Amazing 3D picture: UAL175 approaching WTC 2

[William Seger]

One of the sites recently mentioned on this forum (http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/) analyzed many videos of flight UAL175 approaching WTC tower 2 (and concluded that they were all faked). There was also one digital still pictures which happened to be taken from about the same location as one of the videos.

Two pictures of the same scene taken from two slightly different angles happens to be the basis of "stereo" or 3D photography -- e.g. the antique stereoscope invented in the mid-1800s and the View-Master invented in the mid-1900s. Each eye sees a slightly different perspective of the scene, and our vision processing system interprets differences in angles for different objects as differences in distance.

I have taken those two pictures and, after a little resizing and cropping, run them through a great freeware program called StereoPhoto Maker. This program uses a slick algorithm (called SIFT) to identify common points in a poorly aligned "stereo pair" of pictures and do any necessary resizing, rotating, perspective adjustment, and horizontal and vertical shifting to make a properly aligned pair. Below are the very interesting results. This pair turns out to have a "hyper-stereo" effect, which is caused by the two cameras being farther apart than your eyes, which causes an exaggeration of the 3D effect. (Because of this exaggeration, hyper-stereos tend to look like pictures of small-scale models.)

First is a "left-right-left" set: The first and second form a "parallel view" pair, while the second and third form a "cross-eyed" pair. That is, the first/second pair can be viewed in 3D by relaxing your eyes as if looking far into the distance until the two images overlap. The second/third pair can be viewed by crossing your eyes as if looking at something close until the two images overlap. (Some people find this method easier if they look at their fingertip when placed about half-way between their eyes and the picture, and move it back and forth until the images beyond appear to be about overlapped, then shift their focus directly to the pictures.)



This second pair is a larger version of the parallel view, for any of you who happen to have a stereo viewer. (Stereo photography is a great hobby, by the way.)



And finally, here is a color anaglyph version that can be viewed with the red-and-cyan type of 3D glasses.



Now, here's the interesting thing: Whoever "faked" this pictures were so amazingly thorough that they also faked the stereo effect in this pair perfectly! The plane is seen to be beyond the foreground buildings and in front of the tower, and the plane's tail is closer to the cameras than the nose.

[mirandapriestly]

1. I'm not sure I get it

I do think the photos are fake and there is a gov't contractor that has software that allows photographers to "add" to the pictures simultaneously, I posted that in another thread, but I'm not sure I get what the last photo is doing. So is this an example of whatever took the picture didn't quite work right and that is why the images are separate (the left and right)?

[greyl]

3. That's WAY off. nt

[William Seger]

5. Nope

The pictures are from two slightly different locations because they were taken by two different cameras, and the perfect stereo effect of the buildings substantiates that. But the perfect stereo effect of the plane -- between the buildings and the tower, and tail pointed toward the cameras -- is very strong evidence that what we are seeing here is a genuine set of pictures of a 767 flying toward WTC2.

[mirandapriestly]

7. oh,.eom

[Nozebro]

6. Did you see the photos showing "the plane" in front of AND behind the

same building? I tried to copy the photos from the web site, but I couldn't do it. Maybe someone else can. If you go to the web site and scroll down a bit, you'll see what I'm referring to. Here's the description of the photos:

"The image below shows 2 frames taken from the CNN DVD. On the left we can see a foreground building with an antenna attached to its right hand side, while on the right we see the UA175 aircraft as it passes behind that foreground building.


Insert photos aqui.




In the right hand image notice that the foreground building antenna is in front of the port wing as we would expect, but also that the port wing is partially in front of the foreground building - which is not what we would expect. The wing should be behind the foreground building and not in front of it.

If the building and its antenna are in the foreground then how is it possible that the port wing can be in front of the building and behind the antenna at the same time?

What we have here is a technical impossibility for a real aircraft and a strong sign of video forgery. It looks as if the video has been composited from 3 layers - one layer with the UA 175 aircraft, a second layer with the foreground structures and a third layer with the WTC towers. The words that spring to mind here are 'blue screen keying', 'chroma keying', 'luma keying'...etc...etc... Perhaps this explains why the video is full of edge effects, color distortions, visual noise, ghosting effects, excessive compression artefacts, vertical streaks and many other visual aberrations - the video has probably been subject to a significant amount of manipulation which becomes evident under close examination.

Please note that the WTC1 smoke cloud in the background is animated and therefore in direct contradiction to claims from other 911 researchers who say the background is a static frame forming the backing for the animated UA175 aircraft:

[mirandapriestly]

8. Yes, EL FAKE-O.eom.

[Nozebro]

10. The evidence is substantial and the conclusion of fakery is solidly based.

If Flight 175 had actually struck WTC 2, there would be no need to fake anything, much less for faking so much.

[William Seger]

9. Yes, I did

I believe these are the relevant parts of the images you're referring to:


Hmmm... the wing is "partially in front of the foreground building." Very "partially," huh? I assume he means that slightly darker triangle that almost (but not quite) aligns with the wing's leading edge?

