By 9/11 Mark Conlon
Edited by Andrew Johnson
Edited by Andrew Johnson
My reference material link from which I conducted my video analysis of Simon Shack’s video
is from his official YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/gORu-68SHpE
Abrupt cut-off of
the plane’s nose analysis:
At 6:54 in the September Clues film Simon Shack asserts that
the graphic inserted CGI plane’s nose visibly bumps into the layer-limit in the
Fox News ‘Chopper 5’ live coverage. See below image screen-shot taken at 6:54 in
September Clues film where the plane’s nose is abruptly cut-off.
Clearly in the above screen-shot image at 6:54 in September
Clues, Simon Shack shows the plane’s nose appearing to be abruptly cut-off by
an alleged ‘layering-line limit’.
I found this theory confusing because in the Fox News
‘chopper 5’ video sequences Simon Shack uses in his September Clues film at
7:14 and 7:23 do not show an abrupt cut-off of the plane’s nose in the identical
frames. Additionally, the plane’s nose appears to be intact in proceeding
frames as the plane’s nose continues forward before the ‘Fade to Black’
sequence. How can this be if the plane’s nose according to Simon Shack is
disappearing behind a ‘layering-line limit’?
I decided to compare two Fox News ‘chopper 5’ nose-out
identical frames taken from Simon Shack’s film September Clues.
See below: Identical
frame screen-shots at 6:50 and 7:14 in September Clues
See below: Pixel Analysis:
In the identical frame at 7:14 in the September Clues film, softer pixels of the end of the plane's nose are present. How can this be if the plane's nose has allegedly bumped into a ‘layering-line limit’ as Simon Shack claims in the earlier identical frame at 6:50? Inverting the colour of images seems to make these differences clearer (see below)
Inverted Colour Pixel
Analysis:
I then looked at another “identical” frame showing the “Nose out” from 7:23 in Simon Shack’s film
See below: Analysis identical plane ‘Nose-out’ frame at 7:23
Again softer pixels are observed with the end of the plane’s
nose which was intact and not abruptly cut-off, like we see in the 6:50 identical
frame showing the plane’s nose cut-off. Again, how can this be? According to
Simon Shack’s theory, the plane’s nose is bumping into the ‘layering-line limit’.
We now have two identical frame images showing the plane’s nose ‘intact’ and
not abruptly cut-off.
See below: Example
highlighting Simon Shack’s theory of the ‘layering-line limit’
If the ‘layering-line limit’ was in place as Simon Shack
claims at 6:50 in his film we would not be observing any pixel soft edges of
the plane’s nose in the other two identical frames he uses in his film at 7:14
and 7:23.
See all three
identical frames - 6:50, 7:14 and 7:23 of the planes’ noses for comparison below:
In the pixel analysis it appears that pixels have been removed off the end of the plane’s nose in the 6:50 frame, compared to the other two identical frames of the plane’s nose pixels, which show no abrupt cut-off of the plane’s nose.
This now calls into question whether a ‘layering-line limit’
is present at all in the video footage as Simon Shack claims, because the other
two plane noses in 7:14 and 7:23 would not be ‘intact’ if they were meant to be
disappearing behind a ‘layering-line limit’ as Simon Shack suggests.
To test Simon Shack’s ‘layering-line limit’ theory further I
did an analysis of the preceding frames in the Fox News ‘chopper 5’ video
footage to see if the plane’s nose disappears behind the ‘layering-line limit’
– as it should, if it was continuing forward behind the ‘layering-line limit’
before the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence.
In the analysis below, I have used a Fox News ‘chopper 5’
sequence which Simon uses in his film at 4:46. This particular sequence which Simon
Shack uses contains the ‘abrupt cut-off’ of the plane’s nose. I thought this
would be an ideal sequence to test and analyse his theory for evidence of a ‘layering-line
limit’ in the video footage.
From my analysis above it appears that the plane’s nose
remains intact in the preceding frames right through to the ‘Fade to Black’
sequence. There is no evidence of the plane’s nose disappearing behind a ‘layering-line
limit’. This proves beyond any doubt from the video evidence in Simon Shacks
own film at 4:46, that there is no ‘layering-line limit’ in the Fox News ‘chopper
5’ video footage, because the plane’s nose does not disappear or get abruptly
cut-off.
This is also supported by the other video evidence of the preceding
frames in Simon Shack’s film at 7:23 where he uses the Fox News ‘chopper 5’
sequence which demonstrates the plane’s nose remaining ‘intact’ throughout the
whole sequence, with no ‘abrupt cut-off’ or disappearance behind any ‘layering-line
limit’ in the preceding frames to the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence.
See below: Other
preceding frames video evidence at 7:23
Conclusion of the Evidence:
Questions have to be
asked and seriously considered…
Does this suggest Simon Shack has manipulated the plane’s
nose to suit his theory regarding the ‘layering-line limit? In the Pixel
analysis, pixels appear to have been removed from this frame at 6:50 when compared
to the other two plane noses in the two identical frames at 7:14 and 7:23 in
his film.
From my own analysis using Simon Shack’s own film evidence,
it suggests that some type of manipulation has taken place to remove the softer
pixels around the plane’s nose in his 6:50 frame. Was this done to support and
advance his theory regarding the plane’s nose allegedly bumping into its own ‘layering-line
limit’?
As we have seen from all the video evidence in Simon Shack’s
film, the preceding frames all show the plane’s nose intact leading up to the
‘Fade to black’ sequence, which would be impossible if there was a ‘layering-line
limit’ as Simon Shack suggests.
Other supporting evidence suggesting Simon Shack manipulated
the plane’s nose becomes more apparent when you compare the identical frame
sequence he uses in his earlier version of his film September Clues.
See the screen-shot comparisons below:
In the earlier version of September clues the plane’s nose isn’t abruptly cut-off by the alleged ‘layering-line limit’ observed in the later film version. The frames are identical, yet the plane noses are very different. Is this conclusive evidence of manipulation of the plane’s nose by Simon Shack?
Other researchers have raised questions about Simon Shack’s ‘nose-in’
‘nose-out’ evidence in the past. There is an interesting video clip here of
Richard D. Hall discussing with Andrew Johnson, Simon Shack’s analysis of the
plane’s nose that is in his film regarding the Fox News ‘chopper5’ ‘video. It
is interesting to note that both Richard D. Hall and Andrew Johnson suggest
that some type of manipulation has taken place regarding Simon Shack’s evidence
he uses in his analysis of the plane’s nose. Short video clip here below:
Summing-up, I suggest a strong possibility that Simon Shack has removed the end of the plane’s nose in his 6:50 frame to support his ‘false’ theory for a ‘layering-line limit’. The video evidence analysis I have conducted and presented in this article does NOT support any such ‘layering-line limit’ theory as suggested by Simon Shack in his film. Has Simon Shack himself manipulated video frames to promote the idea that the video fakery on a larger scale to explain the anomalies in the behaviour of Flight 175 when it allegedly crashed into the South Tower? Is this because the videos are actually real and show an image of something which was not a real physical plane? I.e. is Simon Shack disseminating disinformation in an attempt to hide the fact that an advanced image projection technology was used to create the illusion of plane crashes?
Thank you for reading and caring...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.