Showing posts with label Simon Shack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Simon Shack. Show all posts

Saturday, 8 July 2017

'One Born Free' and the Hezarkhani Video "Deceptions"


By Mark Conlon

In this analysis I would like to draw attention to a blog article which was published on 16th February 2014 by an "anonymous" 9/11 researcher who goes under the pseudonym 'One Born Free' (OBF). Article link: http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/911-scams-why-jim-fetzerace-baker-and.html


The thrust of the article states that the Michael Hezarkhani video of 'Flight 175' impacting the South Tower is a "100% digital fabrication", defining that a plane was not inserted into a real piece of video footage, and neither a hologram was captured in the videos and photographs. 

In the article the author is not shy of naming people and organisations who he believes lack "imagery analysis" skills to conduct research of the video and photographic evidence of 9/11. Does this suggest he believes he does possess such "imagery analysis" skills? One might interpret his comment that he does consider himself to possess such "image analysis" skills, especially after naming those who he believes are "guilty" of not possessing such "image analysis" skills. Note, the author has not disclosed his "real" name or share his identity, considering the people he has named so far in his article have. This is something which has to be considered, especially if you are going to present research which you cannot put your name to, or identity.   

Judging by the author's assertive intro in his article, one might expect the piece of video evidence which he submits as conclusive proof of the Michael Hezarkhani video being "100% fabrication", should stand-up to serious "image analysis" scrutiny. 

My Analysis of OBF's Evidence:

According to the author he cites a gif image of the Michael Hezarkhani video where he claims the plane in the video remains "stationary" while the South Tower building moves across towards the plane. Note, the gif image which OBF cites as his evidence is from an "anonymous" source. The only referenced is from someone called teardrop - " The teardrop analysis". The person has not identified themselves who created this gif image. 

When watching the video gif image below it has a red line centred in the middle of the video frame, this allegedly demonstrates that the plane is stationary and the building is moving. It does appear quite convincing evidence at first glance, as it does look like the plane is "stationary" and the building does appear to be moving to the left in the video.


When studying the above gif image closely there appears to be one glaring flaw which really stands-out, which needs to be discussed and thoroughly explained if we are to understand how this deceptive "illusion" was created.

The first important point to make is, we are "NOT" looking at the complete video frame perspective of the Michael Hezarkhani video. The gif image has been "re-framed" to fit around the plane. The outer peripheral view has been cropped out. I've highlighted this by inserting a "white box" in the image below, which illustrates what we are not seeing outside of the "white box"

   
So I can thoroughly analyse the video evidence I've also inserted some coordinate marker lines into the video image, this is to help me with my analysis so I can determine whether or not the plane is stationary, or the building is moving as alleged, and also to assess the panning of the video camera. What we can determine so far is, we are NOT seeing the "complete" frame image in the gif images which the author cites as his evidence.   

Proving the plane is moving and the building is stationary...
Firstly, I'm going to use the first video frame to plot some "marker" points on the first still video image below. This will consist of a "centre" yellow line set in place in the centre of the frame, along with a red line positioned where the plane is located in the gif image cited by OBF. I have run the rie line straight through to the top of the frame and positioned a "white box" as re-framed in the gif image around the plane. I also placed an orange line positioned on the left hand side of the South Tower's top edge. I can then use these three plotted reference marker points when I overlay them onto each of the following proceeding frames. This will allow me to determine any movement within the following video frame images. This will prove whether or not the plane is "stationary" or the plane is "moving" and also check to see if the building is moving, or if in fact if it is the videographer who is panning his video camera.


Below: I have overlaid the marker reference points from the first frame still image onto the "top" of proceeding frame. What are we observing and what can we determine from this? Note: I have also moved the "white box" which has the plane equally place in the centre.


I can determine that the South Tower is "stationary" in the frame, although note the orange marker line on the South Tower's edge has shifted to the left of the yellow central marker line. What does this prove? It demonstrates that the videographer is panning the video camera to the right. I can also determine that the plane is moving towards the South Tower because the red "plane" marker reference point does not line-up with the overlaid top red marker reference point, as it has shifted to the right when compared to the red marker on the "original" frame overlay. This conclusively proves that the plane is "not" "stationary" as suggested by OBF, and is travelling towards the South Tower. Please also note how the "white box" which is centred (re-framed) around the plane with the red line in it, looks like the gif image, which gives the "false" impression that the plane remains central and stationary. (Nice illusion until you observe the "outer" information in the full video frame, where the red line has shifted out of alignment with the red line outside of the "white box").