But one way to distinguish the difference between two photos is to overlay them and take the mathematical difference between the pixels. Here's the difference between the two photos:


Here's the same difference picture with histogram equalization, which brings out the differences more clearly:


Does it still look like the wing is "partially in front of the foreground building," or does it look like there are a lot of random differences between the images? Are you really willing to call this picture "unexplainable" based on the fact that a few of the random image flaws almost (but not quite) align with the wing's edge? (That was a rhetorical question; I suppose a more relevant question would be, why should I?)

This part is funny (to me, at least): "Perhaps this explains why the video is full of edge effects, color distortions, visual noise, ghosting effects, excessive compression artefacts (sic), vertical streaks and many other visual aberrations..." Yep, but not so much that ol' eagle-eye can't spot a wing "partially in front of the foreground building," huh?

[seatnineb]

12. CGI artists pay close attention to detail.

Check out the reflection of the metoerite on the monument in the WTC plaza as it streaks overhead(Armageddon -1998)



And the reflection of the plane in the windshield of the car on 9/11:

[Nozebro]

14. Those Naudet boys are so lucky, they should buy Lottery tix each week.

Has a histogram been done on any of their work?

[seatnineb]

15. Hmmmmmmm ...I wonder!

The Naudet's(2001):


Armageddon(1998)

[mirandapriestly]

22. good comparison

that window doesn't make sense, it's not facing the plane, though...

[William Seger]

31. The second picture is CGI?

I have no idea what the first picture is supposed to be, but the second picture is one that's mentioned in an article discussed under a different thread (about how all the UAL175 videos were "faked"): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=120076&mesg_id=120076

In that article, the author claimed: "The reflected aircraft is a perfect mirror image of the UA175 aircraft above." Well, since the reflection is shorter than the plane above, that would imply a convexly curved mirror, but other than that, so far so good.

Then he says, "What is puzzling is that the reflective surface appears to be vertical thus making it impossible to show a reflection of the events taking place above. In order for the reflections aloft to be seen by the video camera the reflective surface would have to be angled at around 35 degrees to 40 degrees from the horizontal plane as demonstrated by the yellow line in the graphic below."

From this, it seems the author is easily puzzled, and doesn't much question his own assumption that the "reflective surface appears to be vertical." Of course, you've given the explanation for this "unexplainable anomaly": it's a reflection in a car windshield.

But what you seem to be saying here is that you believe that the faking is so good that it must be CGI? Surely, I must be misunderstanding you.

[seatnineb]

33. Grossman for whatever reason did not know it was a windsheild.

But here is another shot from the same videographer(Evan Fairbanks):

You can see the car with the radio on the top.



This monument in the WTC plaza:



......was used for the film Armageddon(1998) which depicted metorites smashing into the WTC:



I was merely highlighting how the reflections on the monument ...of the meteorite.... were added by the CGI artists....implying how meticulouse they were with regards to detail.

[William Seger]

35. For whatever reason...

... Grossman seems to hang most of his arguments on unproven assumptions. The one he uses most often in his article is that his Flight Simulator model has the camera and the plane in exactly the same orientation as the video he's analyzing. If that that assumption is incorrect, then so is his analysis, but he never seems to appreciate the need to convince anyone that he's got it right. Another one that he uses several times is that the "port wing anomaly" can't be explained by wing flexing because the wings on a 767 don't flex that far on takeoff, and he apparently assumes that that's the most stress they could be under. Yet, when he's analyzing the speed of the plane, he marvels that it could be flown that fast in dense air without ripping the wings off. Another assumption is that every little detail he can find in the videos is significant if it supports his "unexplainable" conclusion, even though he otherwise seems to be aware of imaging flaws.

Anyway, I'm still wondering why you included that WTC pic as an example of CG artistry.

[seatnineb]

55. I am just sayin' anythin' is possible..............

Comprende amigo?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

53. Reflections and steroing are two different things.

For that to be a CGI fake would require an amazing amount of work and attention to detail, and would also require lots more conspiritors.

And what about the thousands of New Yorkers who actually watched it happen? They saw, with their own eyes, the plane hit. Are they all part of the great cover-up too? How many thousands would that be?

[seatnineb]

56. You don't say!!!!

In the words of OldSiouxWarrior:

For that to be a CGI fake would require an amazing amount of work and attention to detail, and would also require lots more conspiritors

No....you don't say!!!!!!!!

Like controlling 40-90 odd paasengers with box cutters and having the psychological and mental/emotional composure to kill yourself and fly head on into a building would be so much easier...get the fuck outta here!

In the words of OldSiouxWarrior:

And what about the thousands of New Yorkers who actually watched it happen? They saw, with their own eyes, the plane hit. Are they all part of the great cover-up too? How many thousands would that be?

Which 1000's?.....where are they?....or is it just one of your baseless supposition's?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

57. That's easy.

Like controlling 40-90 odd paasengers with box cutters and having the psychological and mental/emotional composure to kill yourself and fly head on into a building would be so much easier...get the fuck outta here!

