Thursday, 28 July 2016

Simon Shack’s ‘Amateur’ Effort of Video Fakery


By Mark Conlon 15th Nov 2015
 
 
In this analysis I will clearly demonstrate how Simon Shack attempts to mislead viewers with claims of evidence of video fakery in the Naudet video. In Part 2 of his video ‘9/11 Amateur’ he claims that the ‘Naudet’ video footage which captures Flight 11 impacting the North Tower contains evidence that photo-shopping had been used to create a (black gash) in the North Tower to increase the plane’s wing size  15 seconds after the plane’s impact into the building. Shack claims this was done because the hole in the building was only 130 feet across the building, when the boeing plane should have measured 160 feet across the building, thus according to Shack needed correcting by photo-shopping the video with a ‘black gash’.


See still image below taken Simon Shack’s video:

 
While I agree that the ‘black gash’ wasn’t there in the video footage after 6 seconds and the ‘black gash’ starts to appear from 12 seconds onwards after the impact of the plane, I do NOT agree with Shack’s theory that it was created by someone using photo-shop or was created to increase the size of the plane shape hole in the building.
 
 
Please see the two pictures below taken from Shack’s video, where he claims photo-shopping was done to fix the problem of the plane hole size from 130 feet to 160 feet.







 
Shack proceeds in his video to ask the question; “Can we verify that this black tip has been painted in?” Which Shack answers “Yes, we can”.

See the two images below:






Shack then proceeds in his video by comparing another piece of 9/11 video footage taken 11 minutes after the impact of Flight 11 without any appearance of any ‘black gash’ to prove his theory that the ‘black gash’ had indeed been painted in using photo-shop, thus demonstrating video fakery in the Naudet video footage.

See the two image below:





While I agree with Shack that there is NO appearance of any ‘black gash’ in the 9/11 video footage 11 minutes later he uses above, questions started to arise for me as to why he has used a piece of 9/11 video footage 11 minutes after the plane’s impact into the North Tower as a comparison to prove his theory? This prompted me to look closer and conduct some research of my own. I found it strange as to why he has used a comparison with 11 minutes difference? The answer became clear!

I managed to find two pictures which were taken 15 seconds after the first impact on the North Tower. In both pictures below the ‘Black Gash’ can be clearly seen, just as it can in the Naudet video footage.
 





I was also able to find and analyse a video below taken by Jim Huibregtse who started videoing approximately 15 to 19 seconds after the first plane’s impact and at approximately the same time as the still images above.
 




Again the ‘black gash’ can be clearly seen in the video still images above. But what does the video reveal when we continue to watch?








As you continue to watch the video we can observe the ‘black gash’ which is fumes which start to dissipate as the video progresses. We are clearly observing black fumes escaping from a broken window, which change in colour to a grey/white colour fumes, which eventually dissipate completely.

Please view the Jim Huibregtse video below to observe the (‘Black Gash’ as Simon Shack named it) black fumes turning to grey/white fumes which are originating from the broken window.
              

                                                                               
In Conclusion:

The question now has to be asked: Why did Simon Shack use a video which was 11 minutes later after the plane’s impact to claim that ‘video fakery’ was used in the Naudet 9/11 video footage of the first plane impacting the building?
 
From my analysis above Simon Shack’s evidence for ‘video fakery’ is clearly very deceptive and very misleading for viewers. Again the message is legitimate explanations can explain the ‘black gash’ in the Naudet 9/11 footage which clearly had nothing to do with 'video fakery' as Simon Shack maintains.  

This case is now closed...






Wednesday, 27 July 2016

Markus Allen's Disappearing Buildings on 9/11


By Mark Conlon: 8th July 2014

 
Please also see related articles:

·         Disinformation in Flight 175 Rare Video (Posted Sep 11 2013)

·         Flight 175 and The Truth about 'The Truth in 7 Minutes' in FIVE Minutes

 
This is the third analysis that I have conducted into claims made by Markus Allen in relation to a historical video taken by Michael Hezarkhani on September 11th 2001, whereby Michael Hezarkhani captured video footage of ‘Flight 175’ hitting the South Tower.

