Sunday, November 18, 2012

Total 9/11 Video Fakery Versus The Richard Hall 9/11 Holographic Plane Hypothesis - Part 4

 The Richard Hall 9/11 Holographic Plane Image Thesis- Video
[Article update 11/24/12: Last night I was an invited guest on the AbIrato radio show. The subject of my interview was this, my 4 part analysis of the Hall thesis. The mp3 file of that interview can be heard here  N.B. the interview is somewhat marred by an intermittent "Skype" connection, but if you grit your teeth you might be able to make it through the entire thing. Regards, onebornfree.]

*******************************

Question: As 9/11 research, is the Richard Hall hypothesis of any use  to us at all ?

Although for myself,   Mr Hall's hypothesis makes little sense because of the almost complete disregard for basic, simple, common sense  scientific protocols, it is not entirely useless.

 A Useful Reminder

I see it as being a useful reminder of just how far  from truth  it is possible to stray when using an almost entirely arbitrary investigative procedure,  and that it vividly demonstrates, that for a truly scientific analysis and end result to be obtained, the VAST importance of NOT making initial, completely arbitrary assumptions about the trustworthiness of everything/anything to be used as evidence, other than, say, the applicable laws of physics. 

So What About "Eyewitness" Testimony? 

And , by the way, before I forget,  alleged "eyewitness" testimony does not get a free pass either. In my opinion, no alleged eyewitness testimony should be used as part of a so-called scientific investigation unless it can be verified as true beyond a reasonable doubt. If it cannot be verified via appropriate means [ e.g. private investigation of eyewitnesses background, personal history etc.] then  frankly, such "testimony"  has no part in a  legitimate "scientific" investigation for 9/11, or for anything else, as far as I can see. [ And yet, everywhere I look, I am confronted with the never-ending spectacle of straight-faced, "serious", 9/11 "researchers" using entirely unverified , non-cross-examined alleged "eyewitness testimony" as absolute proof of something or other - and invariably, as "proof", to further bolster their already "irrefutable", "scientific" "verifiable", "logical" conclusions about what happened on 9/11.]

Assumtions, Assumptions, Asumptions [Or, Garbage In, Garbage Out]

All  final hypothesis' inevitably rest on the initial assumptions made by the person presenting the final hypothesis. 

A logical argument and final conclusion about an alleged closely related group of events such as 9/11 can only follow after  initial assumptions  have been made. The importance of correct initial assumptions cannot be overstated, for if those  initial assumptions are incorrect, then it follows that the  final conclusions [derived via logic] are also likely to be incorrect, no matter how "logically correct"  they might  appear to be.

Mr Hall's  [Important] Initial Assumptions Are Not Readily Apparent 

The initial  assumptions made by Mr Hall and from which his logic inevitably  follows in order to reach his final  conclusion [i.e that on 9/11 holographic imagery via invisible drone aircraft was employed] , may not be immediately apparent to the casual viewer of his video presentation, as  his presentation does not clearly proceed from those initial assumption[s] made, but instead presents his conclusions first ; in fact, the important, initial assumptions he actually made before he reached his  final conclusions are not revealed until later on in his video, when he gets around to discussing what he calls the "impact" videos; that is,  after he has already demonstrated the results/conclusions of his research via diagrams and 3d presentations. 

As with anything else, obviously, if any of his initial  assumptions  are indeed incorrect, then it  follows [logically!] that his  final "logical" conclusion [holographic plane imagery was used] must also most likely be wrong. 

It seems obvious to myself, and as I have already tried to demonstrate in parts [2] and [3] of this examination, that nearly all of Mr Hall's initial assumptions made  to formulate his 9/11 holographic plane image hypothesis  are entirely unjustifiable, when compared to everyday, common sense  scientific evidentiary  verification procedures that even I, a mere unschooled "layman", can understand .


Hall Question 6 : Why has he, as a person presumably trained in correct scientific methodology [with a degree in electrical engineering, apparently] , with no further investigation, simply assumed that all of the data sets and video sequences he uses in his analysis/hypothesis are genuine? On exactly what scientific procedural basis are his various assumptions based?

A Major Violation of Scientific Procedural Methodology?

For regardless of whether you and I think that the 26 videos or 2 data sets  he analyzed are ultimately genuine or not , how is the pre- assumption that they are on his part,  in any way remotely connected to a sound scientific methodology wherein the only assumptions made as to genuineness should be regarding laws of physics [surely?]. 

As far as I can see, everything else [ including all video and /or other alleged "eyewitness testimony"] must, strictly speaking , be regarded as questionable [i.e. neither necessarily true or false], by the investigating scientist until definitively proved otherwise, one way or the other.

Is it not a major violation of scientific investigative procedure/methodology to automatically assume, with zero justification, that the data and videos he reviewed are all genuine and to then use them to formulate his hypothesis? 

Other, Equally Guilty, "Scientific" 9/11 Researchers 

 As I hinted in my introduction, Mr Hall is far from the only offender under the "scientific investigation of 9/11" umbrella. His "crimes" [i.e. unreasonable, unsupported, unjustified assumptions] are in fact identical to those committed by  at least two  or three other prominent "science- based" 9/11 researchers, that I am aware of at this time. 