Until after 9-11, the way everyone was taught in a hijacking was to co-operate with the hijackers. At that time, there had never been an instance of the passengers fighting back. Control would have been trivially easy. The passengers would have thought that they were about to take the usual detour to Cuba and it would not be worth getting killed over a detour.

Yes, a slash with a box cutter can be fatal. Against a stiff surface, like a cardboard box, the blade will only penetrate a to a small depth. But against flesh, which yield under the pressure, the blade can slice much deeper, and on a person's neck there are some vital areas that are rather close to the surface.

But as I already stated, until then, the training everybody had was to co-operate with hijackers. It is amazing how CTers so willingly forget that.

Regarding a suicide flight. I guess you never heard of WWII and Kamikazies. How about the suicide bombers that one frequently hears about in the Middle East? The USS Cole was hit by a suicide bomber, as have been several embassies.

It is amazing that you discount the witnesses. Everybody that could see the towers were watching them. New York is full of people who personally actually saw it. That you would try to claim there are none is a display of the depths of your delusion.

[seatnineb]

58. Rubbish............

In the words of OldSiouxWarrior:

But as I already stated, until then, the training everybody had was to co-operate with hijackers. It is amazing how CTers so willingly forget that.

Yeah...well it looks like Israeli counter terrorist expert Danny Lewin:



...... forgot that he had to cooperate!

FAA special agent agrees.

"With his background in special forces, he would have had more of a fighting instinct click into gear, rather than be herded around" or fooled by their cover, said the agent, who wished to go unnamed. "They probably killed him first because he was fighting back
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26676

Another fuck up for the bullshit official story you believe in.

As for suicide....under any circumstance.....killing yourself is one of the hardest if not the hardest thing any human can do.

We are told that not only did the hijackers have the ability to kill themselves........but they also had the physical ,mental and emotional composure aswell as aeronautical dexterity to fly a plane into a building......

Sorry...but that is fairy tale stuff.

In the words of OldSiouxWarrior

New York is full of people who personally actually saw it. That you would try to claim there are none is a display of the depths of your delusion.

Yeah New York is full of people who personally saw it......only some say they saw it...when they themselves earlier said they did not

How do I know.....I spoke to one of them:

Mon Jul-19-04 05:07 AM

Posted by Markses(to Seatnineb)

And I'll tell you this, friend: I saw a large passenger jet, almost certainly a 767, fly over my head at high speed and low altitude, and crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. With my own eyes I saw it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Now whilst I was speaking with Markses in July 2004 ....I never knew that this same Markses had already bragged about his 9/11 experience in another area of the labyrinth that is DU.....in March 2004 to another DU poster:

Thu Mar-04-04 05:10 AM

Posted by Markses(to unknown)

Just then, I saw a young black man, very close to me looking up at the sky. He said “Holy fuckin’ shit!” and his face was contorted and there was the unbelievable rush of noise and then the loud explosion and I’m certainly not talented enough to convey the timing of all this, very fast, seemingly all at once, but I remember it as a chronological sequence, though I don’t feel it that way. I pivoted right towards the sky, towards the loud explosion, and saw the fireball burst from the building – huge – and close: the first hit (“The First One”), North Tower (World Trade Center 1), downtown Manhattan, U.S.A.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Ain't you never heard of a witness who changes his testimony?...you have now.....BTW...Markses is now banned from DU.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

59. And the holes in that are:

FAA special agent agrees.

"With his background in special forces, he would have had more of a fighting instinct click into gear, rather than be herded around" or fooled by their cover, said the agent, who wished to go unnamed. "They probably killed him first because he was fighting back

Pure speculation. The fact remains that the training everybody had was to co-operate. If you doubt that, please name ONE instance of a pre-911 hijacking in which the hijackers were fought on the plane. You can't. And there were plenty of hijacking prior to 9-11, beginning in the early 1960's.

As for suicide....under any circumstance.....killing yourself is one of the hardest if not the hardest thing any human can do.

Agreed. Please note that there are lots of suicide bombers in the Middle East every year. Do you deny that?

We are told that not only did the hijackers have the ability to kill themselves........but they also had the physical ,mental and emotional composure as well as aeronautical dexterity to fly a plane into a building......

Have you ever heard of WWII Kamikazes? I guess not. After the Philippines campaign, where they were seen to be very effective, the Japanese started training men to be Kamikazes from the start of their flight training. The experienced pilots were too valuable as fighter pilots to use as Kamikazes, so new recruits were used. There was never a shortage of volunteers. They were not even taught to land the plane, as they were going to crash it anyway. Nor were they taught much else. Basic flying is actually fairly easy and hasn't changed since the first airplanes ever flew. Landing is tricky. The rigorous training that a modern pilot gets is for SAFE flying. But the hijackers weren't trying to be safe.

