| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/06/2014 10:25:37 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Adolescent flame war behavior |
Posted on 03/06/2014 9:11:00 AM PST by butterdezillion
These are the new images I've got, to go with the second of my youtubes, which is posted at http://youtu.be/usFBn99pJMc
In the first youtube we looked at what could be seen above the water in the video. In this new video I show footage of some more that is above water but also some that is underwater. The images on my blog are clearer than what shows on youtube, so even if you see the youtube (which I recommend, because it explains what you're seeing and gives other links as well) you might want to look at the stills to get a clearer image.
Twice Two?
thos are a very bad set of photos to show.
Can you do one showing the plane with the window and one without (preferably circled)
side by side
If you specify: width=”200” in the img html the pictures will be smaller too-
These photos are not helping your cause, you can’t tell anything from them
But the plane(s) with/without window are very different
my bad, the first post i saw! that you posted maybe last week? it had pics all over it. and i went to your blog and i just dont see. good luck tho.
Thanks and LOL.
Testing ....
My score was 90%. I think I failed.
Are you saying the images I posted are too large?
The planes are more complicated to analyze, because there’s a shadow photoshopped in, on the roof of the plane, which makes it appear that there’s an open door that we just can’t see because it’s at an exact angle with the camera. Proving that’s photoshopped involves looking at a bunch of photos I took to test how shadows really work, using a simulated door and photographing various positions of the door-to-light and door-to camera to see what is possible and what isn’t. The angles required to create a vertical orientation of the door’s window would not allow the door to appear to be a simple line, and even when at the angle necessary to make the orientation vertical what appears in the photo to be the top sash of the door’s window cannot be so thick.
That’s pretty complicated and I’m tired of doo-doo-fights for a while. I did post an analysis which showed some of the other photoshopped stuff - like “turbulence” that laps over into the strobe light on the plane’s right tailpiece, misalignment of the bump on top of the plane, etc. But nobody was willing to engage on those points.
If these images are too large I’ll just post them as smaller images when I post the whole thing, once I’ve got my son’s birthday cake done and the chicken kiev ready to put in the freezer for later cooking.
No animosity there. lol
Alinsky would be proud.
Que spooky music.
In all seriousness, here is a word you may want to look up. And that word is Pareidolia.
Here, let me save you the trouble:
http://www.livescience.com/25448-pareidolia.html
Retread wasn't even in the equation when cousteausghost sardonically pleaded "guilty as charged" to your "outing" him/her as a n00b.To: Velveeta...or are you a re-tread?
He outed himself on post 31.
Guilty as charged.
But you put too unrelated quotes together to get the outcome that you wanted, which was a backstabbing accusation. [Liberal/Alinsky tactic BTW, yer a good student!]
Have the courtesy to ping a poster when you are creating a false scenario about them OK? Some people might judge other long time members by your attitude and that would be unfortunate.
Your SOP is well documented here at Free Republic. Thank goodness for new signups!
I took the time to take a look at the photos, there is clearly some funny business going on here.
There are clearly two different planes shown. One has a window between the door and the tail, one does not.
That puts this into the category of FAKE like the birth certificate.
. . . . Check out Article, and Link w Article.
Thanks, butterdezillion.
.
Tagline seems appropriate for this article.
Yes, people can see things in the clouds, etc. That’s why context is important, and that is why I have gone to the trouble to show a LOT of context for these images - as much context as ABC would allow us to see. And I’ve told people exactly how they can see the whole video at 1/8th speed so they can look for context.
That being said, are you trying to say that there is nothing there in the photos I posted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3130289/posts?page=29#29 ? That it’s just the way water looks sometimes?
Are you the one who invited your “neighbour”?
Butterdezillion here’s some info:
From the “what do you see”thread :
To: frog in a pot; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator
I think you may be right,FIAP.
Jim,Admin Moderator,why was the thread regarding my new blog post pulled? I’m talking about this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3130289/posts
It was pulled before I could even ping anybody to it,and yet I have been waiting for a response to my question as to why my Part Two thread (at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3130236/posts?page=1 ) was pulled.
Will you be answering that question sometime soon?
584 posted on Thu Mar 06 2014 11:24:37 GMT-0600 (CST) by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=””/) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Sorry, I see very little. Light reflections and water can do strange things in photography/videography and when we throw in Pareidolia, it is hard to tell what is what. As far as you pointing out the obvious people j n the water, I fail to see what that proves. And given that we have Obama in the Whitehouse, I can see where one’s mind may run roughshod over reason.
So your answer to all the questions is “Nothing”. OK.
Congratulations. You are the only person who has said what’s in those images, this far into the thread. And your answer echoes Sgt Schultz from “Hogan’s Heroes”: “I see nothing...”
At least it’s an answer. Thanks for sharing.
Wait a minute. I think I might have misunderstood your post. Are you saying that the answer to some of those questions is obviously “a person”?
If so, then the significance of that is that there were only supposed to be 9 people in the water during all of Puentes’ video. That’s what all the official reports said, what all the witnesses said. If those people are not Kawasaki, the 73-year-old woman, the 70-ish-year-old man, Fuddy, Yamamoto, Rosa Key, Jacob Key, C Phillip Holstein, or Puentes.... then they are somebody else who was supposedly not there.
Why ARE they there? How did they get there within the first few minutes after the crash? What are they doing? And why did the witnesses and official reports pretend they weren’t there?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
