No Motion Blur-- Simplest Proof of Video Fakery Yet
I think this simple proof captures something we intuitively knew for a long time-- the images of "UA175" were far too crisp for the apparent speed. It has to be animation.
Via this interesting conversation between Alan Weisbecker and Jim Fetzer-- which is mostly about the JFK assassination and talks a lot about Zapruder film fakery. The 9/11 video fakery only comes in during the last 30 minutes.
Fetzer always cracks me up. He's such a smart guy in some ways, but such a doofus in other ways, such as paying far too much credence to 2nd hit witnesses. He admits there was no real plane but wants to hold onto a hologram theory because of the witnesses. Weisbecker makes the good point that the 2nd hit videos are a completely separate issue of what 2nd hit witnesses saw.
posted by spooked at 10:33 AM
3 Comments:
""the 2nd hit videos are a completely separate issue of what 2nd hit witnesses saw.""
the various 2nd hit vids showed various animations of images of planes that were one and all defying the laws of physics.
stanley prainmath was a "witness" - he claimed that ua175 hit the very office that he occupied, and he survived by hiding under his magic desk.
witnesses who actually saw something else (or no plane at all)were of course ignored.
Stanley Prainmath and his amazing desk--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPvu0lQCu20
oh another 'witness' to the supposed 2nd hit was the president of CNN. what are the odds?
Post a Comment
<< Home