The same shift out of alignment can be observe in the other proceeding frames, when the "original" frame marker reference point lines are overlaid, See below:




An important point to make is that the two re-framed images above show that the centre red line in the re-framed "white box" perspective appears to be following the plane. This is how the illusion (deception) is achieved, making it look as though the plane is "stationary" and the building to be moving to the left, when in reality this is not the case, as it is the re-framing "white box" which is tracking the plane. You can only create this illusion if you don't see the surrounding peripheral information of the "full" video Michael Hezarkhani frame which shows that the red line on the proceeding frames shifts out of alignment, which is why you have to "re-frame" the video image and remove the outer viewing information, or else this illusion will not work. It is the information we don't see outside of the "white box" that is the key to creating such an illusion and deception. See below:     

  

Above are four images taken from my proceeding frames analysis. When you observe these four images "without" the outer information outside of the "white box" it appears like the plane remains "stationary" and tracked prefectly with the red line, yet the information outside the "white box" in the full video frames tell a different story. 

The illusion is created by "re-framing" the frame to follow and track the plane, and then inserting a red line to give the impression that the plane is remaining central in the re-framed image. In simple laymans terms, the full view video frames have been "cropped" to follow the plane and keep it central in the new "re-framed" gif images, to create this clever illusion.    
 

The only conclusion that can be reached for creating this deception and motive behind this disinformation is to cast doubt in people's minds that the Michael Hezarkhani video is fake. This deception can only be interpreted as a "deliberate" act to which to create such an illusion and go to such lengths to re-frame the video perspective shot to follow the plane's path and by inserting the red line which merely acts to increase its plausibility in the deception. 

The fact is, the plane was "moving" and the building was "stationary", which is proven in my analysis above. I have also demonstrated how this "illusion" was achieved. This was not hard to find out how this was done. My question is, why has OBF cited such a poor deceptive "hoax" as evidence?  Surely his high standard image analysis should've unpicked this illusion deception, just like I have.

Another "false" claim presented as fact by OBF...
 
Another point to address in OBF's article is the statement he makes as a fact, that people with hand held video cameras cannot track and video an object travelling at 500mph. This is again "false", and is not fact, especially when we apply this alleged fact to the Michael Hezarkhani's video. 

In my short analysis below I'm going to plot Michael Hezarkhani's reaction to the plane as it enters his video camera's lens. I have applied the same principles by plotting a reference point in the first frame, then overlaying the reference point onto the proceeding frames. See analysis below:



What I can determine from this analysis is, that Michael Hezarkhani does not react immediately as the plane enters his video camera lens view. I have highlight this by plotting Point (A) to Point (B). What we do observe is minor movement of his video camera, as the plane travels from point (A) to point (B). This is demonstrated because the yellow centre line overlaid onto the following frame shows that the South Tower remains steady in the shot, and the distance between yellow marker line and the South Tower slightly narrows. We do observe the video camera being raised slightly though. 

Michael Hezarkhani only begins to react to the plane as it is right in front of the South Tower, as there little react from point (A) to point (B). Only from point (B) onwards do we observe a minor reaction because the yellow centre line and the South Tower gap begins to narrow, as the videographer begins to pan the video camera to the "right" to track the plane. This happens as the plane is just in front of the South Tower building, is when we see video camera movement as the plane enters the South Tower, thus the South Tower crosses the yellow centre line marker, which I have highlighted with red circles on two of the still image frames below. 

   
This shows there is very little panning in the camera shot to track the plane, as the video camera remains almost centred throughout the video footage sequence, and only do we observe Michael Hezarkhani attempting to track the plane at the very last second as the plane is in front of the South Tower building in his video footage. 

So it appears that a "false" point has been raised here by OBF. Surely if OBF has studied the video footage correctly he would also reach the same conclusion as I did which I've demonstrated in the still images above. 

