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 (14,315 Views)
heavyplastic
Member Avatar

heidimarie
 
As far as I'm concerned there are two issues. 1) Authenticity of my images and (2) subject matter.

Excellent conclusion Carmen, only the first point is of your concern. (probably that's just what it is; you took that picture and it is what it is)

The second point is the more startling point; there doesn't appear(s) to be a wake vortex (also called wake turbulence) in the smoke of the explosion and in the explosion itself, only something that looks like a face?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw8ZvGEsc8c (by skyarcher, but there are many more of those clips)

Where are the strobe lights, did anybody see those in any of the clips, or is the quality of the videos too bad to see those?

Then we have the other stuff on impact that doesn't make any sense, the airspeed, the pilots that I'm pretty sure couldn't do this kind of precision flying, explosion INSIDE the building, no plane parts (dubious ones to say the least) etc.
Edited by heavyplastic, Jul 4 2009, 12:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
seatnineb

heidimarie
Jul 4 2009, 09:16 AM
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
@Carmen

Probably 99.99 % of the world believes your story.....it is only that 0.01% that maybe doubts it!...

Assuming what you say is true....then your testimony is what it is ...and your behavior is exemplary,dignified and correct.

But if we play it the other way and you have forged your image....then I for one would expect you to say and insist that your image is real!!!

here are 3 witnesses who contradict your version of events......they did not see a plane...when thier viewing angle should have allowed them to see it...
they took fotos/videos of the explosion...or just after the explosion took place....

Now the aurgument against these guys is that they just were not looking in the right direction as the plane approached and hit...

But given their panoramic views from the north west(Cruzate),the east(Castellano) and the west(Thom)......I am struggling to understand how they could not see the plane(if it really existed)
...given their vantage points....

Have a read of their testimonies and see what you think....

Quote:
 

Testimony of Victor Cruzate:

When I was back in the roof I saw just before my eyes the explosion on Tower 2. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE, nor did any of the other guys on the roof.
http://www.cruzate.com/nyhell

FOTO BY VICTOR CRUZATE


Posted Image

WHAT VICTOR SHOULD HAVE SEEN


Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image




Quote:
 

Testimony of David Thom:

After a while, I saw a huge fireball on the second tower -- being on the far side, I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE and assumed a bomb or something had gone off.
http://www.tgeneva.com/~davethom/


FOTO BY DAVID THOM

Posted Image

WHAT DAVE SHOULD HAVE SEEN

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image



Quote:
 


Testimony of Michael Castellano:

Although from our angle we could not see the actual impact, AND DID NOT KNOW A SECOND PLANE HAD STRUCK and NEVER SAW IT AS IT APPROACHED
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1403828&forward=viewportfolio


FOTO BY MICHAEL CASTELLANO



WHAT MICHAEL SHOULD HAVE SEEN

Posted Image
Posted Image




















Edited by seatnineb, Aug 7 2009, 01:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spooked911

seatnineb
Jul 4 2009, 02:14 PM
heidimarie
Jul 4 2009, 09:16 AM
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
@Carmen

Probably 99.99 % of the world believes your story.....it is only that 0.01% that maybe doubts it!...

Assuming what you say is true....then your testimony is what it is ...and your behavior is exemplary,dignified and correct.

But if we play it the other way and you have forged your image....then I for one would expect you to say and insist that your image is real!!!

here are 3 witnesses who contradict your version of events......they did not see a plane...when thier viewing angle should have allowed them to see it...
they took fotos/videos of the explosion...or just after the explosion took place....

Now the aurgument against these guys is that they just were not looking in the right direction as the plane approached and hit...

But given their panoramic views from the north west(Cruzate),the east(Castellano) and the west(Thom)......I am struggling to understand how they could not see the plane(if it really existed)
...given their vantage points....

Have a read of their testimonies and see what you think....

(snip)


Great post, seatnineb-- I agree with all you say.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spooked911

I really appreciate Carmen answering all these questions so patiently. It's been very interesting and educational.

However, I am confused about something. Carmen says she made copies of the plane photo on CDs. I assume these are full size copies. Is there a reason Carmen can't share one of these full size copies with us? All I've seen are images from 20 - 50 kB. But the original should be almost 500 kB.

One other thing, is that NIST published a photo from Carmen Taylor showing the entry hole in the south tower. Can we possibly obtain a full resolution copy of this from Carmen? The timestamp is 9:16:33, and it is figure 6-34 from one of the NIST reports. I would love to see a better image of the entry hole than what we have in the public domain now. Thanks in advance.

Attaching file here:
Attached to this post:
Attachments: 6_34_wtc2_south_face.jpg (72.46 KB)
Edited by spooked911, Jul 5 2009, 08:50 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

spooked911
Jul 5 2009, 08:48 AM
All I've seen are images from 20 - 50 kB. But the original should be almost 500 kB.
................
I would love to see a better image of the entry hole than what we have in the public domain now. Thanks in advance.
Wassup, spooky?

I'm afraid you won't be able to. If you read through the last couple of pages you'll see why. The images were stored on floppy disk (about 30 on a disk). Original image size is around 30kb.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spooked911

broken sticks
Jul 5 2009, 10:19 AM
spooked911
Jul 5 2009, 08:48 AM
All I've seen are images from 20 - 50 kB. But the original should be almost 500 kB.
................
I would love to see a better image of the entry hole than what we have in the public domain now. Thanks in advance.
Wassup, spooky?

