The article made ridiculing references about "conspiracy theorists" in relation to advanced technology "Holograms" and "Project Blue Beam".
Jon Austin the author of this article felt the need to take the opportunity from this terrible landslide disaster (which killed 17 people and displaced many from their homes), by turning the survivor's religious beliefs towards a "light formation" which they interpreted to be an apparition of Jesus, to make a "mockery" of the disaster, by portraying anyone who believes in the existence of "Holograms" or "Project Blue Beam" as some sort of tin-foil hat wearing nut-case. I think this says far more about Jon Austin's state of mind than any conspiracy theorists.
I think Jon Austin should examine his own values and beliefs of what really matters when a disaster like this happens and consider the people who have lost their lives and the poor family members left behind who are grieving, whether they believe in Jesus or not, or whether a formation of light brought comfort to them in their time of grief from their interpretation that it was Jesus, rather than his own heartless agenda to focus on "conspiracy theories" instead.
Is there more to the article than meets the eye? "Managing Perceptions"
Was the article combined deliberately to manage people's perceptions when it comes to advanced image projections technologies? Was the specifically article produced because of the growing numbers of people who are now believing that an advanced "image projection" or "hologram" was used on 9/11 to create the planes in the sky which hit the towers, thus to control people's perceptions regarding anyone who might question the veracity of the 9/11 video evidence of the "planes", implanting a sense of discouragement to believe in such technology, by already deliberately "implanting" a negative perception? As we know the "video fakery" Psychological Operation was used to conceal such "image projection" technology, and has now been exposed, along with those behind it. Are articles like this one above early interventions and damage control because more people are questioning "video fakery" and are now seeing that some type of "image projection" was used on 9/11?
There seems no other reasonable explanation for this article of a landslide disaster to have been subtly combined with "conspiracy theories", other than to discourage questioning minds and control people's perceptions in relation to the advanced technology of holograms or image projections and 9/11.
On 9/11 at 10:05am Fox News showed an eyewitness giving his very brief account that "it was not a second plane it was a bomb, no second plane" to Rick Leventhal. Many 9/11 researchers' have claimed this is evidence of a "real" eyewitness interrupting a "staged" news event. This video has been widely circulated across the Internet as evidence of "No-Plane at All" hitting the South Tower.
While I believe this eyewitness's account, I doubt the claims made by some 9/11 researchers that this is evidence for disruption of a "staged" news event. I also question whether this can be used as "absolute" evidence for the "no-plane at all" hit the South Tower building theory. While I do
"not" believe the planes we were told hit the North Tower, South Tower,
Pentagon or in Shanksville, I "do" believe some type of "object" hit the North and South Towers which
people witnessed and believed to be a plane, which they videoed and photographed.
My reason for questioning the "No-Plane at All" Theory:
Because people such as; Simon Shack and Ace Baker have promoted this theory and produced very dubious research findings in relation to these types of claims, thus to promote the use of inserting and compositing "fake" planes into the television news coverage. It appears from my research that this was deliberately done to cast doubt over the authenticity of the 9/11 video evidence, which has been used to discredit the work of Dr. Judy Wood and also to act as cover-story to conceal the use of some type of advanced "image projection" technology system, which created the image of a plane in the sky which many people witnessed, photographed and video taped.
Strange anomalies were captured, especially the South Tower crash videos, such as; disappearing wings, impossible speed of the (Flight 175) plane, and also a lack of crash physics of the plane impacting the South Tower building, which is why "video fakery" was promoted as the answer and to explain the strange anomalies within the videos and photographs.
Logical questions should be asked to establish the veracity of this eyewitnesses account. Unfortunately this is never considered by the 9/11 researchers' who use this eyewitness's account as evidence of "no planes at all".
Some logical questions:
Where was the eyewitness located when he didn't see the plane hit the South Tower, which led him to believe it was a "bomb" he witnessed?
Where was the eyewitness located when the explosion happened?
Was he located on the "North side" of the face of the South Tower?
What view of the sky or building did the eyewitness have which led him to determine "no-plane" hit the South Tower and believe it was a bomb?
