Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Carmen Taylor Answers Questions
Topic Started: Apr 23 2009, 05:01 AM (14,316 Views)
heidimarie

Actually, I didn't loose the plane I was visually tracking. What I meant, was some other people thought the "same plane that hit the tower" flew over our heads. How could if fly over our heads while I'm watching it come in from another direction? Is there sound on Michael's video? Do we hear the thundering roar of a jet 200 feet above his head?

tgc C
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heidimarie

Ace:

14, 15, 16: I mentioned earlier that my CD drive is out on my computer. took the CD to work, checked the properties, jotted them down and sent the info to you. Camera used a square disc, not a CD. Will not disturb the original that the pictures are on. Best bet is to look possibly in archives for 2001 Atlanta PhotoJurnalism Seminar, 29th competition for First Plane, New War-Single. They may have it. Also try 59th Annual Pictures of the Year International (POYi)

tgc C
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heidimarie

try this link

http://www.poyi.org/59/07/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YOUROOM101

Just thought I'd point out the obvious, CD's although a great medium can degrade over time, If I were you I'd have it backed up in more than one location, if you intend on preserving it for the future that seems the best way, or have other people got a copy of the original file?

On another point, I did test photograph using my camera and the setting that your camera could use, the thing that surprised me was that your camera only uses iso 100, I also looked at the reviews on line and it wasn't the best camera for poor lighting situations without using the flash. I also forgot to ask how much zoom of the 10x you remember using, just a estimate will do. I agree that if you are lucky you can get great pictures from any old camera from say 1999, they might be grainy due to pixellation but ok for the web.

So far I found that if I use a high speed shutter, say 1000 of a second iso 100, I can freeze moving objects at the cost of some loss of light, but the morning sun on 11th September was light enough I would think to get away with it. One thing I still don't understand, you say the camera was set to fully auto, in that mode the camera doesn't know you are trying to shoot a fast moving object and would choose to close the aperture down instead of speeding up the shutter, the only way to clear this problem up will be the data on the picture itself.

I know that many people are thinking I am questioning your story, but I just want to clear this thing up, and your picture could be the best way to invalidate any notion that TV Fakery was used. I think if you can do that for us, you are saving many hours of worthless investigating.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

The camera doesn't use CDs by the looks of it - I've had a quick look online and it looks like it might take 3.5 floppies!! lol
but youroom makes a good point. a backup is really really important, carmen - please please consider it. floppy disks are magnetic data, you can mess them up if you get them near magnets (like stereo speakers, for example, or car speakers - they have big magnets in them). but please back it up!

it is important data. if you still want to keep it locked away, remember one of the reasons you gave was for possible investigative use. well, that's exactly what this is.


reading the camera specifications, a lot makes sense. check it out:

# Images recorded on floppy disk; 1 disk holds 10 images at default resolution
# 3.5 inch floppy disks can be read by any PC or Mac with a floppy drive

And from the review:
"To compensate for this shortcoming in storage capacity (and to keep prices low), Sony uses a lower-resolution image sensor (640 x 480 pixels, or 0.3 megapixels) and higher levels of compression than you'll find on other similarly priced cameras. The resulting images look great as e-mailed attachments or on a Web site but lack the detail to produce quality prints at sizes beyond 3 by 5 inches."


Don't expect anything bigger than 640x480 Ace. Five minutes of research, mate. And i've got the flu.
Edited by broken sticks, Jul 2 2009, 07:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mars Rover

broken sticks
 
And i've got the flu.


LMAO!!!!!!!!

And we know how that can make things harder....... :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heidimarie

Room and Sticks:

Had several CD copies made of the floppy discs shortly after 9/11 and the info I sent on pixels, etc., came from the CD.

I say the camera was on automatic because that is how I usually shot. I got about 20 or so shots on a floppy. Don't know how much of the 10X zoom I was using. I picked a zoom that showed enough area around the towers so have a well porportioned shot, but had zoomed in and out a couple of times before finding the framing I wanted.

As I mentioned before, had the plane flown past to circle the tower, it probably would have been blurred, but it banked and at the moment I took the picture, it was moving away from me, and almost became like a still object. An object moving toward or away from the camera, especially at a distance, almost acts like it is not moving as far as the camera is concerned.

Room, I don't know that anything I could say or do would make the image conclusive to everyone. I know that I took that picture with my camera. I saw the playback in my camera and saw it immediately load onto Doug's computer screen...never touched, never edited or manipulated. Whether I had it at full 10x zoom or 7x zoom doesn't matter.

Are you trying to prove that I took the picture or that it was altered? Was it altered for TV or print publication? Who knows? If you had taken the picture, you wouldn't have any way of knowing it, either unless you saw and compared every publication yourself. One publication can brighten or lighten it, crop it or re-size it. Another can lighten only the underbelly of the plane.

I took the picture with my Sony. I would think bigger questions would be:

How did she set up the shot?

What made her think that speck to the left would end up in front of the Towers?

If she was watching the plane come straight in, how did it fly down the Hudson, do a U turn, and come up the Hudson, over the back of her head and hit the tower?

tgc C
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

heidimarie
Jul 2 2009, 11:19 PM

Are you trying to prove that...

To be honest, i was hoping for a better quality copy than we've previously had. Y'know, the more detail the better, i think that was most people's motivation for wanting copies of the original.

The copy on the POYi page is only 200x300 or something like that. oooohhhhh - i've found a link! stay tuned....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

Found this mirror of what looks like Carmen's photos, original resolution? original dates and filenames?!

http://www.mirrors.org/historical/2001-09-11-World-Trade_Center/wtc/tabby/

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heidimarie

If you go to my May 30 post, you'll see the complete list of the images with times. There were 29 on that particular floppy. The link above leaves out several and doesn't give much info. tgc c
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

heidimarie
Jul 2 2009, 11:47 PM
If you go to my May 30 post, you'll see the complete list of the images with times. There were 29 on that particular floppy. The link above leaves out several and doesn't give much info. tgc c
Ah cool, yeah i see it.
I think the files at the link i posted (the ten or so that are there) could be copies of the originals.

The blue underbelly really stands out, as does the huge bending of the wings (specifically the port wing?) :

Posted Image

Posted Image


And is this the white elephant?
Posted Image
Edited by broken sticks, Jul 3 2009, 12:05 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genghis6199

YOUROOM101
Jun 30 2009, 11:42 AM
heavyplastic you are right, if its a tracking shot, the background should be blurred, because you are following the object with the camera, the only way to get it sharp would be to use a very fast shutter speed and higher iso making the shot grainy. We need to find out the maximum shutter speed of the camera used because that will help us understand it better.
the word "tracking" is used here like satellites are involved.
it's not so clear cut. if you look at the hzarkhani shot..

do you think it's a "tracking shot"?.


and when she says she was tracking it,
did she mean with her eyes or with the camera?

the motion blur on this example is definitely missing,
but in my opinion it is a more plausible example than some..



Edited by genghis6199, Jul 3 2009, 02:42 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heidimarie

BSticks and Genghis...

Those appear to be very clean and good images. I'm glad you found them, Sticks.

I didn't track anything with my camera. I knew the camera didn't have those capabilities.

Also, the only original is the floppy disc. When it was put in Doug's computer, he kept a set of copied pictures. When they were transferred to our TV network, wouldn't that nean the pictures the TV station had were copies of my disc also? When I spent the night in upstate New York, I put my discs in their computer so they could see them. I know they copied because several years later she said her computer crashed and she didn't have any pictures anymore, but I'm sure she and her husband shared them. A very close friend made the CDs at his ad agency, and he also has a copy. So, bottom line, nobody has a set of originals and nobody else but the above had access to the floppy discs to copy, so at best, you have a copy of a copy, I would think. tgc C
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
seatnineb

@Carmen

I guess what you have is a bit of a catch 22 whether your story is believable or not.

If we are to believe that it is a real plane that hit the building and that what you and others saw was real and that you are telling the 100% truth.......then that plane still exhibited anamolies with regards to how it behaved as it made contact and penetrated the building.....and the best way to highlight this point is by showing other planes that have crashed:

Look at how the right wing oscillates and eventually peels off as this 767 ethiopian plane as it skims the surface of the water:

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image


And from other plane crashes....the jet fuel ignites as soon as the wing is ruptured:

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image


yet for the plane that hit the wtc.....the wings do not appear to oscillate as the front of the fuselage hits the wall:

Posted Image

and the jet fuel does not ignite....as the wings are in the process of perforating the structure

Posted Image

.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heidimarie

Seat -- My pictures are real...maybe its a real picture of something not real. As far as I'm concerned there are two issues. 1) Authenticity of my images and (2) subject matter. tgc C
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · September 11, 2001 · Next Topic »
Add Reply