I'm afraid you won't be able to. If you read through the last couple of pages you'll see why. The images were stored on floppy disk (about 30 on a disk). Original image size is around 30kb.


OK, I guess I need to learn more about image sizes-- 30 kb seems really small for a digital pic.
Edited by spooked911, Jul 5 2009, 04:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

spooked911
Jul 5 2009, 04:20 PM
broken sticks
Jul 5 2009, 10:19 AM
spooked911
Jul 5 2009, 08:48 AM
All I've seen are images from 20 - 50 kB. But the original should be almost 500 kB.
................
I would love to see a better image of the entry hole than what we have in the public domain now. Thanks in advance.
Wassup, spooky?

I'm afraid you won't be able to. If you read through the last couple of pages you'll see why. The images were stored on floppy disk (about 30 on a disk). Original image size is around 30kb.


OK, I guess I need to learn more about image sizes-- 30 kb seems really small for a digital pic.
You were right in thinking its a small image size. I can't be bothered repeating the info from one or two pages ago.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spooked911

broken sticks
Jul 1 2009, 04:05 PM
Ace, just admit you're wrong.
Grow up man.

From your "One obvious mask" section about the Spiegel shot:
"Notice that it disappears across a very straight boundary. How would a chaotic real-world collision produce such a straight line? No answer has emerged."
Its obviously a shadow. An answer has emerged! lol
It's not obviously a shadow. Shadow of what and why isn't it seen in other videos?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spooked911

heidimarie
Jul 1 2009, 07:12 PM

#7 Michael and I spoke confidentially. He is a man of integrity and keeps his word. I appreciate that in everyone. We did determine, and it is no problem for me to relay this, that he was about 20 feet behind me, assuming I was on the roof deck.









Carmen--
I'm confused by this statement. Were you on the roof deck or not?
Thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spooked911

broken sticks
Jul 5 2009, 05:01 PM
spooked911
Jul 5 2009, 04:20 PM
broken sticks
Jul 5 2009, 10:19 AM
spooked911
Jul 5 2009, 08:48 AM
All I've seen are images from 20 - 50 kB. But the original should be almost 500 kB.
................
I would love to see a better image of the entry hole than what we have in the public domain now. Thanks in advance.
Wassup, spooky?

I'm afraid you won't be able to. If you read through the last couple of pages you'll see why. The images were stored on floppy disk (about 30 on a disk). Original image size is around 30kb.


OK, I guess I need to learn more about image sizes-- 30 kb seems really small for a digital pic.
You were right in thinking its a small image size. I can't be bothered repeating the info from one or two pages ago.
OK, I guess 300,000 pixels can be compressed into a 20 kb jpeg. I guess the question is: do these disks contain an uncompressed version of the pictures in a different format? Just that it would be nice to have more detail, obviously.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

spooked911
Jul 5 2009, 05:44 PM
I guess the question is: do these disks contain an uncompressed version of the pictures in a different format?
Uncompressed version? Where on a 1.44MB disk, filled with pictures, do you think an uncompressed version will be?

Oh, i see ur backing up ace's statement about the spiegel shot, huh? Let me go get a copy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

spooked911
Jul 5 2009, 05:30 PM
broken sticks
Jul 1 2009, 04:05 PM
Ace, just admit you're wrong.
Grow up man.

From your "One obvious mask" section about the Spiegel shot:
"Notice that it disappears across a very straight boundary. How would a chaotic real-world collision produce such a straight line? No answer has emerged."
Its obviously a shadow. An answer has emerged! lol
It's not obviously a shadow. Shadow of what and why isn't it seen in other videos?

Hey spook, it was off-topic, so i started a new one: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1915015/1/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spooked911

broken sticks
Jul 5 2009, 07:13 PM
spooked911
Jul 5 2009, 05:44 PM
I guess the question is: do these disks contain an uncompressed version of the pictures in a different format?
Uncompressed version? Where on a 1.44MB disk, filled with pictures, do you think an uncompressed version will be?
I had a Sony digicam that put out different file formats. I don't know much about that old Mavica, but it sucks if it only puts out heavily compressed jpgs. Granted there isn't much space on the floppy, but I still have a hard time believing the camera only put out 30 kb jpgs as a default setting.

The bottom line is it is unfortunate if no higher res is available, and of course, low res is a good way to hide fakery.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heidimarie

Spooked: I simply don't remember what deck I was on except that there was nothing overhead nor do I remember another deck above and behind me. Michael was sure of his location and it matched my memory.

If I can get into pumpitout at work and figure out how to send you pictures off the CD, I'll do it, or e-mail to Jeff to attach to this topic.

Seat: Can't explain how other witnesses didn't see the plane coming in, nor can I explain how or why Michael and others on the ferry say the plane flew over our heads while I was watching it come in from my left.

Heavy: The vortex issue is very interesting. Its almost like I took a picture of something not real. It makes me wonder if my picture and Michael's vides aren't something like double-edge swords. They either prove the "truth", or are proof of the "lie".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

spooked911
Jul 6 2009, 07:30 AM

Granted there isn't much space on the floppy, but I still have a hard time believing the camera only put out 30 kb jpgs as a default setting.
If you read the thread, you'll see exactly how many pictures were on the disk, what the filenames were, and where to download copies of most of those files.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · September 11, 2001 · Next Topic »
Add Reply