These are all legitimate questions to be considered before concluding that "no-plane at all" hit the South Tower. The simple answer is we don't know where the eyewitness was located at the time of second plane impacting the South Tower building. We know Rick Leventhal was located further-up by Church and Murray St, which is on the North side of the South Tower not far from the alleged plane engine which exited the South Tower and landed on Murray St. If this was the case that this Fox News eyewitness was located on the North side of the South Tower, then one might expect he didn't see the plane's approach and impact into the South Tower building, which might be why he genuinely thought it was a "bomb" going-off in the South Tower. There were many eyewitness accounts of "no-plane" regarding the South Tower event which were broadcast live on 9/11, however frustratingly we don't have their initial locations to determine exactly where their locations were and also their vantage points to the event of what they witnessed, as in the case of the Fox News eyewitness.
Conclusion:
Can we determine that this was a disruption of a "staged" news report? In my personal opinion "NO", because of all the reasons I raise above and the insufficient answers to the questions I've asked, however I do believe the news report was "genuine" not "staged", with a genuine eyewitness account who didn't see the plane who was possibly located on the North side of the South Tower where Rick Leventhal was located, which is why the eyewitness believed there was "no-plane at all" and it was a "bomb" exploding from inside the South building.
I am very sceptical of the person (Dimitri Khalezov) who posted this particular video which I have posted above of the Fox News "no-plane" eyewitness account. Much exposure was given to Dimitri Khalezov and his “nuclear demolition” of the WTC buildings on 9/11. Dmitri cannot explain Hurricane Erin's presence, nor the silent disappearance of the WTC buildings. Looking at his theories of a "nuclear furnace" created beneath the WTC which as he says "melted down into" is pure nonsense. We saw the steel turning-to-dust and empty basement levels at the bottom of the WTC!!
I suggest reading this chapter; “Re-incarnated” WTC Nuke Theory and Dimitri Khalezov, in Andrew Johnson's "free" book: 9/11 Finding The Truth
I can only conclude that Dimitri Khalezov has put-out "disinformation" in attempt to "muddle-up" or to distract people away from Dr. Judy Wood's evidence she presents in her book; Where Did The Towers Go? Plus, by posting the Fox News eyewitness account of "no-plane at all" suggests in people's minds the possibility of the use of "video fakery" and "staged" news media broadcasts which calls into question the 9/11 video evidence record, something heavily promoted by Simon Shack to discredit Dr. Judy Wood and to cover the use of a "Directed Energy Weapon" to destroy the WTC buildings, and also to conceal the use of an advanced "image projection" technology system which was captured in the videos and photographs of the plane impacting the South Tower, thus not by use of "inserting" fake CGI planes into the 9/11 video footage.
Much has been said in recent years of the use of "crisis actors" involved in relation to 9/11 and a number of "staged" terrorist attacks that followed. Much of the early promotion of "crisis actors" was by Simon Shack following his September Clues film and his September Clues forum.
One of the most famous 9/11 cases was the "Harley Guy" on Fox News who gave an account of the "official" 9/11 WTC building collapse story from the beginning. Or did he?
There has been many people who believe the "Harley Guy" to be a professional actor Mark Adrian Humphries. Humphries denied these claims and of any involvement on 9/11. Humphries claimed he was in Los Angeles at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
See image below: Taken from Simon Shack's - September Clues forum.
So, who is the "Harley Guy"? I still see and hear people accusing Mark Humphries of being the "Harley Guy". From research which doesn't get much attention around the internet it appears the "Harley Guy" is actually Mark Walsh, who worked as a freelance employee for Fox.
See Image below:
The video below is two short excerpts from "Psycho Mark" Walsh and Ben Sparks' radio broadcast on May
5, 2011. Mark and Ben, including callers discuss 9/11 and the 10th anniversary of the WTC attacks following Osama Bin Laden's capture May 2011. Mark Walsh speaks of his experiences on 9/11. Later in the show the discussion returns to 9/11 and Mark Walsh is informed by a caller that he's known
as the infamous "Harley Guy" from 9/11 on YouTube, much to his
surprise. Walsh has been nicknamed "Harley Guy" on the internet,
because he was wearing a Harley Davidson shirt during his 9/11 Fox News
interview on 9/11.
