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
The D. Stanley video; Discussion and analysis
Topic Started: Jun 26 2011, 06:43 AM (657 Views)
YougeneDebs
Member Avatar

On August 28, 2010, D. Stanley uploaded a 2nd Hit video to Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cNx5GxUmtE

On June 9, 2011, an anonymous user “Aldwinn” alleges the video is “fake” and presents a rationale.

On June 10, I promised to look into the matter for a couple of days – which has stretched to over 2 weeks. Only now can I present a report.

I have examined the Stanley video from left to right, top to bottom; I was able to establish a reasonable camera position based on many lines of sight using both foreground and far ground buildings. After such a detailed investigation, I can say, in my humble opinion, the Stanley video is not fraudulent. But I use the rubric “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty”.

There are a few oddities, to be sure, but these involve correctly identifying buildings both in Brooklyn and on Manhattan. I can give Aldwinn due praise for identifying two buildings in Brooklyn, those were hard enough. But I must also point out that Aldwinn misidentified the NYSE building in Manhattan! To be clear, what Aldwinn calls the NYSE is really a Trump Building.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=168974.

So, here’s something to think about: What if that anomaly spotted by Aldwinn isn’t on Manhattan but instead on a roof in Brooklyn? In other words, if that anomaly is so out of place that it can’t be the Trump Building, then maybe it’s something else!

And then there’s the defamation aspect: if anybody posts a defamation, this whole board can get shut down.

Just my two-cents.

Debs
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

Good spot debs. The stabilization shot is what convinces me though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

YougeneDebs
Jun 26 2011, 06:43 AM
And then there’s the defamation aspect: if anybody posts a defamation, this whole board can get shut down.
And yes, important point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

broken sticks
Jun 28 2011, 07:19 PM
Good spot debs. The stabilization shot is what convinces me though.
Actually i'm not 100% convinced. Remember the jumping building in Naudet 1st Strike?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YougeneDebs
Member Avatar

broken sticks
Jun 28 2011, 07:25 PM
broken sticks
Jun 28 2011, 07:19 PM
Good spot debs. The stabilization shot is what convinces me though.
Actually i'm not 100% convinced. Remember the jumping building in Naudet 1st Strike?
Hi, Sticks~

I remember that -- and so much more. Like, being a fan of Simon Shack.

Aldwinn did well to stabilize the Stanley video; that was nice.

Thanks, Aldwinn!

Debs
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar

Interesting it is, the simultaneous camera motion down to the right, despite the otherwise different motion.

Posted Image
Naka N. on bottom, D. Stan on top

I just posted a GIF and insinuated fakery. LOL. Shack Fu
Edited by Matt, Jun 30 2011, 09:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

Matt
Jun 30 2011, 09:23 PM
LOL. Shack Fu
B-)
interesting comparison though. i'm still in the "fake camp" on this issue if pushed for an opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YougeneDebs
Member Avatar

broken sticks
Jul 2 2011, 09:56 PM
Matt
Jun 30 2011, 09:23 PM
LOL. Shack Fu
B-)
interesting comparison though. i'm still in the "fake camp" on this issue if pushed for an opinion.
Okay, Sticks; I'll press you for an opinion.

What parts of Aldwinn's analysis impresses you?

Thanks in advanxe,

Debs
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

YougeneDebs
Jul 3 2011, 02:55 AM
broken sticks
Jul 2 2011, 09:56 PM
i'm still in the "fake camp" on this issue if pushed for an opinion.
Okay, Sticks; I'll press you for an opinion.

What parts of Aldwinn's analysis impresses you?
The stabilisation shot. And he's since posted some atrocious videos.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YougeneDebs
Member Avatar

broken sticks
Jul 4 2011, 09:44 AM
YougeneDebs
Jul 3 2011, 02:55 AM
broken sticks
Jul 2 2011, 09:56 PM
i'm still in the "fake camp" on this issue if pushed for an opinion.
Okay, Sticks; I'll press you for an opinion.

What parts of Aldwinn's analysis impresses you?
The stabilisation shot. And he's since posted some atrocious videos.
Just as I thought: "The stabilisation shot."

I made a video about parallax; did you see it? The point to recall is that the relationships between objects in the foreground and objects in the far ground will change with a change in the camera position; the objects will appear to move in relation to each other. It’s a favorite trick of Simon Shack.

Since Stanley was swaying while filming (swaying a little to the right, then a little to the left, and repeat), then Stanley created a parallax (unwittingly; I assume). And since the distances involved are large (for instance, about 1.7 miles from WTC to foreground buildings), then the apparent movement will be quite noticeable.

Aldwinn came along and stabilized the parallax creating the false impression that only one camera position was used – and Behold! – the buildings appear to move!

Looks like you're not the only one who took the bait.

Still, Aldwinn might be on to something about that building; if only Aldwinn can demonstrate it properly!

tgc,
Debs
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

YougeneDebs
Jul 4 2011, 01:30 PM
The point to recall is that the relationships between objects in the foreground and objects in the far ground will change with a change in the camera position
debs, i got this far into your post then the point hit me like a ton of bricks. good point monsieur!
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.
« Previous Topic · September 11, 2001 · Next Topic »
Add Reply