Oh well. I suppose that to you, the WWII Kamikazes are just a myth, made up by the military because they wanted a precedent that could latter be refereed to regarding suiciding with an aircraft. Yep, they were planning ahead for 9-11 way back in 1944. /sarcasm

BTW - Wasn't there some guy that tried to crash his plane into the White House during the Clinton administration? Must have been another myth?

Regarding Witness: You are trying to make your case on the basis on only ONE witness. I am claiming thousands who saw it and whose general testimony agrees. And there are the hundreds of pictures taken by people who had cameras available. All fakes?

I have to finish my doctoral thesis, so I will be absent for a while. Have fun.

[seatnineb]

61. You forgot one thing ...motive.....

1)

If we think of it in a war context.

Japanese kamikaze pilots tried to thwart the allied advance......towards the Phillippines and Japan.

So Japanese Kamikaze pilots tried to destroy(and did in many cases) Allied vessels.......to thwart that advance.......towards Japan and the Phillippines.....now in the end it did not work....but at least you could see what their motive was.......

But with regards to the 9/11 kamikaze pilots...........

Any damn fuckin' half wit would know that the U.S military would have responded to the 9/11 attack with gusto......that being the case ...how does destroying 2 militarily insignificant buildings,destroying a newly re-inforced wedge at the Pentagon and making an incision into an abandoned strip mine in Shanksville........stop the U.S miltary from retaliating with gusto?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

62. Motive? That's easy.

Same motive as the marine barracks, the Cole, the embassies. All of those were suicide attacks. The only thing different about this suicide attack was the method of the attack, and that it happened over here.

[seatnineb]

63. It is just as much a question of WHO they kill.

Japanese kamikaze pilots destroyed or tried to destroy a tangible threat to their side...i.e U.S ships and vessels....

The 9/11 hijackers killed 3000 odd innocent civillians....who posed no tangible threat to either the Alquida or the Taliban.....

The tangible threat to Alquida is the U.S military...which remained unscathed on 911....apart from a newly re-inforced wedge at the Pentagon and a host of mainly civilian workers at this same Pentagon.....

And true to form..the U.S miltary retaliation for 9/11 was a whitewash...both Afghnaistan and Iraq taken in little or over a month........which makes you wonder why a 9/11 hijacker would do 9/11.....knowing that it would give the U.S military the green light to retaliate at will.

[Nozebro]

64. Yes, if there HAD been any hijackings on 9/11, it's a good thing for the

hijackers that no one (crew or passengers) had the presence of mind to realize that they had a wide assortment of weapons they could have used to overtake any hijackers. Briefcases, purses, pillows,
blankets (that could be used to wrap shoes & other objects), seat cushions, bottles, etc.. Throwing a few of these "weapons" at a hijacker would distract the hijacker & make it possible to overtake him, and then HE would become the hostage & HIS boxcutter could be used against any other hijacker.

There seems no end to the amount of BS used by promoters of the absurd conspiracy theory that OBL and a few young men could have possibly done what we now know was an inside job on 9/11.

[LARED]

2. So if I understand, they are so amazing

it is unlikely they are faked.

[greyl]

4. Very interesting, thanks.

Amazing effect.

(Hezarkhani's picture could stand to be rotated clockwise about .2° ;))

[dailykoff]

11. Hilarious that all these shots were taken

from the exact same location, if not by the same camera.

Wasn't Carmen Taylor supposed to be standing on a moving ferry in the middle of the Hudson River, for instance?

No matter. The OCTAs believe what they want to believe, as usual.

[William Seger]

13. Another "don't get it"?

"Hilarious that all these shots were taken from the exact same location, if not by the same camera."

Well, no; we can say absolutely, positively that that isn't true. If they were taken from the "exact same location," there wouldn't be any stereo effect at all. That myth is busted -- sorry.

"Wasn't Carmen Taylor supposed to be standing on a moving ferry in the middle of the Hudson River, for instance?"

Really? And your point is...? So where is the video camera "supposed" to be? The stereo effect implies that it was somewhere between "a few" and "several" feet away. Is that another of those "impossibilities?"

"No matter. The OCTAs believe what they want to believe, as usual."

:eyes:

[dailykoff]

17. How do you think those stereoscope pictures are taken?

By two side-by-side cameras on the same tripod.

Not by one CNN camera at the scene and another a mile away on a boat, LOL.

[William Seger]

18. Once again

Once again: The amount of "hypering" implies that the cameras were at least a few feet apart, not on the same tripod, and probably not much more than "several" feet apart, definitely not a "mile away." Anyone who is familiar with stereo photography should be able to confirm that rough approximation, and it isn't possible to be more precise than that without knowing precisely how far away they were. If the digital still was taken from the Staten Island Ferry, say, then it certainly appears that the video was, too. If the video camera was "at the scene" then so was the digital camera.

