10 person's eyes glaze over at the very mention of the words "nine eleven" it is still a more effective technique for awaring the average john Q than blogging.
anyone who reads this blog or your blog for that matter is already well acquainted with no-planes/tv fakery and hardly needs either you or spooked to preach to the choir about it.

1:05 PM  
Blogger StillDiggin said...

I've told my neighbors. I've told my family members. I've told a few co-workers I trust. I've lost a couple of friends.

This past weekend, I engaged in a heated debate at my old frat house.

It's amazing how many engineers don't understand Newton's Third Law.

Spreading the word by every means possible is all we can do for now - until the truth becomes common knowledge. Yes, there are many "truths" - but I only care about one.

The most important truth about 9/11 is that the media created and showed us fake planes.

Their pictures and their words from that day until this day are why everyone is walking around in a falsified reality.

The last thing I want is for the perps to find a leg to stand on between Amateur Video Fakery and TV-Fakery/full blown media hoax.

In my opinion, there is no need to look at WTC1. I also don't care whether they used mini-nukes, directed energy weapons, or conventional explosives.

Others care, and I don't belittle them for that UNLESS they're also saying that the planes on TV were real.

Lawyers just moved up one notch in my books...

What do you call 100 journalists at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

If the only thing we disagree on here is language, I have nothing more to add to this discussion.

Take care,

2:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger