| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ace Baker's Ego Trip; Ace Baker is wrong but he won't retract | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 24 2009, 07:52 PM (946 Views) | |
| RasgaSaias | Jul 24 2009, 07:52 PM Post #1 |
|
Ace Baker recently said in another thread:Of course in his opinion none of the criticism stands up to scrutiny. Specially because in his opinion he is always right. Even though, let's criticize his work again by picking the key points he proposed in his wikipedia treatise: The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites. Only then we'll see if they stand up to his scrutiny or not. |
 |
 
|
| RasgaSaias | Jul 24 2009, 07:53 PM Post #2 |
|
Nine Extraordinary Compositional Features The theory seems plausible for the Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 shots. The only two live videos Ace Baker mentions. But what about the also live NBC Chopper 4 shot? Why wasn't it mentioned?  Because the following key features were not present in it.
How did they fake chopper 4 in real time without them? The method proposed by Ace Baker could not be used in this case. He obviously knows it. So that might be the reason why he selectively picked the videos fitting his theory and completely ignored those which don't. Of course Ace Baker's excuse must be: I am right, so Chopper 4 footage wasn't recorded live. |
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jul 24 2009, 07:55 PM Post #3 |
|
No Plane in the Wide Shot Ace Baker goes through a meticulous process in order to guess where the plane should be in the wide shot. It seems to be a very professional approach, giving it an apparent credibility. But he starts by claiming there isn't a plane in the wide shot. Which turns out to be an untrue statement. There is in fact a moving plane in the wide shot. We can see it in the three available copies from the live Chopper 5 shot. Even in the one Ace Baker, for no apparent reason if not his own personal opinion, claims to be the only legitimate copy from the chopper 5 live footage.   The reason why he keeps using Salter's version as reference might be because it is the one with the worst image quality. Making it harder to find the plane in the wide shot. But it is still visible if we mess with the brightens and contrast as demonstrated above. Of course Ace Baker's excuse must be: I am right, so the other copies were later forged and the dark blob seen on the video I picked is just a feature from the smoke. Even if the alleged smoke feature is coincident with the plane in the copies where it is easier to follow through all its flight path. |
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jul 24 2009, 07:56 PM Post #4 |
|
Pinocchio’s Nose (aka Nose Out) Even Ace Baker knows there's a problem with this theory. But his paranoiac ego trip is obviously stronger than his honesty.
Instead of telling everyone the truth about his flawed analysis like any honest person would, he keeps pushing it and giving far-fetched explanations. It's ridiculous to assume all the home tapes were confiscated. It is an unaccomplished task. But Ace Baker prefers to fantasize about these unreasonable explanations instead of facing the possibility that he's wrong. For those who still don't know what we're talking about, here is the problem with this theory: The following frames were taken from Ace Baker's video itself. (Source)  I also agree the luma key method for the chopper 5 shot is the only way someone could make it live. I can't think of any other technique. It cuts out the sky and leaved a layer with only the darker objects, the twin towers. It's perfect to insert a plane between this layer and the original footage. So far so good.  Then the "nose" appears. If we're going to forget about the chopper 7 live footage with the "nose" on it, if we're going to forguet about how difficult it would be to fake subsequent videos with fake "nose outs" minutes later and if we're going to forget that changing the archives would be easier if they only changed one video, then it would be obvious this could be a composite mistake and that was really the nose of the CGI plane.  But when the fireball ignites, the "nose out composite mistake theory" is compromised. The fireball is too bright and also disappears with the sky. So the "nose" wouldn't be behind it if this was really just a case of a composite mistake. A real event would look like this.  A composite mistake would look like this. But that's not all. The so called "nose out" was seen in every single shot.   Including other live shots such as Chopper 7.  If it was a compositing mistake, it would only be visible in one video. Which was absolutely not the case. Of course Ace Baker's excuse must be: I'm am right, so it was only visible on chopper 5 and was added in all the other shots later. Those who recorded the original TV versions saw their tapes confiscated and then we were all presented with second generation composites. |
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jul 24 2009, 07:57 PM Post #5 |
|
The Missing Shadow For someone who introduces himself as a video expert, Ace Baker is asking for the impossible in a video with this resolution. Such sharp shadow would never be present in these conditions. We can barely see the edges from the towers. Although, a variation in the color is perfectly visible on the north wall of the south tower. Which indicates the presence of a shadow.  It seems the Missing Shadow isn't missing at all. It was there the whole time, disguised by the noise and low resolution. Of course Ace Baker's excuse must be: I am right, so the shadow should be sharp and perfectly visible even if the video's resolution isn't good enough. |
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jul 24 2009, 07:58 PM Post #6 |
|