You accuse others of believing only what they want to believe, but here you are pulling "facts" out of your butt in an attempt to dispute the obvious: that the pics give every appearance of simply haven been taken by two different people who happened to be standing somewhere near each other. That doesn't become either mysterious or impossible just because you would prefer not to believe what it implies: that the pics are real.

[dailykoff]

19. LOL, you just made my point!

Carmen Taylor was standing on a moving ferry. There was no CNN camera crew "a few feet apart" from her. I don't know what Hezarkhani's story is, but I'm sure it's equally preposterous.

These pictures were obviously taken at the exact same location, most likely by the same CNN camera, though conceivably by two different cameras in the same array.

[William Seger]

20. You're making a fool of yourself

"Carmen Taylor was standing on a moving ferry."

Actually, it seems she says she had boarded the Ellis Island Ferry at Battery Park, but it hadn't yet left the dock. Some of her other pictures taken at the same time, from a wider angle, appear to confirm that (as best I can judge using Google Earth with 3D buildings). It would appear that some "911 truth" sites have taken her statement that she was on the ferry and added to it the baseless assumption that the ferry was out in the middle of the river, then used that "fact" to support their own suppositions.

"There was no CNN camera crew 'a few feet apart' from her."

But you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for either the assertion that the video was shot by a CNN camera crew, or that whoever shot it wasn't somewhere near Taylor. In fact, if you actually watch that piece of the video, it doesn't appear to have been shot by a professional cameraman, nor does it appear to have been a professional quality camera. CNN apparently hasn't identified the precise source of the video other than the name Michael Hezarkhani. But for the purpose of this discussion, it really doesn't matter who shot the video; the point is that it was clearly shot from a point of view very near Taylor's pic, i.e. Battery Park. But that doesn't stop you from making a completely factless assertion that this just couldn't possible be.

Who is proving whose point here?

[dailykoff]

21. I'm not the one who overlooked the obvious.

You claim to have proven that the pictures were taken at the exact same location. Fine. If CNN or whoever's name is pasted on its footage was on the same boat as Carmen Taylor, please let us know.

:hi:

[mirandapriestly]

24. That is so obvious, I don't see what he's trying to prove.eom

[William Seger]

26. Obviously

"I don't see what he's trying to prove."

Yes, you admitted that in your first post, but I'll give it another (and probably last) shot.

The stereo effect in the two pictures show that they were taken by two cameras fairly close to each other. They were definitely not in the "exact same location" that dailykoff keeps talking about, or there wouldn't be any stereo effect, but if they weren't "fairly close" to having the same viewpoint, then they also wouldn't have the stereo effect or the effect would be very distorted.

If someone faked the pictures, then they also faked the stereo effect perfectly: The plane is right between the foreground buildings and WTC2, and it's pointed directly toward the tower rather than appearing to be at some strange angle. If someone just plopped a 767 image into a video and a digital pic that really were taken fairly close together (which would automatically have the stereo effect for the buildings, whether or not the fakers were aware of it), then they were thoughtful enough about it to also perfectly fake, not just the stereo effect, but the "hyper" stereo effect that comes from having the cameras much farther apart than a pair of human eyes, rather than simply placing the plane so that it appeared in the same place relative to the tower (which would make it appear to be flat against the tower when viewed in stereo).

That's what the above pics prove, whether or not you and dailkoff understand it. Sure, it's possible to fake the stereo effect, too. But then these clever fakers neglected to get one of their stooges in the media to pretend to discover this very convincing stereo effect, so they never got proper credit for this amazing attention to detail. Yet according to CTers, the same people who were so careful about this hyper-stereo effect were so sloppy about other details that people who clearly don't know much at all about video, cameras, and photography in general are easily able to spot glaring error after glaring error in every single video of a 767 approaching WTC2.

I hope this clears up what's been proved, but I'm not very hopeful that you or dailykoff are convinced that this is good evidence that the pictures are real. But, that's okay; that was never the intent of posting it.

[dailykoff]

27. Sorry to spoil your amazing "discovery," LOL.

p.s. funny how you know so much about Carmen Taylor's story, but pretended not to when I first brought it up.

[William Seger]

28. ??? What are you apologizing for?

Maybe you forgot to hit the "Post message" button on your "spoiler"? Please try to post it again; I'd love to read it.

But you finally caught me, you clever rascal! Since it's obviously impossible that I could Google up Taylor's own version of where she was, I must be part of the conspiracy! There goes my promotion!

[Make7]

36. Tonight on 'It's the Mind', we examine the phenomenon of déjà vu.

That strange feeling we sometimes get that we've lived through something before, that what is happening now has already happened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=74959#75849

I have this terrible feeling of déjà vu..

- Make7

[William Seger]

40. Oh, man! This is the most amazing stereo pair I've ever seen!

Here's that pair as a left-right-left set for parallel or cross-eyed viewing:



Here's the larger parallel pair (viewer probably required unless you've VERY good at freeviewing):



And here's the anaglyph for red-and-cyan colored glasses:



Not having the foreground buildings reduces the 3D appearance somewhat, but it's definitely there. Either these pictures were taken by two different cameras, a few feet apart, or the forgers were far, far more sophisticated than even CTers give them credit for. (Except, that is, when they're banging on the forgers for "obvious errors.")

