By Mark Conlon
In this analysis I would like to draw attention to a blog
article which was published on 16th February 2014 by an "anonymous"
9/11 researcher who goes under the pseudonym 'One Born Free' (OBF). Article
link: http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/911-scams-why-jim-fetzerace-baker-and.html
The thrust of the article states that the Michael Hezarkhani video of 'Flight
175' impacting the South Tower is a "100% digital fabrication",
defining that a plane was not inserted into a real piece of
video footage, and neither a hologram was captured in the videos and
photographs.
In the article the author is not shy of naming people and
organisations who he believes lack "imagery analysis" skills to
conduct research of the video and photographic evidence of 9/11. Does this
suggest he believes he does possess such "imagery analysis" skills?
One might interpret his comment that he does consider himself to possess such
"image analysis" skills, especially after naming those who he
believes are "guilty" of not possessing such
"image analysis" skills. Note, the author has not disclosed his
"real" name or share his identity, considering the people he
has named so far in his article have. This is something which has to be
considered, especially if you are going to present research which you cannot
put your name to, or identity.
Judging by the author's assertive intro in his article, one
might expect the piece of video evidence which he submits as conclusive proof
of the Michael Hezarkhani video being "100% fabrication", should
stand-up to serious "image analysis" scrutiny.
My Analysis of OBF's Evidence:
According to the author he cites a gif image of the Michael
Hezarkhani video where he claims the plane in the video remains "stationary"
while the South Tower building moves across towards the plane. Note, the
gif image which OBF cites as his evidence is from an "anonymous"
source. The only referenced is from someone called teardrop - " The
teardrop analysis". The person has not identified themselves who created
this gif image.
When watching the video gif image below it has a red line
centred in the middle of the video frame, this allegedly demonstrates that the
plane is stationary and the building is moving. It does appear quite convincing
evidence at first glance, as it does look like the plane is "stationary" and
the building does appear to be moving to the left in the
video.
When studying the above gif image closely there appears to
be one glaring flaw which really stands-out, which needs to be discussed and
thoroughly explained if we are to understand how this deceptive
"illusion" was created.
The first important point to make is, we are "NOT"
looking at the complete video frame perspective of the Michael Hezarkhani
video. The gif image has been "re-framed" to fit around the plane.
The outer peripheral view has been cropped out. I've highlighted this by
inserting a "white box" in the image below, which illustrates what we
are not seeing outside of the "white box"
So, I can thoroughly analyse the video evidence I've also
inserted some coordinate marker lines into the video image, this is to help me
with my analysis so I can determine whether or not the plane is stationary, or
the building is moving as alleged, and also to assess the panning of the video
camera. What we can determine so far is, we are NOT seeing the "
complete"
frame image in the gif images which the author cites as his evidence.
Proving the plane is moving and the building is
stationary...
Firstly, I'm going to use the first video frame to plot some
"marker" points on the first still video image below. This will
consist of a "centre" yellow line set in place in
the centre of the frame, along with a red line positioned
where the plane is located in the gif image cited by OBF. I have run the red
line straight through to the top of the frame and positioned a "white
box" as re-framed in the gif image around the plane. I also placed
an orange line positioned on the left-hand side of the South
Tower's top edge. I can then use these three plotted reference marker points
when I overlay them onto each of the following proceeding frames. This will
allow me to determine any movement within the following video frame images.
This will prove whether or not the plane is "stationary" or
the plane is "moving" and also check to see if the building is
moving, or if in fact if it is the videographer who is panning his video
camera.
Below: I have overlaid the marker reference points from the
first frame still image onto the "top" of proceeding frame. What are
we observing and what can we determine from this? Note: I have also moved the
"white box" which has the plane equally place in the centre.
I can determine that the South Tower is "
stationary"
in the frame, although note the
orange marker line on the
South Tower's edge has shifted to the
left of the
yellow central
marker line. What does this prove? It demonstrates that the videographer is
panning the video camera to the
right. I can also determine that
the plane is moving towards the South Tower because the
red "plane"
marker reference point does not line-up with the overlaid top
red marker
reference point, as it has shifted to the
right when
compared
to the
red marker on the "original" frame overlay.
This conclusively proves that the plane is "
not" "
stationary"
as suggested by OBF, and is travelling towards the South Tower. Please also
note how the "white box" which is centred (re-framed) around the
plane with the
red line in it, looks like the gif image, which
gives the "
false" impression that the plane remains central
and stationary. (Nice illusion until you observe the "
outer"
information in the full video frame, where the
red line has
shifted out of alignment with the
red line outside of the
"white box").
The same shift out of alignment can be observe in the other
proceeding frames, when the "original" frame marker reference point
lines are overlaid, See below:
An important point to make is that the two re-framed images above show that the
centre
red line in the re-framed "white box"
perspective appears to be following the plane. This is how the illusion
(deception) is achieved, making it look as though the plane is "
stationary"
and the building to be moving to the left, when in reality this is not the
case, as it is the re-framing "white box" which is tracking the
plane. You can only create this illusion if you don't see the surrounding
peripheral information of the "full" video Michael Hezarkhani frame
which shows that the
red line on the proceeding frames shifts
out of alignment, which is why you have to "re-frame" the video image
and remove the outer viewing information, or else this illusion will not work.
