This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points

Users Online Now: 2,093 (Who's On?)	Visitors Today: 765,420
Pageviews Today: 1,344,048	Threads Today: 437	Posts Today: 9,155
01:28 PM

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bottom Search Replies Previous Page Next Page
Search Terms: Highlight Matches
This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
eyeDR3 Offer Upgrade User ID: 82694641 United States 02/24/2023 06:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points *SKIP ALL OF THIS UNTIL THE BULLET POINTS Or First REPLY IF YOU DON'T LIKE LONGER READS.* Edited to add some of the descriptions are in layman's terms and not exact. A lot of this stuff is very complicated. Something many don't understand is that the military and government have had cgi that rivals today's best visuals almost 30 years ago. And screens in 2001 weren't HD, not even 720p! Unless you were literally higher middle class or wealthy as hell. There was "ED" (no not erectile dysfunction in this case lol) which is enhanced definition and could be run over S-Video (serial connection, a circular port with I think 6 to 9 connectors, digital) or component YcPbPr/RGB/SCart/component 3 cable red green blue. These solutions could give 540p progressive scan imagery which was over twice the active resolution of 480i interlaced. You see, if you lay down LED strips horizontally and vertically and basket weave them, you would turn on the vertical lines and horizontal lines of light alternating back and forth, usually at 30, 59 or 60Hz (cycles per second). So you would see only the vertical lines or horizontal lines at any given millisecond. Like a flip book but instead of the full image each frame, you essentially have half of the image data missing horizontally or vertically each millisecond. Your eyes and brain aren't fast enough to see the image that is missing half the data because it is going through 29 or 30 alternating horizontal lined and vertical lines each second. Have you read this far? Good! So something that was ever present and annoying with old display technology was that it was interlaced. It basically flashed basket woven alternate horizontal and vertical lines and caused a flickering effect. This caused eyestrain, poor vision, craning of neck in kids that sat too close, artifactimg, rainbow waves and more. It also is visible in recorded video because the camera is recording either progressive video (all lines captured 60x per second to produce the illusion of motion) or interlaced (capturing half the data each millisecond alternating. Missing data in the blank spaces was "filled" by the next frame, like weaving a basket). This is truly enough for it's own thread so I'll do that so as to not interfere with yours... But let me continue here in just a minute... Quoting: eyeDR3 If you're still with me, you enjoy learning and aren't afraid of reading! Great! So let's go back to the "beginning" so to speak. The 60s through the mid 90s, television became exponentially more popular. Early tvs had as low as I think 50-100 lines that would make the image. Not pixels as those weren't a thing yet. It was analog and actually based on lines and frequency. So when these CRT (not critical race theory silly) cathode ray tube televisions were producing an image they were splitting light out into lines, whole lines no pixels) and what you were seeing was the top of the waves in layman's terms. At 24, 30, 59 or 60Hz or times each second. Almost like looking through vertical or horizontal blinds at the outside through a window. This is where images on CRT TVs could appear curved, slanted, wavy, juxtaposed and more. A LOT of science went into initial televisions. (I'm a believer they CAN be a vessel for supernatural or other misunderstood phenomena) It's all boiled down really to analog vs digital with how the displays work, to shorten that science lesson down... But from 60s to 90s think about how imagery on television might've been as low a resolution as 180, 240 or 540 lines, only half of which were really showing each second! That's fascinating shit! Videogames love them or hate them were the sole reason display technology progressed so very quickly and exponentially. When you play a game and press a button, there is an amount of time that the input takes to reach the processor that tells the output what to render on screen. I push X to jump on a PlayStation 1 controller for instance and it takes something probably around 20ms to travel from the controller board through the cable to the console, then it takes the processor for I/O and commands the graphics and video output to render the animation and action code on the screen for me. Back then it could take nearly an entire second for your input to render in the game. Your brain was conditioned for that. We were literally slower back then by a pretty fair margin! I remember being a kid and thinking how nice it would be to not have such blurry imagery, flickering and eye strain... But I didn't know how deep the rabbit hole went with something as seemingly simple as display technology... Quoting: eyeDR3 So here's the meat! If you're big brain energy you are here and will understand this next part like the back of your hand. When movies or television were made all the way up to the mid 2000s in most cases, they were recorded with analog technology like film. Film being developed in a manner that creates a WHOLE image (not dot matrix, not pixels, not lines) means there is a LOT of information packed into each individual frame. To film most movies, you would need 24 pictures taken each and every second so as to see motion without "skipping" or "tearing." If you've watched films from the late 1800s into early 1900s you will see what I'm describing manifesting in people looking like they're walking in fast forward because they only took around 5 to 8 images per second. While this gives motion it's still very choppy and noticeable to our brains) disorienting. When you go to a theater most movies are showing in 24p. This is progressive full frame film standard. Today though it still produces a bit of strain in my eyes. If you blink quickly you can see frames! Gosh it's SOOOO much to get to my point I'm terribly sorry... Have you ever thought Jurassic Park looked WAAAAAY better in the theater back in 93 than on your fancy blu ray player? Well the reason is that the CGI which was revolutionary and ground breaking at the time was produced digitally and added into a movie that was FILMED in ANALOG. So what you see is actually a composite image! The film itself is beautiful and natural and is endlessly upscaleable into digital formats because it was a WHOLE image like a film photograph that is being converted into a set resolution digital format (think of dot matrix, printers, any digital display) but the problem was that initial digital display and rendering tech simply didn't have anything near the infinite resolution of ANALOG nor the computational ability to get anywhere close to film. No joke, some movies from the 30s hold up better than movies made a few years ago because there just isn't enough data showing in each frame... Quoting: eyeDR3 LAST LESSON, then SHORT TO THE POINT So you understand that analog is whole, digital is only ever a portion of that whole. Digital is only ever trying to catch up to analog, just as is the case with music, but it LITERALLY CANNOT. Easy analogy... Pluck an acoustic guitar string and what you hear is analog. A true smooth frequency. You run it through a digital amplifier or a recording device, and you are only capturing a certain portion of that whole. The smooth natural analog music waves look more like staircases at this point. There are tons of missing data! mp3 was the worst standard and sounds like asshole but it made it easy for people to throw 1000 songs on a device smaller than a stick of gum. Try that with your vinyl collection! (Vinyl is analog, true wave recorded music. If you can find a nice horn, that's the way to go! Good luck lol!) Same goes for movies. Reel to reel film is extremely I mean EXTREMELY expensive (more today than then even) but it is analog. It can be blown up to be projected on the clouds above and still have as clear, crisp, whole a picture. Digital CANNOT do this! So Jurassic Park... They took the film into a digital software. I have no idea how many lines of resolution it could render at the time, but no matter, they added in digital graphics of dinosaurs moving at the same frame rate, or the same amount of "pictures" per second. So literally each second of that movie that showed any kind of state of the art imagery using digital graphics, each and every second, would have 24 different representations of the digital model moving like claymation in a sense. 