To my disbelief Markus Allen has yet another claim about the Michael Hezarkhani video. He now claims that the surrounding buildings are missing from the Michael Hezarkhani video footage. At first glance the claim can seem quite convincing and credible, especially if you are not as familiar with the evidence he provides to prove his claim. (Luckily I’m very familiar with the videos and photographical evidence of 'Flight 175').

Below is a screen shot from his website:


To advance his new claim Markus Allen provides a ‘snap shot’ (or single frame) from the Michael Hezarkhani video to convince people that the buildings are missing from the video, thus proving 'video fakery' in Markus Allen's opinion, which seems to be the on-going agenda regarding the Michael Hezarkhani video. In my analysis I will demonstrate some of the inaccurate observations made by Markus Allen or at worst suggest a deliberate attempt to distort video evidence, to forward his own agenda to promote video fakery.

The ‘snap-shot’ below is a single frame taken from the Michael Hezarkhani video, which Markus Allen uses on his website to claim that buildings are missing from the Michael Hezarkhani video footage.



Let’s take a closer look at Markus Allen’s claims, by studying all the available evidence, and not just a deceptive and selective single snap-shot taken from the Michael Hezarkhani video footage.
 
To understand which buildings Markus Allen believes are missing from the Michael Hezarkhani video, I will use some comparison pictures which point out the two buildings in more detail, so we can gain a better understanding of the two buildings and their locations.

See the comparison pictures below:
 


    
In the comparison pictures above I've pointed out the main two buildings in question so we can gain a better understanding of their locations, so we can locate them in the Michael Hezarkhani video.
 
Below I've used a comparison picture compared to a later 'zoomed out' shot in the Michael Hezarkhani raw version video. Clearly the two buildings I've pointed out in the comparison picture are also visible in the Michael Hezarkhani raw version video picture.
 

    

Note: If you want to view the Michael Hezarkhani  video I'm using in this article please follow this link: https://youtu.be/ZsP-Gt52P2A
 
Below I'm using an identical snap-shot from the Michael Hezarkhani raw version video, which is at the same moment in time as Markus Allen's snap-shot video picture. I've pointed out the buildings in question in Michael Hezarkhani's raw video version, which Markus Allen claims are "MISSING"
 

 

See Markus Allen's snap-shot below:



Several problems and anomalies arise when we view these two pictures together
 
 
Below I've highlighted the cropped areas using red lines which I've inserted on to the Michael Hezarkhani raw version video below to help highlight the cropped areas on Markus Allen's snap-shot video picture, which can clearly be seen when compared to the Michael Hezarkhani raw version video picture.

 
The explosion in the Markus Allen picture seems to be cut off at the top of the explosion, whereas in the Michael Hezarkhani raw version video picture the explosion can be seen in full. The same problem happens with the bottom of the Markus Allen picture, where the buildings have been cut off and cannot be seen? Yet in the Michael Hezarkhani raw version video picture that I’ve used, the buildings in question can be seen underneath the South Tower, along with the other buildings on the right hand side of picture, which have also been cut off in the Markus Allen picture. What does this suggest?
 
This could suggest that Markus Allen’s video snap-shot picture has either been cropped to remove the buildings or another possible explanation is the aspect ratio that the video has been previously recorded in or uploaded to, is incorrect, which could suggest why it has been inadvertently cut-off at the top, bottom and right hand side of the video picture. This explanation does have some problems though, as both sides should have been altered when the aspect ratio is incorrect. This is NOT so in the Markus Allen snap-shot video picture, as only the top, bottom and right hand side are altered, as the left hand side is displaying normally and unaltered. The question has to be asked, has Markus Allen's video picture snap-shot been deliberately cropped? And if so WHY?
In my analysis below there does appear to be evidence of a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the two buildings location, as the red arrow does NOT point to the real location area of the two buildings that Markus Allen claims are MISSING? I've corrected the area on the picture below with two red arrows where the real location of the two buildings are. The picture analysis below also suggests evidence that three sides of the video picture used by Markus Allen have been cropped out. Does this suggest another attempt to deliberately mislead the viewer?
 