Seeing this image in 3D literally sends chills down my spine. I think this, plus the first pair, definitely deserve to be on the General Discussion forum.

[AZCat]

44. I was straining to see the II or X-eyed image...

for about ten minutes, until I remembered that an old roommate had left some colored plastic wrap with me. I checked and found both "Crystal Blue" and "Crystal Rose" colors in the drawer. (who uses colored plastic wrap, anyway?) I made myself a pair of "poor man's 3-D glasses" and finally could see the image!

Thanks for this - eerie as it might be to see this in 3-D, it still is amazing.

[William Seger]

46. Try this one...

The red/cyan (blue-green) analglyphs make a "color" 3D picture (although the color is not really very good). Here's an analglyph made for the red/blue type glasses, using a gray-scale version of the pic:

[William Seger]

25. Obviously

Oh, okay, I get it now. Since it's obviously impossible that anyone in the general vacinity of the Ellis Island Ferry dock had a video camera, we can safely conclude that both pics are fake, and that no 767 hit WTC2...

Oh well, I suppose it must be this superior grasp of the obvious that separates CTers from us ordinary mortals.

:eyes:

[mirandapriestly]

23. excellent points dailykoff.eom

[LARED]

29. Not really

more like the typical distractions from the facts.

[William Seger]

30. Maybe you can throw dailykoff a lifeline

Dailykoff and I seem to be having problems communicating our points to each other. Please summarize these "excellent points" that you've found, and let's see if they hold water.

[dailykoff]

32. Thanks, but thine is the greater need.

If you get my drift. :evilgrin:

[William Seger]

34. Well, then, let's recap these "excellent points" shall we?

1. Carmen Taylor was standing on a moving ferry.

Not moving, according to Taylor, but the fact that she was on a ferry is completely irrelevant, whether it was moving or docked.

2. There was no CNN camera crew "a few feet apart" from her.

Absolutely no factual basis for asserting that, but it's also irrelevant since there's no good reason to assume the video was shot by a CNN camera crew, or even a professional cameraman, for that matter. The only issue is your claim that it's completely impossible that anyone near Taylor had what appears to be an ordinary consumer video camera.

3. I don't know what Hezarkhani's story is, but I'm sure it's equally preposterous.

That's equivalent to admitting that facts have nothing to do with your argument. No surprise, but somewhat short of an "excellent point" don't you think?

4. These pictures were obviously taken at the exact same location, most likely by the same CNN camera...

Now you're asserting "obvious" facts that the pictures themselves disprove. No, that's about as far away from the "most likely" explanation as you can get; it's completely impossible. First, it's completely impossible to shoot a hyper-stereo pic like that from "the exact same location." You have to have two cameras at least a few feet apart, or if you only have one camera, you have to take a shot, move over at least a few feet, then take another shot. But we can be sure that the single-camera method wasn't used because the smoke is identical in both shots (and it's also seen in stereo so it wasn't just duplicated from the same shot). Furthermore, the huge difference in resolution strongly implies that they weren't anywhere near being the same type of camera, either: The pic from the video is lower resolution even though it's nearly the full original frame, while the other pic has much better resolution even though it's just a cropped section from a much larger photo. If you believe there's any video camera that has that kind of resolution, please show me one. If you've got any rational reason for believing that these pictures were not shot at exactly the same time, from two different positions and two different cameras, please present it. Just throwing up bullshit assertions ain't gonna cut it.

5. ...though conceivably by two different cameras in the same array.

Not "conceivably" two different cameras -- definitely two different cameras (see above). But please show me an example of this "array" that places a video camera and a digital still camera several few feet apart, and maybe we can determine if it could have possibly been used to shoot this hyper-stereo view. I've never seen or heard of one of those, so it would be very interesting. (It would also be interesting to know what it's used for, since I can't think of any reason why someone would use such a contraption, but I'll be satisfied if you can just prove that such a thing exists.)

So, can I get you to stop giggling long enough to attempt supporting these "excellent points" you've made, or will you just continue to pretend that you haven't embarrassed yourself in this thread?