1 second of those long necks when they approach in that jeep had each model moving through 24 differently animated representations. So when they animate the legs moving forward you are seeing actually like 24 different pages in a flip book essentially. Does it make sense that that requires a LOT of digital data? So the digital graphics in that movie probably took up whole data servers of the time. The original film was basically reproduced with the now artificially created digital imagery composed upon it. The resolutions of screens at the time couldn't really pick this up and in theaters you were seeing whole film with a layer of digital imagery overlapping it. So it looked DAMN GOOD back then because when they captured this digital animation they were doing so once again in ANALOG. I know it's so damn much to read and a lot to take in... It's why you shouldn't trust somebody recording video on their device from a screen. If somebody says "I have video of bigfoot!" and they upload a video of them recording another screen, that makes it much harder to see the fakery. It's suspect. To finish up the lesson, and move on the the part people will read because it's short and to the point, let's talk about the huge push from analog to digital. It was around 2007 if I remember right. Digital television was the initial push as they could take the analog signals and repurpose them for emergency personnel secured communications. Videogames, movies and music had moved almost entirely to digital already at this point. TVs were still mostly CRT tech at this point but people were very quickly investing in digital displays like "flat screen" lcd, projection or plasma. These displays again showed images almost like a printer or calculator, with the lines now being compromised of "pixels." So now the resolution would be called something like 720p, 1080i or 1080p. 1080p was not standard until very late 2000s into 2010s. Were you confused when someone says "1080p Blu-ray, with a resolution of 1920x1080!" Well that's 1920x1080 LINES that PROGRESSIVELY show, so it's showing both horizontal and vertical lines of the image with each flash, again 24 to 60 times per second. That's about 2.07 million individual squares made up of sub red green blue rendering spaces called "sub pixels". 6.22 MILLION individual dots or squares that can render an image up to 60x each second! 4K is called so because it's 4x the resolution of 1080p, or nearly. True 4K is not "UHD" because that is a difference in aspect ratio. Standard widescreen is 16:9 ratio. The golden ratio rectangle. It used to be 4:3 or otherwise, or more close to a "square." 4K is actually 21:9 sometimes called "ultra wide" and is 4096x2160 pixels to produce lines. Your at home 4KUHD displays are usually 3840x2160, so 16:9 ratio. True ultrawide displays will fill the screen and you won't have those black bars on top and bottom. My cellphone for instance has a 21:9 aspect ratio. It's a more elongated rectangle, like a Hershey's bar basically. So now your UHD TVs that people are already erroneously being referred to as "4K" are at 3840x2160. They display progressively, or all lines and pixels with each and every flash. This is 8.294 million pixels, with either 24.883 MILLION sub pixels (red green blue), 33.177 MILLION sub pixels (4 sub pixels WRGB so white red green and blue) or "Quantum dot" which is more akin to tricking digital into rendering more like analog than previously. That one I'll get into later. Very very high resolution, yes, but when it's stretched to the size of a billboard or drive in movie theater screen, you will still see a more blurry image as it was produced not as a whole analog image, but a fully digitally produced image. This gives what we call the "screen door" effect because the pixels have to be separated by space. At say a 65" or smaller TV screen, this may not be visible at all except for the best vision on the planet, but any bigger and you start to see that screen door effect (it's called aliasing, it's that stair step jagged appearance you see on hard lines). You simply DO NOT get this with film! So only now are our displays catching up to looking ALMOST as good as those of the past, or close enough to our poor eyesight to look similar to film. This is exactly why modern CGI fest films look like hot dog shit. It's 100% digitally produced when it's supposed to be real. My Dad said the issue with videogames for him was that they were just like a very poorly animated movie. Well movies today produce the uncanny valley effect, where our brains, instincts and the way our eyes see the moving image KNOW IT'S NOT REAL. It can look so close to reality but it's just not. There are always present anomalies in CGI because the added in objects have to track with the real objects and they are fully digitally rendered. So even the highest resolution scan of a human has missing gaps of data where analog would be represented simply as a true wave of light on the VLS. This doesn't even account for color rendering. There were for the LONGEST time about 8-16 million representable colors in standard production using RGB (red green and blue) sub pixels. Now with quantum dot and HDR (high dynamic range) we can produce digitally over 1 billion different colors. I don't know exactly how the visible light spectrum works but I would think it's actually a nearly infinite amount of colors we see above infrared and below ultraviolet to our naked eye. Quantum dot at the moment (you've seen it called QLED or Q something lol) is a new way of displaying color. An electrostatic layer rests over LEDs and sub pixels and when electric signals go through it in very slightly different voltages, it expands or contracts the light ever so slightly so you get red and violet shift, much like looking at stars and knowing which is moving toward or away by the red or violet shift. This can give smaller sub pixels, tighter dpi or ppi (pixels per inch) and an astounding amount of color data. Still not analog though LOL So what does any of this have to do with 911? Final post in this long form is only about that next... Quoting: eyeDR3 -911 was in 2001, when most every recording device and display were ANALOG -at this time, special effects were mostly digital but could also be produced with live action props and models. Star Wars and The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth with David Bowie, even interstellar used what is called "practical" effects because they could be filmed as whole true analog using REAL objects. In other words our brains are still happier with a puppet on screen or models of cities and space craft than with a fully digitally created abomination because it APPEARS REAL TO US. It can be filmed in ANALOG on REAL FILM and under natural, controllable lighting. No pixels. No limited color data. No baked in light rendering. Real motion. -digital productions of imagery are bitmap rasterized, or made of dots, pixels, lines with gaps between them instead of a whole image like analog. They can appear very sharp yes but juxtaposed with real data they look very uncanny or unnatural. Almost "too" real or surreal. -with advanced enough computer graphics technology you could render in digital imagery atop either an analog or digital image, even in "real-time". Today this is entirely possible. That's what they do during football games to render lines on the field, overlays of CGI atop live footage. This is how they achieve "holograms" too is by utilizing highly advanced deep fake like overlay technology while filming an impersonator so in the video you are seeing say Michael Jackson but in reality it's a digital manipulation, live in real time, a deep fake, over a lookalike. If you were right there able to record in person you could catch the fakery in these cases... -tiktok Instagram Snapchat and more are using this tech and calling it "filters." It's recording digital video while at the same time processing digital computer graphics that "track" objects in real time and try to blend in with them as if they were really present. So you can look like a retard chimera puppy too or have stupid fake butterflies flying around your head! Yay! -the aforementioned "filters" are a subcategory of what is actually called AR. PAY ATTENTION. AR is short for "Augmentated Reality" and has been around in the consumer market since AT LEAST 2003 or so from my memory. I recall the Sony PS2 PlayStation 2 system (also a huge pioneer in pushing digital formats like DVD and digital output methods, progressive scan imagery, HD even) had an accessory called the "PlayStation eyetoy" where you set up a camera and could play dancing, surfing, sports and such on screen. Your body was the "filter" so if you outstretched your arms you could "hit" these digital objects and interact with them on screen, almost in real time. Real time CGI. -PlayStation eye was a derivative device, that is it was inspired by preexisting tech already present for years in Japanese arcades and even at Disney parks -2003 when it was released wasn't even 2 years beyond the world trade center attacks but it was YEARS after the technology was already available in consumer approachable areas -If the film of 911 from all the different angles we've been allowed to see had been affected by AR, there should be SOME kind of anomaly: a hiccup in tracking, a slip in feathering the hard edges of the digital image overlapping the analog, frame pacing mismatches, resolution differences... SOMETHING. Guess what? ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE PRESENT IN NEARLY EVERY VIDEO OF 911. -The only surviving footage we have of 911 has been converted from analog to digital by now. I can GUARANTEE anyone you know DOES NOT have footage they took themselves on any device. Video recording devices weren't very prevalent or weildy at that time, and if they were, they were highly expensive and still very slow. We didn't have the ability to whip out a digital camera in an instant let alone live stream. Even the best of the early digital recorders were very slow to boot and save data to digital card formats. By the time somebody hit record, the first, likely even the second plane already hit the building. -don't forget analog recording methods were often not able to be recorded over and if they were, there was likely going to be some errors and things that will slip through. Think of recording over a wedding tape. You could have moments that come in as the wedding and the rest is an episode of cops. Worse you're watching ET with Grandma and grandpa and 80s porn comes on at some point. Oops. -say you're recording the building by happenstance for a documentary at the exact moment the first plane comes in and hits. Yes this is actually more likely than you might want to believe, moreso today than in 2001 by far, but even then with millions at any given second moving around and observing the city of New York, this is believable. However, massive holes form in this story when you realize the footage you are seeing had to be RECORDED from it's original format and device to one that can be shared with others. It wasn't a digital recording. It was analog. Probably VHS or those mini VHS cassettes. It had to be converted and saved. By that time it could've already been heavily manipulated. -in order for AR to work there has to be a reasonably powerful computer behind it as well as a DIGITAL camera. Smartphones became a device that could feasibly deliver AR quite a while ago but now it's very smooth. It was pretty silly and archaic then (still is to me today) -Livestream video could still be manipulated with AR if it is being recorded in ANALOG and shown digitally. I call this the "Jurassic Park" effect, and this is exactly how I believe they can pull off future blue beam and even partly 911 -if a news station was "coming to you LIVE from New York City!" we all know that it wasn't truly live. There might be as little as a few seconds delay, up to even MINUTES. I don't know if you remember but if you called somebody from New York in LA back then, you could have seconds of delay before you'd respond to one another. We were literally slower in so many ways, even our own brains hadn't been conditioned to see things in real time or to even communicate like that. Video calling was just a sci fi dream to us then! Saturday might live was so big because you could see a stage skit show halfway across the world almost like you were in the audience. But remember that multicolored screen and loud beep that would come on if studios lost broadcasting signal capabilities (lost power, inference, emergency broadcast message interjection, etc)? Well that's something they could control manually if need be. To "pull it" or stop a feed say if somebody kills themself, murders, shows nudity, curses... And guess who has control over that? The FCC. -since nothing was truly "live" then, they could take even a few seconds or minutes to have superimposed computer generated imagery or something like augmented reality into the footage. It could've even been practical effects they were using, like they had these computer generated composite planes that could track and overlay even a missile -only somebody that was there THAT DAY that saw with their PHYSICAL EYES could say 100% for sure or not if there were ACTUAL commercial planes that day. Otherwise any footage unfortunately cannot be trusted you guys! -if unreal engine 5 a game development engine computer software today in 2023 looks very nearly photorealistic, let's just say since 1993 the military and the "elite" have had this tech or better. Let's be honest... They've had it FAR FAR FAR longer than that. So on 911 the footage we see could be computer generated, that's entirely possible, or it could have been superimposed practical effects -the media is 1000% involved as are everyone in higher positions. Either they were fooled themselves (even the very elect will be fooled) or directly involved. Either way... They were involved. -FCC chair, who was it then? Are they dead? -how many of the people with original unmanipulated footage are still alive today? How many still have the original footage? Where is it? -how many people died that tried to expose what I've just spent 2 hours explaining? Last Edited by eyeDR3 on 02/25/2023 04:49 PM :memorybanner:

eyeDR3 (OP) User ID: 82694641 United States 02/24/2023 06:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Have fun boys and girls! This is all straight from me. No wiki, all by my memory... Please ask any question you'd like. I'd LOVE to explain anything that might confuse you... 911 was the event the bible explained that "even the elect would be fooled." And it leads to Satan's short lived reign over earth. Tribulation is very soon. We've lived in pretrib for a bit. 2017-2024, 7 years split by peace and evil. Split by 2 solar eclipses that form an X, a mark, over the US US is New Babylon America will be judged very harshly. The rain falls on all. No rapture. :memorybanner:
eyeDR3 (OP) User ID: 82694641 United States 02/24/2023 06:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points I know it's really long but it covers a lot. The gyst... Tech has radically changed and progressed. Today we could pull this off all the same, but in many ways not as well. Low resolution analog interlaced displays and hyper advanced tech that at the time we couldn't fathom were used to fool us. Yes in nearly "real time." (Within minutes) Project blue beam WILL work. At least at first. All of us that call it out will be called the crazy ones. Recording on your phone, they could literally deliver realtime AR deception overlaying "real" devices. Imagine a shit ton of drones or satellites that can act like "pixels" or tracking devices to overlay using CGI. A little DJI drone could become a terrifying alien UFO with some simple tracking, CGI and AR overlay. You wouldn't even know because the only way you could record this event would be using probably a smartphone. Even then it would look like shit and wouldn't mean anything. You'd have to be using straight up analog cameras and scopes to prove to people the fakery and at that point it's either too late or you'd have to have converted it to digital which understandably cannot be trusted. I really think they can pull this off now... They might even be able to use AI as a scapegoat if they get caught when in fact that is partially what will help deliver this event. Everyone's phone when receiving the Emergency Notification could be essentially hacked with code that could utilize AR anytime it records a particular device. You could be looking at a QR code covered plane or drone with your own eyes but on every device you see alien craft. They showed this as predictive programming in spiderman far from home and literally called out project bluebeam. Disney and Marvel (same company now as was predicted in the 90s) tell some truths in their movies. Captain America The Winter Soldier specifically documents mk ultra, operation paperclip and false flags, all straight up called out by name! Not in some mystical fictional way but by literal military ops! By no coincidence! Disney was literally taken over by the CIA folks. They give us previews of some tech at their parks and in their movies. Walt warned us about ALL of this! They're basically using highly advanced realtime ultra realistic rotoscoping! :memorybanner:
eyeDR3 (OP) User ID: 82694641 United States 02/24/2023 06:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points I will pin this myself as soon as I can This is likely my most in depth write up here EVER :memorybanner:
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83434030 United States 02/24/2023 06:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Delusional gay retard.
eyeDR3 (OP) User ID: 82694641 United States 02/24/2023 06:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Delusional gay retard. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83434030 You're literally useless life Congratulations :memorybanner:

Pukeko User ID: 85336570 02/24/2023 07:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Thanks I learned a lot about digital
eyeDR3 (OP) User ID: 82694641 United States 02/24/2023 07:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Thanks I learned a lot about digital Quoting: Pukeko And did you understand my message about how they realistically could've faked it at least partially? :memorybanner:
eyeDR3 (OP) User ID: 82694641 United States 02/24/2023 08:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Could I get a pin on this for deep dive discussion? If not I'm patient and I'll wait for one of the openings to karma pin it. It's damn near a dissertation lol :memorybanner:
Anonymous Coward User ID: 84954573 United States 02/24/2023 08:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points NOTHING can be trusted today -------- PERIOD!!!!!! I have said it before (somebody needs to record) Lies, lies, everywhere there's lies Blocking up the scenery Breaking my mind Do this, don't do that Can't you see the lies
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83777703 United States 02/24/2023 09:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points aint reading any of that shit lol

eyeDR3 (OP) User ID: 82694641 United States 02/24/2023 09:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points aint reading any of that shit lol Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83777703 Don't worry I think only 2 people actually did and responded. I put A LOT of hard info into that. You CAN skip to just the bullet points. Trust me, I get it. It's literally enough for a chapter in a book. Might be in the end. :memorybanner:
eyeDR3 (OP) User ID: 82694641 United States 02/24/2023 09:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points If you have any questions also I'd be elated to go over any details or any holes you might find. I could highlight the particular segment that relates to the question if I covered it. It's pretty remarkable and I'm sure I'm in NO WAY the first to bring up ANY of these things, but it all just came to me today in contemplation. :memorybanner:
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1681881 United States 02/24/2023 09:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points The videos were exposed as fake, because they were digitally altered.