Another point raised by OBF but one that has been dealt with by myself some years ago is Michael Hezarkhani's location. An interesting note, I could only get Michael Hezarkhani's video location to match-up in Google Earth by being on the top deck of the ferry boat docked in Battery Park: See details below:

  
Also OBF talks about an unstable platform. This is exactly what we observe in the Michael Hezarkhani video, the slight rocking of the ferry boat. See below: 


As we observe in the two frames above, the video footage is unstable and shows slight tilting of the camera shot, which is from being on-board the ferry boat, which is what one might expect from being situated on a boat. 

Conclusion:

There are two distinct areas which really stand-out in the conclusions of my analysis. We had an intro by the blog author OBF, where he named names of 9/11 researchers' who he believed "lacked" any real skills in simple "imagery analysis". What has really stood-out in my analysis here is, he "himself" has demonstrated a complete lack of "image analysis" skills, by not knowing that he has cited fraudulent evidence of a "stationary" plane and "moving building" in the Michael Hezarkhani gif image which OBF endorses in his article. 

As you can see from analysis, this was merely a "deceptive" piece of gif imagery made by someone called teardrop in 2007-8 which was easily debunked when I demonstrate how the illusion is created. There's no doubt that the gif he has provided as evidence was "deliberately" made to deceive people. The questions which now have to asked are, did this "creative" deliberate illusion deceive OBF himself? Or, was he party to promulgating disinformation?

Again it is clear, the main thrust of OBF's article is to cast doubt over the Michael Hezarkhani video footage, something which has become a characteristic over the years for promotor's of "video fakery" to do. Is this because the videos are actually real and show an image of something which was not a real physical plane, thus disseminating disinformation in an attempt to hide the fact that an advanced "image projection" technology was used to create the illusion of plane crashes?  It is clear that Simon Shack has been promulgating falsehoods in his September Clues films, so one must consider carefully OBF's close alignment with Simon Shack, or should I say Simon Hytten.


This case is now closed! 



Wednesday, 5 July 2017

September Clues - Addendum "Deceptions" - PART ONE


By Mark Conlon

In this analysis I’m going to study claims made by Simon Shack in his September Clues – Addendum film, where he claims all of the live network television footage depicting the South Tower’s destruction is “fake”. Simon Shack bases his claims on the presence and movements of a helicopter (PAT) flying in the vicinity of the South Tower, prior to the South Tower’s destruction. I will also study Simon Shack’s methods which he uses to support his claims. 

  

Reference: You can find Simon Shack’s Addendum film here on his official YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/UGyW-0MeBOU Which I have used and referenced as part of my analysis.


Analysis of September Clues - Addendum:

At 1:00 into the film, Simon Shack attempts to establish the presence and movement of (PAT) the helicopter using three different videos from three different views. The first video he uses is an amateur video taken by Devin Clark, which was taken from 1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2401, 34th Street. See the screen-shot below where I have circled in red (PAT) the helicopter.  

Note: This was not live news footage


Below: At 1:14 to 1:19, Simon Shack uses Devin Clark’s video footage to establish ‘PAT’ the helicopter’s position and the direction as the helicopter flies away during the South Tower’s destruction.  


At 1:30 to 1:46, Simon Shack uses a second video, known as the Spiegel video, which was located at: 1 Plaza Street, Brooklyn, which shows an “Eastern View” of the towers and establishes the helicopter's location 5 seconds before the South Tower’s destruction. Note: This was not live footage.


In the screen-shot below at 1:52 in the film, Simon Shack uses a third amateur video taken by Ilse Fernandez. Her video was taken from the north and establishes the helicopter’s location, before the South Tower’s destruction.


So far, Simon Shack has used three amateur videos (which were not live video footage) to demonstrate ‘PAT’ the helicopter’s location and movements around the South Tower before the destruction and also during the destruction of the South Tower. If we look at all three videos they appear to correspond with each other regarding ‘PAT’ the helicopter’s location and movements.  