"Business As Usual", "Par For The Course"

To reiterate what I already said in part 1 of this critique, in fact, Mr. Hall's "crimes" are no worse than those of the other  "scientific" 9/11 investigators - simply "business as usual" and "par for the course",  as they say.

A"Comedy of Errors"[Or, Mr Hall's Investigative/Procedural "Crimes"]: 

Here is a recap of Mr Hall's Investigative "crimes", a veritable "Comedy of Errors",  to quote the esteemed Mr W. Shakespeare [ a phrase which could be equally applied  to  all of the so-called 9/11 "scientific investigators", as far as I can see] : 

1] Data Set Verification

Hall has not proved that either data set  he used is genuine. Has any effort been made to authenticate the data? If so, how?  At one point he  says :

"If we consider the 2 official flight paths, it stands to reason that both sets of radar data cannot be correct. either one, or possibly both, have to be forgeries." 

But he  then later assumes [ with no explanation/justification given]   that the alleged military data is genuine : Hall [31:25] : "let's make an assumption, that the military data is correct"

How does he know that even the alleged military data is genuine- on what basis?  If genuine, how does he explain the fact that that data set ends well short of the towers? 

And let's not forget, he then falsifies the last part of the alleged genuine military data series by drawing an arbitrary, purely speculative purple line from that data's last given point  to the face of WTC2, when no data apparently existed to justify extending that line!

2] Video Sequence Verification 

[First of all,  and maybe seemingly a minor point, but as I mentioned before, Mr Hall has made no attempt  to distinguish between the original alleged "live" MSM network footage [5 clips] and the other  21 alleged "amateur" clips used in the Hall video analysis.]

More importantly, no attempt has been made to verify the authenticity of even 1 of the 26 clips  he used. All were automatically and mysteriously assumed to be genuine.  With, NO  scientific, procedural justification for that important assumption ever given/explained.

How Could He  Verify Video Clip Authenticity? 

I'm glad you asked :-) .  

I'm no expert on this either, but even I have become aware, via self education, of some fairly obvious clues left behind within most, if not all of the 9/11 network and amateur  footage:

Obvious Video Fakery Clue 1: Composite Layering/Masking Errors

 For example,  the "still" frame video extract below clearly shows the plane image [or dust cloud if you absolutely insist], running into an [until then] invisible masking layer that runs down the exact center of the original, complete  frame. 

The existence of that invisible layer in an allegedly "live" network sequence [ Fox 5] means that there is no way in hell that that sequence can have been filmed live, and that in fact it is  a digital animation composite, composed of different layers, one of which has become exposed because of the ineptitude of the composite/layering technician. 

Nose of Plane or Dust/Smoke Cloud? Who Cares?

And just to be clear, in my opinion, it matters not whether the image is actually supposed to be a plane nose that has miraculously emerged intact through the other side of  the building , or [as some claim] simply a post-penetration dust cloud, the fact of the matter is that whatever it is, plane nose or dust cloud,  it STILL runs into that invisible layer :
    Part 4- Fig. 1



Above still frame extracted from Simon Shack's "Nosed Out" examination of the original "live" Fox 5 footage below: 


[
Part 4- Fig. 2

Coincidentally, in the 3rd part of his [Hall's] own video holographic plane presentation,Mr Hall addresses the very same Fox 5 footage sequence as examined by 9/11 researcher Simon Shack [above 2 image samples],  and, whether out of ignorance or  convenience, entirely dismisses it, completely sidestepping/neglecting to mention the abundantly clear evidence of a layer that runs top to bottom of that clip which occurs in the exact center of the frame , and thereby conveniently missing the point that ultimately it  does not matter what the post-collision image really is meant to be  -plane nose or dust/smoke - that image still becomes entirely flat as it runs up against the until then invisible layer . Conclusion: Mr Hall is either blind as a bat or deliberately obfuscating on this issue. 

Obvious Video Fakery Clue 2: Pixel Clouds: 

Another  useful indicator of video manipulation/forgery that Mr Hall is apparently entirely unaware of is the tell-tale presence of "pixel clouds" . 

In 9/11 video imagery these are most commonly found around the plane image itself. 

If you watched the video in part 3 of this analysis entitled " 9/11 TV Fakery: The Hezarkhani File"  , you will have already seen a clear demonstration of a pixel cloud [and therefor of video fakery]. 

 Here are two more other clear plane image pixel-cloud examples:


Image
Part 4- Fig. 3

....and [again from the Fox 5 sequence as analyzed by Simon Shack in "Nosed Out" and related videos]. The pixel cloud can in fact be seen to surround the plane image for the entire Fox 5 broadcast sequence as analyzed above in Mr. Shack's "Nosed Out" video:
      Part 4- Fig. 4

Yet More Clues To Video Fakery - 

 More Entirely Incompatible Flight Paths of Fl. 175:

Mr Hall claims that all of the various video flight paths for Fl. 175 matched.