DrPunch User ID: 80886406 United States 02/24/2023 09:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points *SKIP ALL OF THIS UNTIL THE BULLET POINTS Or First REPLY IF YOU DON'T LIKE LONGER READS.* ... If you're still with me, you enjoy learning and aren't afraid of reading! Great! So let's go back to the "beginning" so to speak. The 60s through the mid 90s, television became exponentially more popular. Early tvs had as low as I think 50-100 lines that would make the image. Not pixels as those weren't a thing yet. It was analog and actually based on lines and frequency. So when these CRT (not critical race theory silly) cathode ray tube televisions were producing an image they were splitting light out into lines, whole lines no pixels) and what you were seeing was the top of the waves in layman's terms. At 24, 30, 59 or 60Hz or times each second. Almost like looking through vertical or horizontal blinds at the outside through a window. This is where images on CRT TVs could appear curved, slanted, wavy, juxtaposed and more. A LOT of science went into initial televisions. (I'm a believer they CAN be a vessel for supernatural or other misunderstood phenomena) It's all boiled down really to analog vs digital with how the displays work, to shorten that science lesson down... But from 60s to 90s think about how imagery on television might've been as low a resolution as 180, 240 or 540 lines, only half of which were really showing each second! That's fascinating shit! Videogames love them or hate them were the sole reason display technology progressed so very quickly and exponentially. When you play a game and press a button, there is an amount of time that the input takes to reach the processor that tells the output what to render on screen. I push X to jump on a PlayStation 1 controller for instance and it takes something probably around 20ms to travel from the controller board through the cable to the console, then it takes the processor for I/O and commands the graphics and video output to render the animation and action code on the screen for me. Back then it could take nearly an entire second for your input to render in the game. Your brain was conditioned for that. We were literally slower back then by a pretty fair margin! I remember being a kid and thinking how nice it would be to not have such blurry imagery, flickering and eye strain... But I didn't know how deep the rabbit hole went with something as seemingly simple as display technology... Quoting: eyeDR3 So here's the meat! If you're big brain energy you are here and will understand this next part like the back of your hand. When movies or television were made all the way up to the mid 2000s in most cases, they were recorded with analog technology like film. Film being developed in a manner that creates a WHOLE image (not dot matrix, not pixels, not lines) means there is a LOT of information packed into each individual frame. To film most movies, you would need 24 pictures taken each and every second so as to see motion without "skipping" or "tearing." If you've watched films from the late 1800s into early 1900s you will see what I'm describing manifesting in people looking like they're walking in fast forward because they only took around 5 to 8 images per second. While this gives motion it's still very choppy and noticeable to our brains) disorienting. When you go to a theater most movies are showing in 24p. This is progressive full frame film standard. Today though it still produces a bit of strain in my eyes. If you blink quickly you can see frames! Gosh it's SOOOO much to get to my point I'm terribly sorry... Have you ever thought Jurassic Park looked WAAAAAY better in the theater back in 93 than on your fancy blu ray player? Well the reason is that the CGI which was revolutionary and ground breaking at the time was produced digitally and added into a movie that was FILMED in ANALOG. So what you see is actually a composite image! The film itself is beautiful and natural and is endlessly upscaleable into digital formats because it was a WHOLE image like a film photograph that is being converted into a set resolution digital format (think of dot matrix, printers, any digital display) but the problem was that initial digital display and rendering tech simply didn't have anything near the infinite resolution of ANALOG nor the computational ability to get anywhere close to film. No joke, some movies from the 30s hold up better than movies made a few years ago because there just isn't enough data showing in each frame... Quoting: eyeDR3 LAST LESSON, then SHORT TO THE POINT So you understand that analog is whole, digital is only ever a portion of that whole. Digital is only ever trying to catch up to analog, just as is the case with music, but it LITERALLY CANNOT. Easy analogy... Pluck an acoustic guitar string and what you hear is analog. A true smooth frequency. You run it through a digital amplifier or a recording device, and you are only capturing a certain portion of that whole. The smooth natural analog music waves look more like staircases at this point. There are tons of missing data! mp3 was the worst standard and sounds like asshole but it made it easy for people to throw 1000 songs on a device smaller than a stick of gum. Try that with your vinyl collection! (Vinyl is analog, true wave recorded music. If you can find a nice horn, that's the way to go! Good luck lol!) Same goes for movies. Reel to reel film is extremely I mean EXTREMELY expensive (more today than then even) but it is analog. It can be blown up to be projected on the clouds above and still have as clear, crisp, whole a picture. Digital CANNOT do this! So Jurassic Park... They took the film into a digital software. I have no idea how many lines of resolution it could render at the time, but no matter, they added in digital graphics of dinosaurs moving at the same frame rate, or the same amount of "pictures" per second. So literally each second of that movie that showed any kind of state of the art imagery using digital graphics, each and every second, would have 24 different representations of the digital model moving like claymation in a sense. 1 second of those long necks when they approach in that jeep had each model moving through 24 differently animated representations. So when they animate the legs moving forward you are seeing actually like 24 different pages in a flip book essentially. Does it make sense that that requires a LOT of digital data? So the digital graphics in that movie probably took up whole data servers of the time. The original film was basically reproduced with the now artificially created digital imagery composed upon it. The resolutions of screens at the time couldn't really pick this up and in theaters you were seeing whole film with a layer of digital imagery overlapping it. So it looked DAMN GOOD back then because when they captured this digital animation they were doing so once again in ANALOG. I know it's so damn much to read and a lot to take in... It's why you shouldn't trust somebody recording video on their device from a screen. If somebody says "I have video of bigfoot!" and they upload a video of them recording another screen, that makes it much harder to see the fakery. It's suspect. To finish up the lesson, and move on the the part people will read because it's short and to the point, let's talk about the huge push from analog to digital. It was around 2007 if I remember right. Digital television was the initial push as they could take the analog signals and repurpose them for emergency personnel secured communications. Videogames, movies and music had moved almost entirely to digital already at this point. TVs were still mostly CRT tech at this point but people were very quickly investing in digital displays like "flat screen" lcd, projection or plasma. These displays again showed images almost like a printer or calculator, with the lines now being compromised of "pixels." So now the resolution would be called something like 720p, 1080i or 1080p. 1080p was not standard until very late 2000s into 2010s. Were you confused when someone says "1080p Blu-ray, with a resolution of 1920x1080!" Well that's 1920x1080 LINES that PROGRESSIVELY show, so it's showing both horizontal and vertical lines of the image with each flash, again 24 to 60 times per second. That's about 2.07 million individual squares made up of sub red green blue rendering spaces called "sub pixels". 6.22 MILLION individual dots or squares that can render an image up to 60x each second! 4K is called so because it's 4x the resolution of 1080p, or nearly. True 4K is not "UHD" because that is a difference in aspect ratio. Standard widescreen is 16:9 ratio. The golden ratio rectangle. It used to be 4:3 or otherwise, or more close to a "square." 4K is actually 21:9 sometimes called "ultra wide" and is 4096x2160 pixels to produce lines. Your at home 4KUHD displays are usually 3840x2160, so 16:9 ratio. True ultrawide displays will fill the screen and you won't have those black bars on top and bottom. My cellphone for instance has a 21:9 aspect ratio. It's a more elongated rectangle, like a Hershey's bar basically. So now your UHD TVs that people are already erroneously being referred to as "4K" are at 3840x2160. They display progressively, or all lines and pixels with each and every flash. This is 8.294 million pixels, with either 24.883 MILLION sub pixels (red green blue), 33.177 MILLION sub pixels (4 sub pixels WRGB so white red green and blue) or "Quantum dot" which is more akin to tricking digital into rendering more like analog than previously. That one I'll get into later. Very very high resolution, yes, but when it's stretched to the size of a billboard or drive in movie theater screen, you will still see a more blurry image as it was produced not as a whole analog image, but a fully digitally produced image. This gives what we call the "screen door" effect because the pixels have to be separated by space. At say a 65" or smaller TV screen, this may not be visible at all except for the best vision on the planet, but any bigger and you start to see that screen door effect (it's called aliasing, it's that stair step jagged appearance you see on hard lines). You simply DO NOT get this with film! So only now are our displays catching up to looking ALMOST as good as those of the past, or close enough to our poor eyesight to look similar to film. This is exactly why modern CGI fest films look like hot dog shit. It's 100% digitally produced when it's