[whistle]

38. Well more specifically, a special stereoscopic lens camera

...although now that digital still cameras have become compact one could rig something up to work I suppose. But, true stereo is not possible with a single image even if shot a fraction of a second apart, <i.e. two different frames of a motion image>


http://www.scec.org/geowall/camhardware.html

http://www.ledametrix.com/

http://www.mottweilerstudio.com/html/cameras/camera_8.html

http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Stereo-Cameras.html

On edit, this was the link I was looking for to show that even 21st century digital requires a pair of lens

http://www.21stcentury3d.com/press/pr-060117-3dvx3.html

[William Seger]

41. No, you're not understanding how stereo photography works.

Stereo photography is simple two images of the same scene taken from two slightly different locations. If you want the stereo pair to be perfectly synchronized, then yes, you either need a single camera with synchronized shutters or a pair of digital cameras with either the shutter triggers wired together or an external electronic synchronizer. However, perfect synchronization is definitely not required for stereo photography; the amount of synchronization required depends on the subject matter, and on how good a stereo pair you would like to have. I've taken many hundreds of stereo pictures with a single camera using the "cha-cha method." (Google it; it means you take a picture while standing on one foot, then switch to the other and take another picture.) It can also be done with a single camera on a slide-bar, mounted on a tripod, that allows the camera to be moved a few inches between shots. Those methods work fine for still-lifes and scenic photos where nothing is moving. If anything is moving, however, then you need synchronization, and the faster things are moving, then the better synchronization you need. I have a stereo camera that I made by putting together two cheap digital cameras that just uses a push-rod to activate the shutter buttons at (almost) the same time. It works okay if there's no (or only a little) motion in the scene, but the synchronization is not good enough for, say, a waterfall or a moving car. It still "works" but any moving objects will not look correct in the stereo view. (I've also just bought a vintage 35mm stereo camera on eBay, which does have two lenses, but I've been taking stereo pics for many years without one.)

And anyway, a camera with two lenses could not take a stereo pair like this one (and the other one that I just posted above), because the separation is too great. Two-lens cameras have the lenses about 2-1/2 inches apart, the same as a normal pair of eyes, for a "natural" view. This is a "hyper" stereo view, which can only be done with two cameras, perfectly synchronized or not, or with a single camera moved between the shots (definitely not the case with these pics).

The key with this particular stereo pair is that one pic is a digital still, while the other is from a video. From the video, we can pick the frame that is most closely synchronized with the still pic. NTSC video is 60 fields per second, so we should be able to find a frame that was taken within 1/120th second of the still, worst case. I really don't know if the frame that I've used is really the closest possible frame, but in this particular case it makes very little difference. Judging by the smoke, it is close enough to produce a good stereo pair, and the effect of taking a frame or two either before or after this one would have the effect of making the plane appear to be either slightly closer to or farther away from the tower. The calculated speed of the 767 would amount to about 8 feet per video field, which would make very little difference in the stereo effect of this particular picture.

You don't have to take my word for any of this; there is a lot of info on the Web about stereo photography.

[whistle]

65. Very interesting, so given this degree of effect and the validity

...of the technique, the conclusion you have drawn is what exactly from the simulated 3D image produced? Are you saying that the images could not have been based on an actual plane flying into the building as it appears on all of the images taken because of the anomalies when viewed as a 3D imposed image? In other words, the images were manufactured?

[William Seger]

66. What anomalies?

Have you read the thread? I don't see any evidence that it's a "simulated" image. When the two photos are aligned for stereo viewing, the plane appears to be right between the foreground buildings and the tower, and the body of the plane appears to be pointed in the direction it's headed (whereas the plane would look flat if it was just the same plane image duplicated into each photo).

I take the perfect 3D effect as pretty strong evidence that the photos are genuine -- that we're simply seeing the same scene from two different cameras.

[Ferry Fey]

67. Taking your own 3D if you have a regular camera in an emergency

I am not going to get in the middle of this fight, as I do not have time to look at the images.

I'd just like to suggest that if any of you have a camera of any sort, from disposable film camera to pricy digital,
and are witnessing history in the making, it might be helpful if you tried to make some impromptu stereo shots yourself.

Shift your weight to one side, take a picture, then shift your weight to your other foot. Try to keep the camera at the same height. For a standard stero image, you'll be trying for a 2.5 inch distance between the pictures, the same separation between the pupils of your eyes. Try to do it quickly enough that the scene in front of you has not changed.

A stereo image can give more information than a single image. In these times of confusion and villainy, it might make a big difference in terms of finding the truth.

[FogerRox]

16. Thank you William, very interesting post, worthy of a recommendation

Only its the basement.................

[whistle]

37. Are these 3-D photos synthesized or taken with a stereoscopic lens pair

[FogerRox]

39. Seems from the OP that the author found 2 pics, taken close together

not Stereoscopic.

[dailykoff]

42. He also digitally manipulated them to add the stereo effect,

which makes his "discovery" completely bogus. From the OP:

I have taken those two pictures and, after a little resizing and cropping, run them through a great freeware program called StereoPhoto Maker. This program uses a slick algorithm (called SIFT) to identify common points in a poorly aligned "stereo pair" of pictures and do any necessary resizing, rotating, perspective adjustment, and horizontal and vertical shifting to make a properly aligned pair.

In other words, the only discovery here is that Carmen Tayolor's miraculous still shots are really just enhanced frames of CNN video, a fact that has been pointed out here many times.

Why do OCTAs always assume everyone is gullible? :shrug:

[Make7]

43. "This must be an act...

no one could be so dense."¹

- Make7


1- From a reply to one of your posts by hack89. Seems to sum it up rather well. Although I would like to add that it is possible that his statement is incorrect.