Here is the Google Earth link which shows the proximity of Mark Walsh's building to the WTC towers (satellite view). http://g.co/maps/mkr7w
Also, here's a clip from the Opie & Anthony Show
from 9/11/01 where they talk about Mark Walsh living near the WTC and
him witnessing the attacks from his apartment and appearing on TV with
Fox News that morning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYKqBC... In conclusion:
It is clear to see that "Harley Guy" is in fact Mark Walsh and not Mark Adrian Humphries a professional actor. Clearly, misinformation was circulated by certain so-called 9/11 researchers. Was this done to help create a later "Psy-Op" regarding "crisis actors", which seems to play a role in many of today's "conspiracy theories" involving "fake" terrorist attacks?
Another note to consider: Most people have said how cool Mark Walsh looks when delivering his lines on 9/11. I don't recognise this, and in my opinion I see someone who was quite anxious, who couldn't stand still, and was talking quite quickly and looks flustered.
Also, because Mark Walsh was working freelance for Fox News that day, is it possible that he got his "official" information regarding the WTC buildings collapses straight from Fox News and inadvertently repeated what he had been informed had happened to the WTC buildings into his own recollections of his own experience during the interview unknowingly? Thus, inadvertently describing the "official" collapse story perfectly.
Evidence for this is Mark Walsh's use of the term "Ground Zero" in his famous interview, which later became the "official" name of the destruction area. Was this a coincidence that Mark Walsh called it "Ground Zero" or does this suggest the information came from an "official" organisation such as Fox News who might have had scripted information fed to them and then communicated to their reporters and freelance employees at the scene in NYC, like Mark Walsh for example, who most likely unknowingly repeated the "official" collapse story? After all, Mark's "initial" account of the "second" airplane crash was accurate and consistent with the observable video evidence and his vantage location where he witnessed it from. This is never an option of consideration in the 9/11 research community. Does this make Mark Walsh a conspirator, or an employee who was unknowingly used in the conspiracy?
I believe this could be a possibility and should be considered before accusing people of being part of a conspiracy, especially the "wrong" people such as Mark Adrian Humphries who had no involvement in 9/11 or was a crisis actor.
In this short analysis I will explore a theory that has been circulating the internet regarding Flight 175's plane wing briefly passing behind the edge of the North Tower Building in the Michael Hezarkhani video footage. Many people have thought that this was proof and evidence that the Michael Hezarkhani's video was fabricated. See image below:
To briefly explain why the plane's wing appears to be going behind the North Tower's edge in this version above of the Michael Hezarkhani video, is because the video has been converted into "super" slow-motion. This is a process which takes a normal video recording at 30fps and makes it into 60fps or even 90fps using some computer software. This is so the video runs smoother when viewed in slow-motion.
The process to create a "super" slow-motion effect basically creates interpreted frames between the "original" frames. So the frame being created is not entirely a genuine frame, as it is an interpreted creation of two frames which is known as "motion interpolation", also known as:Inbetweening or tweening which is the process of generating
"intermediate" frames between two images to give the appearance that the
first image evolves smoothly into the second image, which is why we see the anomaly circled in red in the video image above, where the plane's wing appears to disappear behind the edge of the North Tower building. This anomaly is no-way attributed to "video fakery" as suggested by many researchers. Just an artefact of the software to create the video to appear in "super" slow-motion.
The process of creating super slow-motion video:
As we can see the plane's wing is very similar in colour to the North Tower's edge colour. The computer software struggles to separate the two colours, especially when trying to convert and create a lower quality compressed version of the of Michael Hezarkhani video, which is why we see the visual separation effect between the plane's wing and building. See the image on the right below:
As we can observe in the two comparison images above, the image on the left shows the plane's wing is not separated between the North Tower's edge, however they do merge together, because the plane's wing passes in front of the North Tower's edge, however the image on the right demonstrates how the computer software interpreted the frame, thus creating the appearance of the wing disappearing behind the North Tower's edge in the "super" slow-motion video version when compared to the "original" frame on the left.
See below "original" 3 x frames of the Michael Hezarkhani video showing that the plane's wing does "NOT" pass behind the North Tower's building edge.
Conclusion:
As we can see, legitimate explanations explain the anomaly in this case, and it cannot be attributed to "video fakery" as suggested by many researchers. Any analysis of the Michael Hezarkhani video should be conducted with the best quality video possible, and not in super slow-motion.
