By Mark Conlon
Edited by Andrew Johnson
The reference material used in this analysis is from Simon Shack’s film
September Clues, which is from Simon Shack’s YouTube Channel: https://youtu.be/gORu-68SHpE
In part three of this analysis, I’m going to explore two claims made by Simon Shack, starting at 100:22 into his film September Clues. He claims Pavel Hlava’s video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage of the same event. Simon Shack also claims at 100:51 in his film that the Rector St building is missing in the Pavel Hlava video. This isn’t the first time that the “absence” of this building has been wrongly presented in a video. Another ‘video fakery’ promotor named Markus Allen also made a claim about Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage having the Rector St building missing, which I proved to be a false claim, follow link below for article: http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/markus-allens-disappearing-buildings-on.html
At 100:22 in September Clues, Simon Shack claims Pavel Hlava’s video footage of
Flight 175 impacting the South Tower is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video
footage.
At 100:30 - Simon Shack then uses a comparison split screen / side-by-side shot of Pavel Hlava’s video footage and Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage, suggesting that a “Similar Gentle Zoom-out” and “Similar Angle of WTC and Airplane”.
If this was a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage, the perspectives and angles would be the same, as they would have been taken from the same location or in very close proximity. Simon Shack says they are “similar”, which implies they are not the same! This is a key point, because looking at the two videos suggests that they were captured from two different locations, and would prove that Pavel Hlava’s video footage is genuine and not a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s.
From previous research I conducted into Michael
Hezarkhani’s video, it can be shown that his location was on the top deck
of a ferry which was stationed in Battery Park.
https://mark-conlon.blogspot.com/2014/01/flight-175-and-truth-about-truth-in-7.html
This corresponded with Carmen Taylor’s location, where she took her photographs
– and they too show something very similar to Michael Hezarkhani’s video
footage. Carmen Taylor disclosed her location to Canadian researcher Jeff
Hill in a phone call (at a time code 1 minute 44 seconds into the
conversation).
Carmen Taylor phone call here below:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/JeffHillsPhoneCalls/Pumpitout.com%20-%20Carmen%20Taylor%2014%20Oct%2007.mp3
To prove that Pavel Hlava’s video is different, and not a re-edit of the
Hezarkhani video I set-out to find exactly where Pavel Hlava was located when
he took his video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower.
Please see location images below:
Using the Google Street view images above, we can now
determine that Pavel Hlava captured his video footage of Flight 175 impacting
the South Tower when he was at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel entrance. To
understand the difference in locations of Michael Hezarkhani and Pavel Hlava I
plotted their locations on a map.
See map below:
As we can see from their locations above on the map, Pavel
Hlava and Michael Hezarkhani were quite some distance away from each other.
Simon Shack fails to point this out when making his claim that Pavel Hlava’s
video is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s.
Another thing which Simon Shack doesn’t take into account is
the camera’s zoom level in Michael Hezarkhani’s video, which can give you a
false perspective of his location compared to Pavel Hlava’s location, which was
closer to the South tower.
See example below:
This comparison screen-shot above in the September Clues film at 100:30 looks quite convincing in backing up Simon Shack’s claims regarding a re-edited version of Michael Hezarkhani’s video. Also note how Simon Shack has squashed the Hezarkhani video, which makes it appear more like Pavel Hlava’s video.
When watching complete versions of both videos, you can see
the zoomed-out sequence in the Michael Hezarkhani video gives you a completely
different perspective from Hlava’s, demonstrating perfectly that they were
taken from two different locations.
See below: camera zoom analysis comparisons
Simon Shack also fails to explain that the Hezarkhani video
was zoomed-in when he captured the plane in his video footage, whereas Pavel
Hlava’s was already zoomed-out when he captured the plane in his video footage.
In the Michael Hezarkhani zoomed-out sequence it shows a different foreground,
compared to Pavel Hlava’s already zoomed-out sequence. This proves conclusively
that the two videos were taken in different locations to each other! We can
even see different buildings in the (real) foreground, as shown in the two
images below!
I have shown that Pavel Hlava’s video was taken from the
Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, and the foreground is genuine in his video, so we can
now see that Simon Shack is clearly wrong in his suggestion of one or more
“missing” buildings, to support his claim of ‘video fakery’. This is shown at
100:51 in his film.
Again when analysing Simon Shack’s claim, it becomes clear that he conceals evidence – for example by not showing the viewers the full Pavel Hlava video sequence. Instead, Simon Shack decides to show a still image, thus concealing clear evidence about one or more of the “missing” buildings – which are, in fact, visible in the both videos!
See below: video evidence of the "Banker's Trust" building, which Simon Shack claimed was missing.
The screen-shots above were taken from this link here: https://youtu.be/ryl-o6XzL7s
Supporting evidence using a computer 3D model of the "Banker's
Trust" building location in the Pavel Hlava video here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/KSSbf9JkwyEn/
In conclusion:
Again, questions are raised about Simon Shack’s presentation
of video evidence and the methods he uses in his film, September Clues. Why did
Simon Shack not show the full video sequence of the Pavel Hlava video? This
would have proved there was no “missing building” ! Why did Simon Shack claim
Pavel Hlava’s video was a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video, when clearly
both videos are taken from two different locations, which was easily
established when researched correctly?
Is Simon Shack promoting the idea of ‘video fakery’ to
discredit the video evidence record of 9/11? When studying Simon Shack’s
presentation in his film, it becomes clear that he has continually omitted or
misrepresented evidence – by using cleverly timed editing. This has
therefore concealed evidence which shows a number of his claims are false. From
my past analysis, where I have disproven other claims he makes in his film, it
is now appearing to be a deliberate pattern of deceptive and misleading behaviour,
rather than poor research skills, suggesting an agenda to promote
disinformation about the video record on 9/11. Is Simon Shack promoting the
idea that the ‘video fakery’ explains anomalies in the behaviour of Flight 175
when it crashes into the South Tower? Is Simon Shack attempting to discredit
the 9/11 videos to help conceal what was really captured in the videos? Again,
I ask the question - is Simon Shack disseminating disinformation in an attempt
to hide the fact that advanced image projection technology was used to create
the illusion of plane crashes?
It appears Simon Shack is overseeing a Psychological
Operation to promote ‘video fakery’ to lead people away from closely studying
other explanations for the 9/11 video evidence. When people believe they have
an explanation for the anomalies, it stops them studying the evidence any
further. This personally happened to me for several years, and in that respect,
Simon Shack’s Psychological Operation worked, as I didn’t continue to study
closely, because I thought I had the answers… How wrong I was.
For further information regarding Simon Shack read this
article by written by Andrew Johnson in May 2012: 9 or 11 “Clues”
about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175 - http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.