  


Picture above: shows the frame of reference of Markus Allen's snap-shot when overlaid on top of the Michael Hezarkhani raw version video picture, which demonstrates the cropping of the video to remove the buildings from the video picture.
 
We can only assume from Markus Allen's previous attempts of disinformation regarding the Michael Hezarkhani video (which my other two previous analysis/studies disproved), that he continues with his on-going effort to discredit the Michael Hezarkhani's video evidence as fake. He continues to perpetuated and facilitate the circulation and recirculation of his inaccurate material about the Michael Hezarkhani Flight 175 video widely across the inte.co.uk, not only on his own website, but also on other people's websites who are unknowingly spreading disinformation. Markus Allen is knowingly spreading disinformation, and yes I use the word "knowingly" as he is quite happy to leave his 'Flight 175 (rare video)' on his YouTube Channel when he knows that there is inaccurate and misleading information contained in his video, which has been promoted across the inte.co.uk. This is why the situation regarding Markus Allen appears to be another sinister attempt to discredit the Michael Hezarkhani 'Flight 175' video as fake.
 
CONCLUSION

The buildings can be clearly identified in the Michael Hezarkhani video footage below.


 
Clearly yet again Markus Allen has committed a “WHOPPING ERROR” regarding the missing buildings in the Michael Hezarkhani video footage. From previous history regarding Markus Allen’s research in this area of this historic video, he continues to promote lies and spread falsehoods, which he is more than happy to do, for which he has clearly been exposed past and present. 

 
This case is CLOSED!



 
 

Flight 175 and The Truth about 'The Truth in 7 Minutes' in FIVE Minutes


Mark Conlon - 25 Jan 2014

 
Short Introduction and note by Andrew Johnson [ADJ]

Below, Mark has carefully documented some further errors made by Markus Allen in a recent response to another error he made in an earlier video. The thrust of what Markus Allen appears to be trying to say is that “the videos of Flight 175 crashing into the WTC are fake”. This, of course, has been a topic much discussed on 9/11 “truth” websites. I have come to the conclusion, partly because of what I have covered in this article, that there has been a deliberate attempt to promote the 911 video fakery position in order to obscure or cover up the knowledge of the use of some type of image projection technology, which was used to create a very powerful illusion of plane crashes (for those chuckling about this idea, simply try and account for the physical evidence that plane wings cannot cut through steel box-girders and also account for the fact that some witnesses did not see or hear any planes at the WTC site, whilst others did).

 
This is an article following on from Markus Allen’s ‘Fight 175 (Rare Video)’ You-tube video, where Markus Allen has now acknowledged his “error” about the building location, which he misrepresented in his You-tube video, alleging that ‘Flight 175’s’ wing passed behind the building. Markus Allen claimed this shouldn’t have happened because the buildings in question were behind the South Tower, which was proof of ‘video fakery’. Now that we have sorted out this ‘error’ by Mr Allen regarding the building location and the fact that ‘Flight 175’s’ wing should’ve passed behind the building, this should put the matter to rest. Well NO, in fact it has opened the door for yet another theory by Markus Allen, that Michael Hezarkhani’s video location is impossible? Hmmm.

Below is Markus Allen’s acknowledgement of his error regarding the building location and also his new theory about Michael Hezarkhani’s impossible video location?

He writes:
 
"Many commenters on this video have (rightly) pointed out that this video has a whopper of an error"

"The two buildings that appear look like they're next to (or even behind) the Twin Towers, but in reality, these buildings (at both 17 Battery Place and 28 Washington Street) are indeed WAY in front of the viewing area as we see in this view from Battery Park"

 

"Also, the perspective of the view makes those two buildings appear to be taller than the Twin Towers (even though they're less than half the height)"

"In addition, coming out of the Battery Tunnel (next to Battery Park where this video is alleged to have been taken) looks nothing like what is shown in this video… you'd have to be in the middle of a bunch of trees in the park. It's an impossible shot from on the ground".


Screen-shots taken from Markus Allen's web-page below:


 


Analysis of Markus Allen’s New Theory of Impossible Hezarkhani Location:

Markus now claims that Michael Hezarkhani’s video location cannot be correct or achieved. He also incorrectly states that Michael Hezarkhani was coming out of the Battery Tunnel when he videoed his historic video of ‘Flight 175’ hitting the South Tower. Michael Hezarkhani has never disclosed his location where he took his video from. It is speculated that Mr. Hezarkhani took his video from the ferry.