 Here are yet two more glaring exceptions that  refute that  claim [both gifs made by Simon Shack]. Notice that for the last 7 seconds of  Fl. 175 as shown in both sequences, one depicts an almost completely level approach, while the other [CBS- clip 20 in the Hall analysis], shows the plane image angling downward in  its own last 7 sec. approach:

Image
Part 4- Fig. 5

"Meanwhile, back at the ranch"..., err.., I mean, on the other side of the "pond", the BBC aired a sequence that shows Fl. 175 mysteriously lifting upward in its final moments: 


FINAL ASCENT - as aired on the BBC:
Image
Part 4- Fig. 6

More Fakery Clues: Contradictory Sunlight/ Shadows:


Many  alleged live 9/11 videos and stills show entirely contradictory sunlight angle and resulting shadows. For example [n.b. Fl.175 allegedly struck the south face of WTC2, so the opposite side to where that plane image is seen is the North side]: 

Part 4- Fig. 7


Part 4- Fig. 8
[both above illustrations courtesy Simon Shack]


Conclusion:

The Hall Hologram thesis is an at first interesting, but ultimately  severely flawed and unsatisfactory 9/11 hypotheis, that in no way attempts to adhere to standard common sense scientific protocol/methodology, and which therefor is invalid as an explanation of what did/did not happen on 9/11.

Still Not Enough Evidence Of  Video Fakery For You? 

The above examples, plus the others given in parts 2 and 3 of this report, may still not be enough to convince you, the reader, of 9/11 video fakery. That's OK, it makes no difference to me, one way or another, personally. 

It Took Me Two+ Years of Daily Review To Reach My Conclusions!


These are just a few of the many examples that helped convince me - but you need to know that over several years I looked at literally hundreds of examples similar to these, and others displaying other , different signs of fakery, [of which there are many more], before I ever became convinced that the evidence [ i.e."the sum of all the evidence"] overwhelmingly supported the case for total video fakery on 9/11 as presented by Mr Simon Shack. Over those years, I was often reviewing/reviewing the   evidence presented at Mr Shack's site  3 times a day or more. 


The Sum of All the Evidence ?


In other words, to use a strangely forgotten, [ with regard to most 9/11 research] legal term, for me ultimately, it was all about "the sum of all the evidence" reviewed, and not about  any one particular piece of evidence or type of evidence in isolation, that has lead me personally to my own final conclusion to date. 



   Article addendum/ update 11/23/12: 

 Yet More on The Contradictory Plane Paths Shown in different Videos [all images and text below courtesy Simon Shack]:


"The"LUIS ALONSO shot"
"Now, in this alleged "amateur video" credited to one Luis Alonso, "FLIGHT 175" also seems to make a final ascent. However, just how this final ascent is depicted appears to be a physically/aerodynamically impossible feat. I trust every honest airline pilot and aeronautical expert will agree with this claim. By all means, if you find fault with this analysis, please let me know" :

Image
Image

LUIS ALONSO SHOT (-8secs to -6secs before impact)________ LUIS ALONSO SHOT (-4secs to -2secs before impact)
ImageImage

LUIS ALONSO SHOT - full sequence (last 8 seconds before impact)
Image
(Note: none of the three above gif loops are at original speed and are only meant to illustrate the LUIS ALONSO trajectories)

Image
link to original LUIS ALONSO clip as aired on German TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtzyGUd3VjA


***********************************
Questions/ comments? : onebornfree at yahoo dot com
                                      

More About "Onebornfree":


Live solo example:

Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk

Home studio recording example: 
Youtube link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2oS9iI2zWU



5 comments:

  1. Great job. Let's do a show on radio.abirato.info to discuss this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Ab, I'd be happy to do another show with you. Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I consider the holographic theory to be magical since it seems impossible to project a plane against a bright blu sky and making the plane appear darker than the sky. HOW would that be possible? That question should be the first obstacle to pass for the hologram advocates. It is as absurd as the idea of a darkbulb that you turn on to kill the light of day, say if you need to sleep during dayhours, see what I mean? You flick a swictch and everything goes dark in the room except for shadowed corners of the room which still are lighted. Do we have that technology or even an idea how that would be possible?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for reading, motorfot. I agree, the technology appears to be highly dubious, and as I had pointed out in my first Fetzer interview: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/09/onebornfree.html ,

    it seems highly unlikely, even if the technology _were_ feasible, that the perps would be willing to risk possible complete technological failure in front of a live TV audience in the millions. [Same goes the J. Wood for D.E.W. theory.]

    Regards onebornfree. onebornfree at yahoo dot com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for exposing desinformation, intended or not. I hope I get my point across the language barrier, luckily swedish and english are quite similar and of common origin. Some even say english is a scandinavian language. If you watch a hologram demonstration you wilk notice that they always take place in dark settings. That is because of contrast. It is not possible to make dark areas by shining light on it. This is why cinemas are dark. The dark parts of a projected image is only as dark as the screen (not beeing lit) much like the lcd on your desktop or your tv.
      If you project a plane on a bright blue sky the darkest black you will se is the sky itself. I dont understand how someone trained in science can not understand this simple fact. That is very suspicious in it self. But then again, people watched those buildings getting taken down in controled demolition without understanding what they witnessed, so everything is possible.

      Delete