At 1:57 into his film, Simon Shack uses the Ilse Fernandez video "zoom-out" sequence to make his first point to challenge the authenticity of the Ilse Fernandez video footage by showing ‘PAT’ the helicopter disappearing during the “zoom-out” sequence in her video. See below:


In the series of screen-shots above it shows the Ilse Fernandez video as she is “zooming-out”. Simon Shack claims that ‘PAT’ the helicopter disappears during the “zoom-out” sequence in her video, thus implying that her video is fake? He highlights this by freezing the video frame and inserting the word “gone”. See the bottom right hand corner image above.

In the video ‘PAT’ the helicopter does seem to disappear, however this is Simon Shack’s version of the Ilse Fernandez video which is a copy and not the original source video. 

I checked this first point that Simon Shack makes in his film at 2:01 by finding Ilse Fernandez’s original video which was uploaded on her YouTube channel on the 20th September 2007. See screen-shot below:

  
Note: The Ilse Fernandez “original” video was uploaded to her YouTube channel before Simon Shack’s version of her video appears in his September Clues - Addendum film uploaded to his YouTube channel on the 23rd March 2009. This is 18 months after Ilse Fernandez uploaded her original video to her YouTube channel on 20th September 2007.  

Below: Simon Shack's video uploaded 23rd March 2009


The first point I analysed was where Simon Shack claimed ‘PAT’ the helicopter disappears in the “zoom-out” sequence in the Ilse Fernandez video. I have used the Ilse Fernandez “originalvideo to compare “identical” video frames.

See below:



See below: Enlargement of 'PAT' the helicopter visible in the Ilse Fernandez video on the right, but "missing" in Simon Shack's version on the left.



The question is: Why is ‘PAT’ the helicopter “missing” in Simon Shack’s version of the Ilse Fernandez video, yet visible in Ilse Fernandez’s “identical” frame “original”? 

I decided to check further-on into the “original” Ilse Fernandez “zoom-out” sequence to see if ‘PAT’ still remained in the video. See below:



As we can observe in the screen-shot above, ‘PAT’ the helicopter is still visible in the continued "zoom-out" sequence well after the “identical” frame by frame comparison analysis, however ‘PAT’ the helicopter is “missing” at a much earlier time in the “zoom-out” sequence in Simon Shack's version?

Does this indicate that ‘PAT’ the helicopter has been removed from the video footage in Simon Shack’s version in his Addendum film, because in the “original” version ‘PAT’ is visible for a much longer time period in the “zooming-out” sequence, which cannot be accounted for by mere copying of the Ilse Fernandez video, or even the video quality loss because of compression, thus strongly suggesting a “deliberate” removal of the helicopter from the video by someone or Simon Shack himself.
 
Important technical facts and laws of optics which Simon Shack ignores which should be discussed and understood.  

In reality we would eventually expect ‘PAT’ the helicopter to disappear when the camera’s lens is fully “zoomed-out” especially when videoing from faraway distances like Ilse Fernandez was on Thompson Street.


In the screen-shot above taken from the Ilse Fernandez “original” video, we would expect ‘PAT’ the helicopter to disappear from view as the video camera’s lens fully “zooms-out”. This is completely normal. At faraway distance the camera’s lens cannot register the small object (‘PAT’ the helicopter), which is correct with laws and principes of camera optics, and is nothing to do with ‘video fakery’ as suggested by Simon Shack.


To demonstrate “laws of optics” I have included a video example of a police helicopter disappearing in some video camera footage, demonstrating how smaller objects like helicopters cannot be registered from faraway distances when the video camera’s lens is fully “zoomed-out” reaching its threshold limit, thus not being able to register the small object (helicopter) at distance. See short video below: 



In the short video below, I show an example where a news video camera reaches its "zoom-out" threshold limit during the "zooming-in" sequence in the Fox News 11 'Chopper 5' video footage on 9/11. This demonstrates how smaller (Police helicopter) objects do not register in the video camera's lens when "zoomed-out" at a far distance, which can give the distinct impression that the Police helicopter just disappears or appears during in the 9/11 Fox News 'Chopper 5' video footage, which has been "exploited" by many 9/11 researchers' who claim this is evidence for "video fakery", when in reality it is not, and is basic "laws of optics", and is legitimately explainable. See below:


My reasons for exploring this important technical information (laws of optics) is to expose how Simon Shack has chosen to “ignore” and "exploit" this technical information (laws of optics), which allows him to continually use this “false” point throughout his film and make false statements such as the one below in the screen-shot from his film at 3:49 - (“Note: on 9/11 TV, choppers are always visible at great distance”.) See screen-shot below:

 
Simon Shack’s statement above is completely false, as choppers are "NOT" always visible at great distances, as I have demonstrated in my two video examples above. This demonstrates Simon Shack’s wilful neglect to include or consider vital information pertaining to video camera optics and technical factors which allows Simon Shack to promote a “false” explanation as evidence of ‘video fakery’.