Magically Healing Columns The lack of wing damage claim: This claim seems plausible when we look at this gif. Although we all know the video resolution isn't good enough. And Ace Baker himself is able to explain why in some videos, like the gamma press shot for example, a plane wing can dissapears due to a compression color blending process. But in this case he suspends the reasonable approach and discards that possibility for no apparent reason. We know there was a shadow. We know the dust only looked brighter when it passed that shadow's limit. So it seems reasonable to expect color blending instead of a missing damage. And if it was a composite, why would those faking the video leave such an obvious mistake in the final product? The delayed hole shape claim: Ace Baker apparently can't distinguish what's supposed to be the plane damage and what's supposed to be the explosion damage. After the explosion we could see what appeared to be a wider hole. Although this was only because the aluminum cladding was blown out during the explosion, revealing the darker steel columns inside. The same happened on the east and north wall. So there's nothing strange about it. And absolutly no reason to conclude it was a composition. Of course Ace Baker's excuse must be: I am right, so in this particular case there wasn't color blending and the wider hole had to be added later. |
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jul 24 2009, 08:00 PM Post #7 |
|
The Over-Under Puffball Back then, when I raised this claim, the best quality video I had from the Fairbanks shot looked like this:  A very poor and grainy copy. Luckily better copies came out since then, and I had the opportunity to rethink about this concept. Instead of ignoring the inconvenient videos with better resolution, I started to think that maybe I was wrong.  So here's the problem with this alleged compositing mistake: Upper view  I forgot to account for the shadow angle. What I thought to be the complete puffballs were only the extremities lit by the sunlight. The rest of them was in shadow. Under view  The dust can be seen under the wing damage. Better resolution and some enhancement allow so.  Of course Ace Baker's excuse must be: I am right, so the inconvenient videos with better resolution were all retouched later. The grainy ones are the only we can trust. |
|
|
|
| Matt | Jul 24 2009, 08:17 PM Post #8 |
|
Chopper4 LIVE NBC4 was coming from this guy's TV while he was recording the TV with his videocamera! Look closely and find the "4" (bottom right) and the shadow of the "LIVE" bar upper left... which matches:  on edit: johnstayhome recently uploaded a clearer view of the TV when the plane hit! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sSSFNhAChg Edited by Matt, Jul 24 2009, 08:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jul 24 2009, 08:43 PM Post #9 |
|
Thanks Matt! And we can also see something in those videos that explains the "fade to black". The TV signal failed. |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jul 24 2009, 09:03 PM Post #10 |
|
"none of the criticism stands up to scrutiny"? After pointing out that his One Obvious Mask page was wrong, he's taken it down, which is criticism standing up to scrutiny. Sorry ace. Weird how he drops the One Obvious Mask page, but not the over-under-puffball page. He must not want to back down to you Rasga. The man has pride in his work, however incorrect it is. Great thread rasga. |
|
|
|
| elephant room | Jul 25 2009, 12:14 AM Post #11 |
|
about the "nose-out" Ace ... can you acknowledge if you think this "nose" shape coming out of the towers, before the fireball engulfs it, is seen in all the videos? It does. I have not seen a study of yours to demonstrate the comparrison to the nose and the post explosion ejection. I have only seen Psymon Shacks' Nose Out peice. Have you exhausted this detail yourself 'cause this doesnt look anything like the shape of the nose clip:   Sadly for the Live Composite theory, As Rasga has already pointed out, You are contradicting yourself w/ what the video shows. Your theory involves 3 layers: 1. (top layer) a prerecorded shot w/ the sky removed form the shot, 2. (middle layer) an image/animation of a plane that also has the background removed, 3. (bottom layer, background) the live explosion....  so this theory requires the plane, nose and all, to be infront of the live explosion ...  
Edited by elephant room, Jul 25 2009, 12:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jul 27 2009, 11:08 PM Post #12 |
|
Ah, this explains mr baker's sudden urge to review the NBC footage. |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jul 28 2009, 12:13 AM Post #13 |
|
His list is bogus, and i've been waiting for a time to go through it. Might as well do it now:
How is this a compositional characteristic exactly? And its not true for chopper 5, chopper 4, or CBS divebomber.
What would you expect? The sky to be darker than the towers? And this isn't even the case for chopper 4.
Where would he expect planes to fly? And this isn't even the case for chopper 4.
Hello? The building is square?!
But the impact is on the side of the tower that is already in shadow. Where would he expect a shadow to be cast?
True. The only legitimate explanation i can think of is that the helicopters weren't allowed (or chose not) to fly around near the smoke coming from WTC1, and kept well away from it, for safety reasons. I'm still surprised by this though. I'll give ace this one for now, but has he considered the safety implications of news choppers flying in the smoke?
They were news choppers, yes. What would you expect, hand-held cameras?
Almost as if they were filming something!
Chopper 5 zooms whilst the plane is in the wide shot. Chopper 4's camera is tilting all over the place! When the plane is in shot, would you rather the cameraman panned away? What sort of focusing have you seen on ANY shot, from ANY time of day, on a chopper-cam, for about 25 years?
As it turns out, you've got nothing to show for your composite theory. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
2:07 PM May 23