| 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: |
| The F=MA argument | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 14 2008, 08:18 PM (2,527 Views) | |
| achimspok | Oct 31 2009, 05:22 AM Post #121 |
|
 Ace either your video is a forgery or you have no clue what you are doing. Did you notice that your moiré pattern don't move? But it moves all the time! You don't need any matte to see it. That alone proves your claim wrong. And it proves your video a fraud. If the moire pattern moves then it proves that the intersection of two angular lines shifts, right? In this case the intersections between the video matrix and the columns shifts, right? It depends on the angle how much it shifts. small angle between matrix and columns -> larger shift (right in the Myers) larger angle between matrix and columns -> smaller shift (left in the Myers) So how (in your imagination) can the whole face sway to the north without the corners? It's impossible by simple logic even if you don't see it! So why your moiré pattern don't move, Ace? It just gets brighter or darker. The reason is, you have produced a fraud, Ace! If you want do a motion detection then use a still you want as reference + invert all colors and grays + and add it 50% opacity on top of your video. The result is a homogeneous GRAY (not black). Any motion becomes visible either white or black depending on the direction of displacement. SO PLEASE, IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW STUFF WORKS... JUST ASK BEFORE ASSUMING A FRAUD! (That's the central message of Elmo's sesame street.) Edited by achimspok, Oct 31 2009, 05:23 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| RasgaSaias | Oct 31 2009, 05:36 AM Post #122 |
|
OMG! This explosion also looks like 9/11 and it was not nuclear!  OMG! Look at this non nuclear explosion too! Looks like the 9/11 fireball!  OMG! It's 9/11 on the mountains! And it's not nuclear!  What could all this possibly mean!? I'm so puzzled right now! Edited by RasgaSaias, Oct 31 2009, 07:01 AM.
|
|
|
|
| achimspok | Oct 31 2009, 05:41 AM Post #123 |
|
Agree.
Agree but the sources sometimes were tremendous sections of the steel facade.
No Ace that's nonsens. No radically change of direction (it wouldn't make any sense either). No "straight outwards" and "arc downs". But huge amounts of debris that was shot far out and fell in a ballistic manner followed by these dust trails. I don't know if these dust trails should be there or indicating something unusual. I know that those dust trails can also be seen in controlled demolitions. Imo these trails are really something interesting to investigate (but may be it turns out to be "normal".) 
Edited by achimspok, Oct 31 2009, 06:52 AM.
|
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Oct 31 2009, 07:14 AM Post #124 |
|
Don't forguet we have to use Ace Baker's logic. A tomato looks remarkably like a persimmon. Therefore they are both the same thing!   I love science! |
|
|
|
| achimspok | Oct 31 2009, 07:24 AM Post #125 |
|
Finally I googled for a while searching for smoke trails. There is that Eric Hufschmidt photo of a nuclear bomb test Ace posted, I found Napalm, I found the explosion of the challenger, rockets, and even military stuff that was dropped from airplanes...    However, these trails are not that usual that it would be possible to find a lot of pictures. Even nuclear explosions usually don't show those trails. The tower collapse shows a lot short pieces of exterior columns without trails. Other pieces (small and large) show these trails until hitting the ground. These "smoking" pieces didn't came only from the impact zone. Therefore neither kerosene nor heat due to the office fires can explain these trails. Huge amounts of concrete dust? May be but hard to believe because these trails followed in a strange constant manner to the ground. For a concrete dust trail I would expect a decreasing visibility.   So what is it? I don't know. Any opinion or expert? ...and may be a new thread! |
|
|
|
| acebaker | Oct 31 2009, 06:56 PM Post #126 |
|
Wow, you're desperate! The Moire pattern moves. You just picked two frames where it happens to be similar, and are looping those two frames, silly! I know perfectly well how a difference matte works, and I've given one. The video I made is JUST the difference matte, nothing composited back into the original footage. In After Effects, it will create a matte like the one I made. Any pixel that is the same will show up black, any pixel that is different will show up white. When the video reaches the reference frame, it is completely black. My difference matte clearly shows a shock wave moving through the tower. It's pretty cool actually. |
|
|
|
| achimspok | Oct 31 2009, 07:39 PM Post #127 |
|
I used 4 frames. Need a slow motion? May be you should check the threshold of your difference matte effect in After Effects. Some tips: # Adjust the Matching Tolerance slider to specify the amount of transparency based on how closely colors must match between the layers. Lower values produce less transparency; higher values produce more transparency. # Adjust the Matching Softness slider to soften the edges between transparent and opaque areas. Higher values make matched pixels more transparent but don’t increase the number of matching pixels. # If the matte still contains extraneous pixels, adjust the Blur Before Difference slider. This slider suppresses noise by slightly blurring both layers before the comparison is made. Note that the blurring occurs only for the comparison and doesn’t blur final output. Your method was created to make key effects not to analyze motion. Your key effect will ignore as much "difference" you want it to be ignored. My method ignores nothing. That hopefully tells you the logic of the process. Edited by achimspok, Oct 31 2009, 08:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
| acebaker | Oct 31 2009, 07:52 PM Post #128 |
|
I played with the settings and was unable to show the edge moving prior to the plane being all the way in. At certain settings the edge would appear, but then so would most of the tower, and it would appear even before the plane even came into the picture. The Moire pattern moves. |
|
|
|
| acebaker | Oct 31 2009, 08:32 PM Post #129 |
|
That's a nice photo of wake vortex. Look at what happens to smoke behind fixed airplane wings. Hmmmmmm. Edited by acebaker, Oct 31 2009, 08:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Oct 31 2009, 09:47 PM Post #130 |
|
Yeah! Look at all the heat from the fireball moving the air upward on that picture! Oh wait, there isn't a massive fireball affecting that wake vortex. Hmmmmmm. Edited by RasgaSaias, Nov 3 2009, 04:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
| achimspok | Oct 31 2009, 11:09 PM Post #131 |
|
Sure Ace, your method isn't very useful. You have to turn the Matching Tolerance slider up to 40% to "not see" the tower prior to your reference frame. But 40% is such insensible regarding to motion that your picture don't show any smoke that also moves all the time. Your difference matte:  If you turn the slider down to 15-20% you get about the right result. The problem is that any change (even an invisible change of the color) will result in just black or white. It is impossible to decide what caused that change that gave your white dot. Was it motion or just a change of the lightning conditions or whatever.
That would be your result for 20% Matching Tolerance:  and 20% is still very insensible. Just some spots in the smoke reach 20% change of the picture information. On the other hand the motion of the tower starts with a small amount. That's the way it is.  Maybe you should try my method because 1% change of the pixel information will give you a 1% change in the result. By your method 40% change of the pixel information results in a 100% change in the result (white pixel) while 39% change of the pixel information results in 0% detected motion (black pixel). Edited by achimspok, Nov 1 2009, 11:27 AM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Nov 3 2009, 04:24 PM Post #132 |
|
Yes, it is. I'm literally going to try and ignore him. Probably won't take long for me to crack, but i'm going to try, because he's clearly a time-waster. I'm glad you guys have been discussing the collapse, i'm about ready to start looking at it properly i think. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · 9/11 Research · Next Topic » |
6:13 PM Nov 25