At 3:20 in his film Simon Shack uses a comparison split-screen between two videos, with the video on the left hand side of the screen showing where ‘PAT’ the helicopter is located as the South Tower is destroyed, and the other video (NBC Live) on the right during the South Tower's destruction, which Simon Shack claims, does not show ‘PAT’ the helicopter in the NBC live news shot. See screen-shot below:

   
Note: Simon Shack attempts again to exploit the video camera's lens "laws of optics" in the NBC live news coverage "distance" shot above, where the video camera was not able to register the small object ('PAT' the helicopter) when the video camera is "zoomed out" at such a faraway distance from the Twin Towers, thus allowing Simon Shack to exploit and promote "false" evidence for 'video fakery'.  


The question is, what video evidence is Simon Shack "NOT" showing to the viewers of his film, when he asks the question “where is PAT on Live TV” at 3:31 in his film.


It is revealing the methods used by Simon Shack to convince the viewers that ‘PAT’ the helicopter is "missing" in the NBC live coverage.

Below is a series of screen-shots and video clips taken from the NBC live news coverage 42 seconds prior to the South Tower’s destruction, which Simon Shack has completely omitted, which shows 'PAT' the helicopter. Screen-shots below: 


See video clip below, taken from the NBC live news coverage 42 seconds prior to the South Tower’s destruction with 'PAT' the helicopter visible.


Clearly ‘PAT’ the helicopter is indeed visible in the “zoomed-in” shot in the NBC live news coverage as ‘PAT’ the helicopter approaches the North Tower moments before the South Tower’s destruction.

As you can see in the series of screen-shots above, the NBC live news video camera is slowly “zooming-outwards” and as the video camera continues to “zoom-outwards” the video camera’s lens struggles to register ‘PAT’ the helicopter at a faraway distance, thus giving the impression of ‘PAT’ simply disappearing in the video footage. Again this is perfectly normal and is not attributed to ‘video fakery’ as Simon Shack “falsely” promotes and exploits again here in his film.

Serious questions have to be asked why Simon Shack didn't show this “earlier” piece of important video evidence showing ‘PAT’ the helicopter in the NBC news footage? This video evidence was broadcast live on NBC, so there is no excuse Simon Shack can make as to why he didn't include it in his film. This is either at "best" shoddy research, or at "worst", a conscious effort to deceive his viewers, thus allowing him the opportunity to once again promote a "false" explanation of the video being fake.

Below, in the next set of screen-shots below they show a sequence shown at 4:02 through to 4:23 in Simon Shack's film. Simon Shack again claims that ‘PAT’ the helicopter is “missing”. This is again "false", as the camera is quite some distance away from the Twin Towers, so the video camera would not be able to register ‘PAT’ the helicopter from the faraway distance when the camera’s lens is “zoomed out” as I have discussed earlier-on and demonstrated in my earlier two video examples above with the police helicopters. 



At 4:23 in the screen-shot located in the bottom right hand corner, Simon Shack cuts-away from the NBC live news “play-back” of the South Tower’s destruction. Simon Shack does not pursue or investigate any further to try and locate the NBC live news video feed footage to see if we would see ‘PAT’ the helicopter as the camera starts to “zoom-inwards” towards the South Tower.