supposed to be real. My Dad said the issue with videogames for him was that they were just like a very poorly animated movie. Well movies today produce the uncanny valley effect, where our brains, instincts and the way our eyes see the moving image KNOW IT'S NOT REAL. It can look so close to reality but it's just not. There are always present anomalies in CGI because the added in objects have to track with the real objects and they are fully digitally rendered. So even the highest resolution scan of a human has missing gaps of data where analog would be represented simply as a true wave of light on the VLS. This doesn't even account for color rendering. There were for the LONGEST time about 8-16 million representable colors in standard production using RGB (red green and blue) sub pixels. Now with quantum dot and HDR (high dynamic range) we can produce digitally over 1 billion different colors. I don't know exactly how the visible light spectrum works but I would think it's actually a nearly infinite amount of colors we see above infrared and below ultraviolet to our naked eye. Quantum dot at the moment (you've seen it called QLED or Q something lol) is a new way of displaying color. An electrostatic layer rests over LEDs and sub pixels and when electric signals go through it in very slightly different voltages, it expands or contracts the light ever so slightly so you get red and violet shift, much like looking at stars and knowing which is moving toward or away by the red or violet shift. This can give smaller sub pixels, tighter dpi or ppi (pixels per inch) and an astounding amount of color data. Still not analog though LOL So what does any of this have to do with 911? Final post in this long form is only about that next... Quoting: eyeDR3 -911 was in 2001, when most every recording device and display were ANALOG -at this time, special effects were mostly digital but could also be produced with live action props and models. Star Wars and The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth with David Bowie, even interstellar used what is called "practical" effects because they could be filmed as whole true analog using REAL objects. In other words our brains are still happier with a puppet on screen or models of cities and space craft than with a fully digitally created abomination because it APPEARS REAL TO US. It can be filmed in ANALOG on REAL FILM and under natural, controllable lighting. No pixels. No limited color data. No baked in light rendering. Real motion. -digital productions of imagery are bitmap rasterized, or made of dots, pixels, lines with gaps between them instead of a whole image like analog. They can appear very sharp yes but juxtaposed with real data they look very uncanny or unnatural. Almost "too" real or surreal. -with advanced enough computer graphics technology you could render in digital imagery atop either an analog or digital image, even in "real-time". Today this is entirely possible. That's what they do during football games to render lines on the field, overlays of CGI atop live footage. This is how they achieve "holograms" too is by utilizing highly advanced deep fake like overlay technology while filming an impersonator so in the video you are seeing say Michael Jackson but in reality it's a digital manipulation, live in real time, a deep fake, over a lookalike. If you were right there able to record in person you could catch the fakery in these cases... -tiktok Instagram Snapchat and more are using this tech and calling it "filters." It's recording digital video while at the same time processing digital computer graphics that "track" objects in real time and try to blend in with them as if they were really present. So you can look like a retard chimera puppy too or have stupid fake butterflies flying around your head! Yay! -the aforementioned "filters" are a subcategory of what is actually called AR. PAY ATTENTION. AR is short for "Augmentated Reality" and has been around in the consumer market since AT LEAST 2003 or so from my memory. I recall the Sony PS2 PlayStation 2 system (also a huge pioneer in pushing digital formats like DVD and digital output methods, progressive scan imagery, HD even) had an accessory called the "PlayStation eyetoy" where you set up a camera and could play dancing, surfing, sports and such on screen. Your body was the "filter" so if you outstretched your arms you could "hit" these digital objects and interact with them on screen, almost in real time. Real time CGI. -PlayStation eye was a derivative device, that is it was inspired by preexisting tech already present for years in Japanese arcades and even at Disney parks -2003 when it was released wasn't even 2 years beyond the world trade center attacks but it was YEARS after the technology was already available in consumer approachable areas -If the film of 911 from all the different angles we've been allowed to see had been affected by AR, there should be SOME kind of anomaly: a hiccup in tracking, a slip in feathering the hard edges of the digital image overlapping the analog, frame pacing mismatches, resolution differences... SOMETHING. Guess what? ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE PRESENT IN NEARLY EVERY VIDEO OF 911. -The only surviving footage we have of 911 has been converted from analog to digital by now. I can GUARANTEE anyone you know DOES NOT have footage they took themselves on any device. Video recording devices weren't very prevalent or weildy at that time, and if they were, they were highly expensive and still very slow. We didn't have the ability to whip out a digital camera in an instant let alone live stream. Even the best of the early digital recorders were very slow to boot and save data to digital card formats. By the time somebody hit record, the first, likely even the second plane already hit the building. -don't forget analog recording methods were often not able to be recorded over and if they were, there was likely going to be some errors and things that will slip through. Think of recording over a wedding tape. You could have moments that come in as the wedding and the rest is an episode of cops. Worse you're watching ET with Grandma and grandpa and 80s porn comes on at some point. Oops. -say you're recording the building by happenstance for a documentary at the exact moment the first plane comes in and hits. Yes this is actually more likely than you might want to believe, moreso today than in 2001 by far, but even then with millions at any given second moving around and observing the city of New York, this is believable. However, massive holes form in this story when you realize the footage you are seeing had to be RECORDED from it's original format and device to one that can be shared with others. It wasn't a digital recording. It was analog. Probably VHS or those mini VHS cassettes. It had to be converted and saved. By that time it could've already been heavily manipulated. -in order for AR to work there has to be a reasonably powerful computer behind it as well as a DIGITAL camera. Smartphones became a device that could feasibly deliver AR quite a while ago but now it's very smooth. It was pretty silly and archaic then (still is to me today) -Livestream video could still be manipulated with AR if it is being recorded in ANALOG and shown digitally. I call this the "Jurassic Park" effect, and this is exactly how I believe they can pull off future blue beam and even partly 911 -if a news station was "coming to you LIVE from New York City!" we all know that it wasn't truly live. There might be as little as a few seconds delay, up to even MINUTES. I don't know if you remember but if you called somebody from New York in LA back then, you could have seconds of delay before you'd respond to one another. We were literally slower in so many ways, even our own brains hadn't been conditioned to see things in real time or to even communicate like that. Video calling was just a sci fi dream to us then! Saturday might live was so big because you could see a stage skit show halfway across the world almost like you were in the audience. But remember that multicolored screen and loud beep that would come on if studios lost broadcasting signal capabilities (lost power, inference, emergency broadcast message interjection, etc)? Well that's something they could control manually if need be. To "pull it" or stop a feed say if somebody kills themself, murders, shows nudity, curses... And guess who has control over that? The FCC. -since nothing was truly "live" then, they could take even a few seconds or minutes to have superimposed computer generated imagery or something like augmented reality into the footage. It could've even been practical effects they were using, like they had these computer generated composite planes that could track and overlay even a missile -only somebody that was there THAT DAY that saw with their PHYSICAL EYES could say 100% for sure or not if there were ACTUAL commercial planes that day. Otherwise any footage unfortunately cannot be trusted you guys! -if unreal engine 5 a game development engine computer software today in 2023 looks very nearly photorealistic, let's just say since 1993 the military and the "elite" have had this tech or better. Let's be honest... They've had it FAR FAR FAR longer than that. So on 911 the footage we see could be computer generated, that's entirely possible, or it could have been superimposed practical effects -the media is 1000% involved as are everyone in higher positions. Either they were fooled themselves (even the very elect will be fooled) or directly involved. Either way... They were involved. -FCC chair, who was it then? Are they dead? -how many of the people with original unmanipulated footage are still alive today? How many still have the original footage? Where is it? -how many people died that tried to expose what I've just spent 2 hours explaining? Quoting: eyeDR3 I pined it least I thought I did. Very informative and very well written. Thanks very much indeed. I used to work at Teltronix when they still had a TV division. All analog and still some amazing effects. I wonder where those engineers went. DrPunch