Michael Hezarkhani happened to be in close proximity to Carmen Taylor who also captured ‘Flight 175’ with her camera. Carmen was stationed on a ferry, which she spoke about during a telephone conversation with Jeff Hill [1,2].

Here’s a comparison of Carmen Taylor’s Photograph and Michael Hezarkhani’s video below.


Carmen Taylor’s Photograph


Michael Hezarkhani Video

 

 

Carmen Taylor and Michael Herarkhani were in close proximity of each other when they captured ‘Flight 175’ hitting the South Tower.

[ADJ notes, some people have pointed out the strange correspondence between these two images – and the fact that in each image, the plane shows no appreciable motion blur. However, if what was moving was actually some type of image projection, not a physical object, we can imagine that any motion blur might be absent – this is speculation, of course…]


Let’s take a closer look at the photograph that Markus Allen has used to prove impossible location of Michael Hezarkhani’s video.
 

 


Carmen Taylor was located on the top deck of the Ellis Island/Statue of Liberty ferry when she took her pictures. This is why unless Markus is using a picture from the location on the ferry you will not capture the location correctly. It is believed that Mr. Hezarkhani was stationed on the ferry along with Carmen Taylor.

 


Unknown: Picture from ferry below:
 
 
Here’s another comparison of a video from 1997 below:
View the Rinaldi v Hezarkhani video here: https://youtu.be/mEqjh3ojk-k
 

Let’s deal with Markus Allen’s other claim about the ‘height’ of the ‘Twin Towers’ against the other building in the fore-ground.
 
Markus Allen said:
"Also, the perspective of the view makes those two buildings appear to be taller than the Twin Towers (even though they're less than half the height)"
"In addition, coming out of the Battery Tunnel (next to Battery Park where this video is alleged to have been taken) looks nothing like what is shown in this video… you'd have to be in the middle of a bunch of trees in the park. It's an impossible shot from on the ground".
 
 

 

Carmen Taylor took several photographs from different distances from the twin towers which we can use below to see how the size of the twin towers look compared to the buildings in the foreground, see comparisons below:
 


 
The following photo below was taken by Eeney Minnie Moe in 2007 from approximately the same position taken from about the middle of the top deck.  (Follow the link below for sourced research to this analysis of the Eeney Minnie Moe photograph).
 
 

For comparison, here is a frame from the Hezarkhani video:
 


Judging by the buildings, Taylor and Hezarkhani were both a little to the right of this position (so the trees are not seen from exactly the same angle), and a little farther back. (This would make the trees appear somewhat shorter relative to the buildings, and of course the trees have had six years of additional growth since 2001). I believe this indicates that Eeney Minnie Moe's ferry was probably at the same dock as the Taylor/Hezarkhani ferry, but they were both farther toward the stern and farther back from the railing.

(Carmen Taylor’s 4 photographs) comparisons to the (Eeney Minnie Moe 2007 photo)

 
(Eeney Minnie Moe photo 2007)
 

It seems that the location where Mr Hezarkhani recorded his historic footage of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower was the top deck of the Ellis Island/Statue of Liberty ferry. He was in close proximity to Carmen Taylor who also photographed her historic picture of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower.

*Important Updates* 24/02/2017

Even more evidence proving that Michael Hezarkhani was stationed on the top deck of a ferry boat, where he videoed 'Flight 175' impacting the South Tower. See video below:

 
 
Below: Michael Hezarkhani Google Earth location comparisons I did which only lines-up buildings when you're on the top deck of the ferry boat in Battery Park.
 

 

 
Also see 'new' video evidence which is the beginning of Michael Hezarkhani's video which shows that he is on-board the ferry boat which didn't leave the dock and he is videoing the Statue of Liberty. This can also be confirmed by Carmen Taylor, who also took pictures from the ferry boat in close proximity to Michael Hezarkhani's location as seen above in this article.  
 
 
 




This case is now closed.