I was able to ascertain that it was ‘Chopper 4’ who was delivering the live video feed for the NBC news stations, and I was able to locate a complete live feed version which was broadcast live in full through NBC 4 - New York’s news station, which showed the full “zoom-in” sequence shot which Simon Shack decided to cut-away from at 4:23 in his film, giving up his search for further video evidence which might have proved PAT's existence.
See below: NBC 4 - New York ‘Chopper 4’ live camera feed screen-shots 


See below: video clip from the NBC 4 live news 'Chopper 4' video feed


Note: As the video camera gradually “zooms-inwards” ‘PAT’ the helicopter becomes visible as the camera’s lens is able to register the helicopter, thus seeing ‘PAT’ flying away during the South Tower's destruction.


Question: Why didn’t Simon Shack investigate further and show his viewers this NBC live news feed footage, which was available at the time when he made his Addendum film? Simon Shack knew it was 'Chopper 4' who was delivering the live video coverage for NBC stations because he pointed it out in his film at 7:04. See below:

 
A TV Programme called Galileo Mystery investigated the 9/11 attacks and used the NBC live news coverage in their documentary which was broadcast on the 2nd March 2007, which was two years before Simon Shack posted his September Clues - Addendum film on the 23rd March 2009 on his YouTube channel. My reasons for raising this point is, this provides conclusive proof that this video evidence was available at that time which Simon Shack could've used, which would've shown the visible presence of 'PAT' the helicopter in the NBC live news coverage. See video clip below: 


Simon Shack's misdirection and the NY1 live news footage... 


At 5:05 into Simon Shack's film he turns his attentions to the NY1 live news coverage, pointing out 'PAT' the helicopter's approach towards the Twin Towers.


The NY1 live news coverage footage above clearly shows 'PAT' the helicopter approaching the towers. What Simon Shack does next in his video can only be described as "misdirection". Simon Shack misdirects the viewers of his film to look for 'PAT' in the "wrong" place (which I've highlighted with a red circle) as the South Tower is destroyed in the NY1 live news coverage video. 

See the screen-shots below:


Simon Shack then says: "On NY1 TV PAT simply VANISHES"


Again, Simon Shack's methods are called into question regarding the treatment and presentation of this NY1 news video evidence. The question is, why has Simon Shack pointed out 'PAT' in the "wrong" place in the video? 

In the screen-shots below, 'PAT' the helicopter can be seen flying away as the South Tower is destroyed.

 

Please see short video below where I point-out 'PAT' the helicopter in the NY1 live news coverage.




In the video above I have demonstrated how Simon Shack attempts to "misdirect" the viewers' attention away from 'PAT' the helicopter's "real" flight path location in the NY1 live news coverage video, thus allowing Simon Shack to promote a "false" claim of 'PAT' the helicopter "vanishing" in the video, when in reality 'PAT' is visible in the video footage if you look in the correct location and ignore Simon Shack's misplacement of where 'PAT' should be. The question is, was this deliberately done? I can only conclude this to be "deceptive" and "deliberate". I base my opinion from all my past and current analysis of Simon Shack's films, where there appears to be a pattern to his methods of presenting evidence in his films, which I document in the articles listed below:  


Conclusions:
A question to consider is, can we really trust Simon Shack's to fairly present the 9/11 video evidence? The answer for me judging by his "unfair" treatment of the video evidence presented in his September Clues films, is NO. Simon Shack's integrity has been called into question so many times regarding his presentation of the video evidence, because of his clever editing, misdirection and false, misleading statements which he makes without any supportive evidence, other than to conceal evidence which proves the opposite to his claims. 

Simon Shack appears to have an agenda with predetermined conclusions where he is prepared to "exploit" legitimate explanations such as, "laws of optics" to present perfectly genuine 9/11 videos as "fake". Simon Shack's intention is to cast doubt in people's minds over the authenticity of the 9/11 video evidence, which to some degree has worked as people are still promoting 'video fakery'. 

It appears that Simon Shack is overseeing a "Psychological Operation" to  manage people's perceptions. When people believe they have the correct answers it stops them studying the video evidence any further. This personally happened to me for several years, and in that respect, Simon Shack’s "Psychological Operation" and "Perception Management" worked, as I didn’t continue to study the video evidence because I thought I had all the answers… How wrong I was.

To find out more about Simon Shack (Hytten), please read Andrew Johnson's research article here: 9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175. http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60

In part two, I will analyse other false claims made by Simon Shack in his Addendum film. 

Thanks for reading!