DrPunch User ID: 80886406 United States 02/24/2023 09:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points *SKIP ALL OF THIS UNTIL THE BULLET POINTS Or First REPLY IF YOU DON'T LIKE LONGER READS.* ... If you're still with me, you enjoy learning and aren't afraid of reading! Great! So let's go back to the "beginning" so to speak. The 60s through the mid 90s, television became exponentially more popular. Early tvs had as low as I think 50-100 lines that would make the image. Not pixels as those weren't a thing yet. It was analog and actually based on lines and frequency. So when these CRT (not critical race theory silly) cathode ray tube televisions were producing an image they were splitting light out into lines, whole lines no pixels) and what you were seeing was the top of the waves in layman's terms. At 24, 30, 59 or 60Hz or times each second. Almost like looking through vertical or horizontal blinds at the outside through a window. This is where images on CRT TVs could appear curved, slanted, wavy, juxtaposed and more. A LOT of science went into initial televisions. (I'm a believer they CAN be a vessel for supernatural or other misunderstood phenomena) It's all boiled down really to analog vs digital with how the displays work, to shorten that science lesson down... But from 60s to 90s think about how imagery on television might've been as low a resolution as 180, 240 or 540 lines, only half of which were really showing each second! That's fascinating shit! Videogames love them or hate them were the sole reason display technology progressed so very quickly and exponentially. When you play a game and press a button, there is an amount of time that the input takes to reach the processor that tells the output what to render on screen. I push X to jump on a PlayStation 1 controller for instance and it takes something probably around 20ms to travel from the controller board through the cable to the console, then it takes the processor for I/O and commands the graphics and video output to render the animation and action code on the screen for me. Back then it could take nearly an entire second for your input to render in the game. Your brain was conditioned for that. We were literally slower back then by a pretty fair margin! I remember being a kid and thinking how nice it would be to not have such blurry imagery, flickering and eye strain... But I didn't know how deep the rabbit hole went with something as seemingly simple as display technology... Quoting: eyeDR3 So here's the meat! If you're big brain energy you are here and will understand this next part like the back of your hand. When movies or television were made all the way up to the mid 2000s in most cases, they were recorded with analog technology like film. Film being developed in a manner that creates a WHOLE image (not dot matrix, not pixels, not lines) means there is a LOT of information packed into each individual frame. To film most movies, you would need 24 pictures taken each and every second so as to see motion without "skipping" or "tearing." If you've watched films from the late 1800s into early 1900s you will see what I'm describing manifesting in people looking like they're walking in fast forward because they only took around 5 to 8 images per second. While this gives motion it's still very choppy and noticeable to our brains) disorienting. When you go to a theater most movies are showing in 24p. This is progressive full frame film standard. Today though it still produces a bit of strain in my eyes. If you blink quickly you can see frames! Gosh it's SOOOO much to get to my point I'm terribly sorry... Have you ever thought Jurassic Park looked WAAAAAY better in the theater back in 93 than on your fancy blu ray player? Well the reason is that the CGI which was revolutionary and ground breaking at the time was produced digitally and added into a movie that was FILMED in ANALOG. So what you see is actually a composite image! The film itself is beautiful and natural and is endlessly upscaleable into digital formats because it was a WHOLE image like a film photograph that is being converted into a set resolution digital format (think of dot matrix, printers, any digital display) but the problem was that initial digital display and rendering tech simply didn't have anything near the infinite resolution of ANALOG nor the computational ability to get anywhere close to film. No joke, some movies from the 30s hold up better than movies made a few years ago because there just isn't enough data showing in each frame... Quoting: eyeDR3 LAST LESSON, then SHORT TO THE POINT So you understand that analog is whole, digital is only ever a portion of that whole. Digital is only ever trying to catch up to analog, just as is the case with music, but it LITERALLY CANNOT. Easy analogy... Pluck an acoustic guitar string and what you hear is analog. A true smooth frequency. You run it through a digital amplifier or a recording device, and you are only capturing a certain portion of that whole. The smooth natural analog music waves look more like staircases at this point. There are tons of missing data! mp3 was the worst standard and sounds like asshole but it made it easy for people to throw 1000 songs on a device smaller than a stick of gum. Try that with your vinyl collection! (Vinyl is analog, true wave recorded music. If you can find a nice horn, that's the way to go! Good luck lol!) Same goes for movies. Reel to reel film is extremely I mean EXTREMELY expensive (more today than then even) but it is analog. It can be blown up to be projected on the clouds above and still have as clear, crisp, whole a picture. Digital CANNOT do this! So Jurassic Park... They took the film into a digital software. I have no idea how many lines of resolution it could render at the time, but no matter, they added in digital graphics of dinosaurs moving at the same frame rate, or the same amount of "pictures" per second. So literally each second of that movie that showed any kind of state of the art imagery using digital graphics, each and every second, would have 24 different representations of the digital model moving like claymation in a sense. 1 second of those long necks when they approach in that jeep had each model moving through 24 differently animated representations. So when they animate the legs moving forward you are seeing actually like 24 different pages in a flip book essentially. Does it make sense that that requires a LOT of digital data? So the digital graphics in that movie probably took up whole data servers of the time. The original film was basically reproduced with the now artificially created digital imagery composed upon it. The resolutions of screens at the time couldn't really pick this up and in theaters you were seeing whole film with a layer of digital imagery overlapping it. So it looked DAMN GOOD back then because when they captured this digital animation they were doing so once again in ANALOG. I know it's so damn much to read and a lot to take in... It's why you shouldn't trust somebody recording video on their device from a screen. If somebody says "I have video of bigfoot!" and they upload a video of them recording another screen, that makes it much harder to see the fakery. It's suspect. To finish up the lesson, and move on the the part people will read because it's short and to the point, let's talk about the huge push from analog to digital. It was around 2007 if I remember right. Digital television was the initial push as they could take the analog signals and repurpose them for emergency personnel secured communications. Videogames, movies and music had moved almost entirely to digital already at this point. TVs were still mostly CRT tech at this point but people were very quickly investing in digital displays like "flat screen" lcd, projection or plasma. These displays again showed images almost like a printer or calculator, with the lines now being compromised of "pixels." So now the resolution would be called something like 720p, 1080i or 1080p. 1080p was not standard until very late 2000s into 2010s. Were you confused when someone says "1080p Blu-ray, with a resolution of 1920x1080!" Well that's 1920x1080 LINES that PROGRESSIVELY show, so it's showing both horizontal and vertical lines of the image with each flash, again 24 to 60 times per second. That's about 2.07 million individual squares made up of sub red green blue rendering spaces called "sub pixels". 6.22 MILLION individual dots or squares that can render an image up to 60x each second! 4K is called so because it's 4x the resolution of 1080p, or nearly. True 4K is not "UHD" because that is a difference in aspect ratio. Standard widescreen is 16:9 ratio. The golden ratio rectangle. It used to be 4:3 or otherwise, or more close to a "square." 4K is actually 21:9 sometimes called "ultra wide" and is 4096x2160 pixels to produce lines. Your at home 4KUHD displays are usually 3840x2160, so 16:9 ratio. True ultrawide displays will fill the screen and you won't have those black bars on top and bottom. My cellphone for instance has a 21:9 aspect ratio. It's a more elongated rectangle, like a Hershey's bar basically. So now your UHD TVs that people are already erroneously being referred to as "4K" are at 3840x2160. They display progressively, or all lines and pixels with each and every flash. This is 8.294 million pixels, with either 24.883 MILLION sub pixels (red green blue), 33.177 MILLION sub pixels (4 sub pixels WRGB so white red green and blue) or "Quantum dot" which is more akin to tricking digital into rendering more like analog than previously. That one I'll get into later. Very very high resolution, yes, but when it's stretched to the size of a billboard or drive in movie theater screen, you will still see a more blurry image as it was produced not as a whole analog image, but a fully digitally produced image. This gives what we call the "screen door" effect because the pixels have to be separated by space. At say a 65" or smaller TV screen, this may not be visible at all except for the best vision on the planet, but any bigger and you start to see that screen door effect (it's called aliasing, it's that stair step jagged appearance you see on hard lines). You simply DO NOT get this with film! So only now are our displays catching up to looking ALMOST as good as those of the past, or close enough to our poor eyesight to look similar to film. This is exactly why modern CGI fest films look like hot dog shit. It's 100% digitally produced when it's supposed to be real. My Dad said the issue with videogames for him was that they were just like a very poorly animated movie. Well movies today produce the uncanny valley effect, where our brains, instincts and the way our eyes see the moving image KNOW IT'S NOT REAL. It can look so close to reality but it's just not. There are always present anomalies in