Additional note: Your response to him was: "nice to see you finally got it."

[OldSiouxWarrior]

45. No, the program bring out the stereo information that is already there.

I will explain it so that even a CT should be able to understand.

Take a picture of a subject that is moderately far away, say about a quarter of a mile. Walk a few feet to one side. Take another picture of the same subject. Those two pictures will each have a different perspective. If you put the pictures in a stereo viewer, you will be able to see the scene in 3-D. Or you can put the two pictures throught this program, and it will render a red/blue 3-D pictures. But it can only do that if the pictures already have the stereo info in them.

If the pictures had been digitally faxed to begin with, there would have been no 3-D image to have been brought out.

However, this will not convince you, for since you are a dedicated CTer, math and science mean nothing to you. You must cling to the delusion of your CT just the way a Creationist insists that evolution is bunk and the earth was created only about 6,000 years ago.

[William Seger]

47. Exactly right

I ran the pair through StereoPhoto Maker because it has an automatic alignment function, which just does the same thing you can do manually if you have the patience. Anyone who doubts that can simply take the pics into a graphics program and get them to be about the same size, and with the same horizontal and vertical alignment of corresponding points. Bingo, stereo pair, because the perspective information is in the pics. The "perspective" correction that I mentioned that SPM will automatically do is simply a correction for what's called "keystone" distortion, which happens if the cameras lenses weren't exactly parallel when the two pictures were taken. It doesn't actually change the perspective of the images; it just stretches or compresses the sides of the images so that corresponding parts are the same size in the two images. Without that correction, the 3D effect is still there; it just causes a eye-strain because your brain is trying to get your eyes to compensate for it.

Poor dailykoff is not having much "luck" in this thread. But, that's what happens when you get in over your head and don't know when to shut up.

[FogerRox]

49. sure.....

SO If I send you a pic, you can make it into 2 pics, that are stereo? SHow me......

[OldSiouxWarrior]

51. No. Are you deliberately misunderstanding?

You start with two pictures of the same subject that were taken a few feet apart. He clearly stated that in his OP.

You are able to see in 3-D because you have two eyes. Close one eye and you loose depth perception. But with both eyes open, your brain gets two pictures and combines them to form a 3-D image. The program he is talking about does the same when it has two pictures of the same object, each picture taken a few feet apart from the other.

[William Seger]

48. Neither, actually

It's just a pair of pictures of the same scene, taken with two cameras at slightly different locations. That's "real" 3D, not synthesized, but you don't necessarily need a stereo camera to take stereo photographs. Please see post #41.

[dailykoff]

50. This thread is so bogus on so many levels it's a little scary.

a) WHAT stereo effect? This is something obvious only to OCTAs.

b) Yes, there's software that can split single images into passable stereo images. How do you think they make 3-D cartoons?

c) If there actually was a stereo effect, what would it prove, apart from the fact that Carmen Taylor is lying, which is already pretty obvious?

d) etc. etc. etc.

I now leave my OCTA friends to their alchemical labors. :hi:

[OldSiouxWarrior]

52. No, it is CTers who are bogus.

a) WHAT stereo effect? This is something obvious only to OCTAs.

Put on a pair of red/blue glasses and look at the picture.

b) Yes, there's software that can split single images into passable stereo images. How do you think they make 3-D cartoons?

As usual for a CTer, you have it exactly backwards. He found two pictures, taken close to each other, and used the program to bring out the 3-D information in them.

The 3-D cartoons statement is silly. Cartoons are fairly simple drawings, not complex real objects.

c) If there actually was a stereo effect, what would it prove, apart from the fact that Carmen Taylor is lying, which is already pretty obvious?

It proves that the photos aren't faked.

I have noticed that anytime a CTer is presented with testimony that they don't like, they claim that the person is lying.

Were the thousands in NYC who personally saw the a plane fly into the second tower ALL lying as part of the grand conspiracy?

[FogerRox]

54. Let me catch up

CT is Conspiracy Theory, right, but what is OCTA?

[William Seger]

60. Factless Fosdick

It was probably before your time, but Fearless Fosdick was a comic strip within a comic strip; Li'l Abner's "ideel" he-man detective, but it was really a parody of Dick Tracy. Fosdick tried hard to be a good detective, but he had a bad habit of shooting innocent onlookers while the bad guys got away. Logic wasn't his strong suit either; he would do things like shooting everyone he saw who was opening a can of a particular brand of beans because he thought one can was poisoned. He once solved a crime where someone who had been sitting in a chair in a locked room was thrown out a window, by deducing that the chair had to be the culprit -- and the chair got the chair for it. But one amazing attribute Fosdick had was the ability to withstand a hail of bullets and walk away looking like a piece of Swiss cheese, but apparently unrattled in the least.

Not wishing to violate trademark rights, I hereby present to you the Factless Fosdick Award of the month, for outstanding contributions to the "9/11 truth movement."