This is a short analysis where I examine a claim made by Steve De'ak during an interview with Jim Fetzer on the 26th March 2017. De'ak claimed the smoke/fumes plume in the Michael Hezarkhani video "freezes" and has no movement in the video during the plane crash sequence frames. After hearing this claim I decided to conduct a short analysis on the 13th April 2017, and I am publishing the findings here after clarifying some information from Steve De'ak on the 10th July 2017.
The reason for asking Steve De'ak for clarification was because I was unsure of the exact time-frame he was referring to in the video footage. This is what lead me to conduct two different time-frame studies of the video footage smoke/fumes plume. See the both analysis findings below.
See below: "close-up" comparison of the smoke/fumes plume characteristic differences in the different frames, from just before the plane "crashes" into the South Tower to when the plane "impacts" the South Tower.
The two analysis studies above "conclusively" demonstrate that the smoke/fumes plume in the Michael Hezarkhani video footage was "NOT" frozen in the frames as Steve De'ak claimed.
Information update:
After some back and to comments with Steve De'ak through his YouTube channel I can now confirm on 10th July 2017 that Steve De'ak told me he has "retracted" his claims for "frozen" smoke/fumes in the Michael Hezarkhani video. Just to note, this isn't about me being right, and De'ak being wrong. Steve has obviously looked closer at new information and re-evaluated his own position. This is what "good" investigators do, not being solely fixed to one idea/theory. So I commend Steve for being open, and reconsidering new information.
See below:
Although this might solve this matter of frozen smoke/fumes, it doesn't solve the "new" claims which Steve De'ak is proposing about the Michael Hezarkhani video, which I will be addressing in another blog soon.
What I can say is, "false" claims are being circulated across the internet about the Michael Hezarkhani video footage which has been a pattern over a long period of time ostensibly to "discredit" the 9/11 video footage and portray it as fake video, something which I have written about at length in other blog posts. The question that has to be asked: Why is it so important to discredit this piece of video footage?
Characteristics: The discrediting of the video evidence - Michael Hezarkhani video
It came as no surprise to me to
discover how this figured in the recent timeline of events in the
“perception management” of this piece of video evidence.
Please read this interesting article written by Andrew Johnson of checktheevidence.com regarding Steve De'ak's 9/11 Crash Test. Link below:
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 red 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 whencompared 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 perfectly 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 layman's 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 be 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 promoter'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 (Hytten).
Following-on from my part one analysis, in this short part two analysis I’m going to study more 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.
At
6:19 into the film, Simon Shack claims that 'Chopper 2' (CBS) filming
from the south behind the towers is no where to be seen on any available
9/11 footage. See below: screen-shot.
I was able to find some MSNBC news coverage footage which shows both
'PAT' the helicopter and 'Chopper 2' filming the South Tower as it is
destroyed. Simon Shack claims no footage of 'Chopper 2' exists. See
below: screen-shot.
Simon Shack also debunks himself again here below, as he points out 'PAT' in this 'Chopper 2' CBS news footage.
At 6:40 into his film Shack again debunks his own theory by showing another
9/11 video which also shows 'PAT' clearly in the video footage. See
below: screen-shots.
At
6:45, Simon Shack tries again to "exploit" some poor quality distance video footage claiming that 'PAT' is not in the video. See below:
I
managed to track down the video footage
of the video on the "right" in the split screen-shot above in Simon Shack's
film, where he implies 'PAT' the helicopter is "missing". See Below: series of screen-shots showing 'PAT' the helicopter flying away as the South Tower is destroyed. (Note: how Simon Shack misrepresents the location in the image above of PAT's location when considering PAT's actual location in the screen-shots below).
See below: enlargement... 'PAT' is clearly visible.
This is clear evidence that Simon Shack is either mistaken, or it implies he is deliberately trying to deceive his viewers of his film. The pattern throughout the film indicates deception.
At 7:32 in his film Simon Shack tries again to imply 'PAT' is missing, by using some very poor low quality video footage. See below:
However if you very look closely at 7:31 'PAT' can vaguely be seen in Simon Shack's version. WHY hasn't Simon Shack pointed 'PAT' out?
Instead at 7:36, Simon Shack flashes this question mark up again trying to "exploit" the poor quality video to promote "video fakery".
I
managed to locate some better quality video footage below of the same video
above, which shows 'PAT' clearly located in the video. See screen-shot
below:
Conclusions:
A
question to consider is, can we really trust Simon Shack 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.