CGI because the added in objects have to track with the real objects and they are fully digitally rendered. So even the highest resolution scan of a human has missing gaps of data where analog would be represented simply as a true wave of light on the VLS. This doesn't even account for color rendering. There were for the LONGEST time about 8-16 million representable colors in standard production using RGB (red green and blue) sub pixels. Now with quantum dot and HDR (high dynamic range) we can produce digitally over 1 billion different colors. I don't know exactly how the visible light spectrum works but I would think it's actually a nearly infinite amount of colors we see above infrared and below ultraviolet to our naked eye. Quantum dot at the moment (you've seen it called QLED or Q something lol) is a new way of displaying color. An electrostatic layer rests over LEDs and sub pixels and when electric signals go through it in very slightly different voltages, it expands or contracts the light ever so slightly so you get red and violet shift, much like looking at stars and knowing which is moving toward or away by the red or violet shift. This can give smaller sub pixels, tighter dpi or ppi (pixels per inch) and an astounding amount of color data. Still not analog though LOL So what does any of this have to do with 911? Final post in this long form is only about that next... Quoting: eyeDR3 -911 was in 2001, when most every recording device and display were ANALOG -at this time, special effects were mostly digital but could also be produced with live action props and models. Star Wars and The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth with David Bowie, even interstellar used what is called "practical" effects because they could be filmed as whole true analog using REAL objects. In other words our brains are still happier with a puppet on screen or models of cities and space craft than with a fully digitally created abomination because it APPEARS REAL TO US. It can be filmed in ANALOG on REAL FILM and under natural, controllable lighting. No pixels. No limited color data. No baked in light rendering. Real motion. -digital productions of imagery are bitmap rasterized, or made of dots, pixels, lines with gaps between them instead of a whole image like analog. They can appear very sharp yes but juxtaposed with real data they look very uncanny or unnatural. Almost "too" real or surreal. -with advanced enough computer graphics technology you could render in digital imagery atop either an analog or digital image, even in "real-time". Today this is entirely possible. That's what they do during football games to render lines on the field, overlays of CGI atop live footage. This is how they achieve "holograms" too is by utilizing highly advanced deep fake like overlay technology while filming an impersonator so in the video you are seeing say Michael Jackson but in reality it's a digital manipulation, live in real time, a deep fake, over a lookalike. If you were right there able to record in person you could catch the fakery in these cases... -tiktok Instagram Snapchat and more are using this tech and calling it "filters." It's recording digital video while at the same time processing digital computer graphics that "track" objects in real time and try to blend in with them as if they were really present. So you can look like a retard chimera puppy too or have stupid fake butterflies flying around your head! Yay! -the aforementioned "filters" are a subcategory of what is actually called AR. PAY ATTENTION. AR is short for "Augmentated Reality" and has been around in the consumer market since AT LEAST 2003 or so from my memory. I recall the Sony PS2 PlayStation 2 system (also a huge pioneer in pushing digital formats like DVD and digital output methods, progressive scan imagery, HD even) had an accessory called the "PlayStation eyetoy" where you set up a camera and could play dancing, surfing, sports and such on screen. Your body was the "filter" so if you outstretched your arms you could "hit" these digital objects and interact with them on screen, almost in real time. Real time CGI. -PlayStation eye was a derivative device, that is it was inspired by preexisting tech already present for years in Japanese arcades and even at Disney parks -2003 when it was released wasn't even 2 years beyond the world trade center attacks but it was YEARS after the technology was already available in consumer approachable areas -If the film of 911 from all the different angles we've been allowed to see had been affected by AR, there should be SOME kind of anomaly: a hiccup in tracking, a slip in feathering the hard edges of the digital image overlapping the analog, frame pacing mismatches, resolution differences... SOMETHING. Guess what? ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE PRESENT IN NEARLY EVERY VIDEO OF 911. -The only surviving footage we have of 911 has been converted from analog to digital by now. I can GUARANTEE anyone you know DOES NOT have footage they took themselves on any device. Video recording devices weren't very prevalent or weildy at that time, and if they were, they were highly expensive and still very slow. We didn't have the ability to whip out a digital camera in an instant let alone live stream. Even the best of the early digital recorders were very slow to boot and save data to digital card formats. By the time somebody hit record, the first, likely even the second plane already hit the building. -don't forget analog recording methods were often not able to be recorded over and if they were, there was likely going to be some errors and things that will slip through. Think of recording over a wedding tape. You could have moments that come in as the wedding and the rest is an episode of cops. Worse you're watching ET with Grandma and grandpa and 80s porn comes on at some point. Oops. -say you're recording the building by happenstance for a documentary at the exact moment the first plane comes in and hits. Yes this is actually more likely than you might want to believe, moreso today than in 2001 by far, but even then with millions at any given second moving around and observing the city of New York, this is believable. However, massive holes form in this story when you realize the footage you are seeing had to be RECORDED from it's original format and device to one that can be shared with others. It wasn't a digital recording. It was analog. Probably VHS or those mini VHS cassettes. It had to be converted and saved. By that time it could've already been heavily manipulated. -in order for AR to work there has to be a reasonably powerful computer behind it as well as a DIGITAL camera. Smartphones became a device that could feasibly deliver AR quite a while ago but now it's very smooth. It was pretty silly and archaic then (still is to me today) -Livestream video could still be manipulated with AR if it is being recorded in ANALOG and shown digitally. I call this the "Jurassic Park" effect, and this is exactly how I believe they can pull off future blue beam and even partly 911 -if a news station was "coming to you LIVE from New York City!" we all know that it wasn't truly live. There might be as little as a few seconds delay, up to even MINUTES. I don't know if you remember but if you called somebody from New York in LA back then, you could have seconds of delay before you'd respond to one another. We were literally slower in so many ways, even our own brains hadn't been conditioned to see things in real time or to even communicate like that. Video calling was just a sci fi dream to us then! Saturday might live was so big because you could see a stage skit show halfway across the world almost like you were in the audience. But remember that multicolored screen and loud beep that would come on if studios lost broadcasting signal capabilities (lost power, inference, emergency broadcast message interjection, etc)? Well that's something they could control manually if need be. To "pull it" or stop a feed say if somebody kills themself, murders, shows nudity, curses... And guess who has control over that? The FCC. -since nothing was truly "live" then, they could take even a few seconds or minutes to have superimposed computer generated imagery or something like augmented reality into the footage. It could've even been practical effects they were using, like they had these computer generated composite planes that could track and overlay even a missile -only somebody that was there THAT DAY that saw with their PHYSICAL EYES could say 100% for sure or not if there were ACTUAL commercial planes that day. Otherwise any footage unfortunately cannot be trusted you guys! -if unreal engine 5 a game development engine computer software today in 2023 looks very nearly photorealistic, let's just say since 1993 the military and the "elite" have had this tech or better. Let's be honest... They've had it FAR FAR FAR longer than that. So on 911 the footage we see could be computer generated, that's entirely possible, or it could have been superimposed practical effects -the media is 1000% involved as are everyone in higher positions. Either they were fooled themselves (even the very elect will be fooled) or directly involved. Either way... They were involved. -FCC chair, who was it then? Are they dead? -how many of the people with original unmanipulated footage are still alive today? How many still have the original footage? Where is it? -how many people died that tried to expose what I've just spent 2 hours explaining? Quoting: eyeDR3 I pined it least I thought I did. Very informative and very well written. Thanks very much indeed. I used to work at Teltronix when they still had a TV division. All analog and still some amazing effects. I wonder where those engineers went. DrPunch
FlashBuzzkill User ID: 80346963 United States 02/24/2023 09:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Yup, you have the technology nailed down. That was very instructive and your proposition that we are living in the final age feels right. 9/11 felt like a dream as I watched it from the start on tv. I was home sick that day. We had a doomsday plane circle over Richmond va much of the day. It was weird not seeing any other planes in the sky. Kinda nice actually. But yes, the energy has shifted and here we are watching the ending scenes of this drama. Revelation is here. Gen. John B Gordon and Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest were the finest citizen-soldiers birthed in America.
DrPunch User ID: 80886406 United States 02/24/2023 09:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Yup, you have the technology nailed down. That was very instructive and your proposition that we are living in the final age feels right. 9/11 felt like a dream as I watched it from the start on tv. I was home sick that day. We had a doomsday plane circle over Richmond va much of the day. It was weird not seeing any other planes in the sky. Kinda nice actually. But yes, the energy has shifted and here we are watching the ending scenes of this drama. Revelation is here. Quoting: FlashBuzzkill Sir, thanks for weighing in, yes pretty impressive stuff. Off Topic That Devil Forrest my all time favorite. DrPunch
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83666761 United States 02/24/2023 09:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Cgi planes ...?? Yeah I have a question.....?? Where would you find some1 stupid enuff to sign off on such a ridiculous "plan".... I mean ....Bush Junior was pretty stupid but I doubt his dad even let him in the loop beforehand.... The success or spectacular failure of the whole operation would depend on hoping you could chase down every1 who witnessed or took footage of the second explosion at the towers 15 minutes after every1 was already watching the first tower burn....
A Jackson User ID: 80925742 United States 02/24/2023 09:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Computers in 2000; Windows XP was released, Mac OSX was released on a supposed supercomputer running on 64 bit power pc architecture. The Mac’s were used for making all kinds of graphics. X-Box came out. Of course there were Sun micro systems and Silicon Graphics boxes that were used to produce all kinds of cool graphics. Our intelligence squadron had them. Hmmmm…. Smoke me a kipper, I’ll be back for breakfast. If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools. — Plato “AI is kind of a fancy thing, first of all it’s two letters. It means artificial intelligence.” Kamala Harris VPOTUS
Anonymous Coward User ID: 85345153 02/24/2023 09:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points I know it's really long but it covers a lot. The gyst... Tech has radically changed and progressed. Today we could pull this off all the same, but in many ways not as well. Low resolution analog interlaced displays and hyper advanced tech that at the time we couldn't fathom were used to fool us. Yes in nearly "real time." (Within minutes) Project blue beam WILL work. At least at first. All of us that call it out will be called the crazy ones. Recording on your phone, they could literally deliver realtime AR deception overlaying "real" devices. Imagine a shit ton of drones or satellites that can act like "pixels" or tracking devices to overlay using CGI. A little DJI drone could become a terrifying alien UFO with some simple tracking, CGI and AR overlay. You wouldn't even know because the only way you could record this event would be using probably a smartphone. Even then it would look like shit and wouldn't mean anything. You'd have to be using straight up analog cameras and scopes to prove to people the fakery and at that point it's either too late or you'd have to have converted it to digital which understandably cannot be trusted. I really think they can pull this off now... They might even be able to use AI as a scapegoat if they get caught when in fact that is partially what will help deliver this event. Everyone's phone when receiving the Emergency Notification could be essentially hacked with code that could utilize AR anytime it records a particular device. You could be looking at a QR code covered plane or drone with your own eyes but on every device you see alien craft. They showed this as predictive programming in spiderman far from home and literally called out project bluebeam. Disney and Marvel (same company now as was predicted in the 90s) tell some truths in their movies. Captain America The Winter Soldier specifically documents mk ultra, operation paperclip and false flags, all straight up called out by name! Not in some mystical fictional way but by literal military ops! By no coincidence! Disney was literally taken over by the CIA folks. They give us previews of some tech at their parks and in their movies. Walt warned us about ALL of this! They're basically using highly advanced realtime ultra realistic rotoscoping! Quoting: eyeDR3 They were bringing in HDTV in 1996 when I was in college, it’s the first thing my professor in comm class told us. Why did they wait until AFTER 9/11 to actually do it?
Weyoun User ID: 85239112 United States 02/24/2023 09:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Think of recording over a wedding tape. You could have moments that come in as the wedding and the rest is an episode of cops. Quoting: eyeDR3 Why? What happened to your marriage? Worse you're watching ET with Grandma and grandpa and 80s porn comes on at some point. Oops. Quoting: eyeDR3 Oh...
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77706418 Canada 02/24/2023 10:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points tl;dr! Why do you start a post with blue quotes when NO ONE has typed yet in the thread?? JUAN STAR!!!
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77881036 United States 02/24/2023 10:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Epic
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77881036 United States 02/24/2023 10:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points GLP is not worthy. Thank you kind sir
Zack2DaFuture User ID: 85237109 United States 02/24/2023 10:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points a dude at work and myself were talking about how basically everything has been fake the whole time and people live to just prop up the lie. I feel like the only smart dude in the morman church and dude at the end of the truman show times a thousand.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 44477656 United States 02/24/2023 10:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points In the 90s i worked every day in a department with better computers than most people generally saw. Our company worked with other companies with even fancier stuff. Anyone could buy the computers we had, but they were very expensive as were the programs we used (expensive then, prices have come down for stuff that's even better but this was nearly 30 years ago). Some people we worked with had very rare (but new equipment). We didn't do stuff that moved, but throw some more $$ at it and we could have. However, I think no one believes that because... Everything from the 90s news looks like garbage. Even older stuff looks better. I think that even though o.p. is correct about how things worked, we are deliberately being showed some garbage looking video from the late 90s to convince people that don't remember that all cameras (even ones professionals would use) were garbage. They weren't. There's no excuse for tapes from news stations to look bad. But, if you use an old video camera to tape an old CRT TV playing a video... It will look like garbage.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72946690 United States 02/24/2023 10:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points the op has all been described exactly the same in 'September Clues' -- the only true 9/11 documentary. don't forget dancing israelis.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 85345337 02/24/2023 10:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72946690 United States 02/24/2023 10:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points Quoting: Anonymous Coward 85345337 x5
Anonymous Coward User ID: 85115094 United States 02/24/2023 10:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points ANTISEMETIC HORSESHIT.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Top Previous Page Next Page

Related Threads

Join Now, Free! (& No Ads!) Forgot Your Password?
Email	Password	Remember

1	How Do They Figure Stephen Paddock Might've Had an Escape Plan???	10/06/17
2	Joan Rivers's Daughter Reveals How The Obamas Might've Eliminated Her Mother	09/14/23
3	Something profound I just might've stumbled onto	05/21/22
4	I think Trump might've been speaking in code when he kept calling COVID the "CHINA VIRUS"	02/13/22
5	Aaron Danielson might've been at the wrong place wrong time	08/30/20
6	Are you a walk-in? Meditative death - you might've already "died" without realizing	08/19/18
7	Cern might've finally opened a portal!!!! Just in time for 9/23/15	09/10/15
8	Obama: If George Bush Had Been White, 'Both the Outcome and the Aftermath Might've Been Different'	07/19/13
9	This is what the UFO Zombie drill might've been about	04/28/13
10	I think, but I'm not sure, there might've been a 6.0 EQ in Peru	06/08/11

Rate this Thread

This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points