It is the information we don't see outside of the "white box" that is
the key to creating such an illusion and deception. See below:
Above are four images taken from my proceeding frames analysis. When you
observe these four images "without" the outer information
outside of the "white box" it appears like the plane remains "stationary"
and tracked perfectly with the red line, yet the information
outside the "white box" in the full video frames tell a different
story.
The illusion is created by "re-framing" the frame to follow and
track the plane, and then inserting a red line to give the
impression that the plane is remaining central in the re-framed image. In
simple layman's terms, the full view video frames have been "cropped"
to follow the plane and keep it central in the new "re-framed" gif images,
to create this clever illusion.
The only conclusion that can be reached for creating this
deception and motive behind this disinformation is to cast doubt in people's
minds that the Michael Hezarkhani video is fake. This deception can only be
interpreted as a "deliberate" act to which to create such an illusion
and go to such lengths to re-frame the video perspective shot to follow the
plane's path and by inserting the
red line which merely acts
to increase its plausibility in the deception.
The fact is, the plane was "moving" and the
building was "stationary", which is proven in my analysis
above. I have also demonstrated how this "illusion" was achieved.
This was not hard to find out how this was done. My question is, why has OBF
cited such a poor deceptive "hoax" as evidence? Surely his high
standard image analysis should've unpicked this illusion deception, just like I
have.
Another "false" claim presented as fact by
OBF...
Another point to address in OBF's article is the statement
he makes as a fact, that people with hand held video cameras cannot track and
video an object travelling at 500mph. This is again "false", and is
not fact, especially when we apply this alleged fact to the Michael
Hezarkhani's video.
In my short analysis below I'm going to plot Michael
Hezarkhani's reaction to the plane as it enters his video camera's lens. I have
applied the same principles by plotting a reference point in the first frame,
then overlaying the reference point onto the proceeding frames. See analysis
below:
What I can determine from this analysis is, that Michael Hezarkhani does not
react immediately as the plane enters his video camera lens view. I have
highlight this by plotting Point (A) to Point (B). What we do observe is minor
movement of his video camera, as the plane travels from point (A) to point (B).
This is demonstrated because the
yellow centre line overlaid
onto the following frame shows that the South Tower remains steady in the shot,
and the distance between yellow marker line and the South Tower slightly
narrows. We do observe the video camera being raised slightly though.
Michael Hezarkhani only begins to react to the plane as it is right in
front of the South Tower, as there little react from point (A) to point (B).
Only from point (B) onwards do we observe a minor reaction because the
yellow centre
line and the South Tower gap begins to narrow, as the videographer begins to
pan the video camera to the "
right" to track the plane. This
happens as the plane is just in front of the South Tower building, is when we
see video camera movement as the plane enters the South Tower, thus the South
Tower crosses the
yellow centre line marker, which I have
highlighted with
red circles on two of the still image frames
below.
This shows there is very little panning in the camera shot
to track the plane, as the video camera remains almost centred throughout the
video footage sequence, and only do we observe Michael Hezarkhani attempting to
track the plane at the very last second as the plane is in front of the South
Tower building in his video footage.
It appears that a "false" point has been
raised here by OBF. Surely if OBF has studied the video footage correctly he
would also reach the same conclusion as I did which I've demonstrated in the
still images above.
Another point raised by OBF but one that has been dealt with
by myself some years ago is Michael Hezarkhani's location. An interesting note,
I could only get Michael Hezarkhani's video location to match-up in Google
Earth by being on the top deck of the ferry boat docked in Battery Park: See
details below:
Also, OBF talks about an unstable platform. This is exactly
what we observe in the Michael Hezarkhani video, the slight rocking of the
ferry boat. See below:
As we observe in the two frames above, the video footage is
unstable and shows slight tilting of the camera shot, which is from being
on-board the ferry boat, which is what one might expect from being situated on
a boat.
Conclusion:
There are two distinct areas which really stand-out in the
conclusions of my analysis. We had an intro by the blog author OBF, where he
named names of 9/11 researchers' who he believed "lacked" any
real skills in simple "imagery analysis". What has really stood-out
in my analysis here is, he "himself" has
demonstrated a complete lack of "image analysis" skills, by not
knowing that he has cited fraudulent evidence of a "stationary"
plane and "moving building" in the Michael Hezarkhani gif
image which OBF endorses in his article.
As you can see from analysis, this was merely a "deceptive"
piece of gif imagery made by someone called teardrop in 2007-8 which was easily
debunked when I demonstrate how the illusion is created. There's no doubt that
the gif he has provided as evidence was "deliberately" made to
deceive people. The questions which now have to be asked are. Did this "creative"
deliberate illusion deceive OBF himself? Or, was he party to promulgating
disinformation?
Again, it is clear, the main thrust of OBF's article is to
cast doubt over the Michael Hezarkhani video footage, something which has
become a characteristic over the years for promoters of "video fakery"
to do. Is this because the videos are actually real and show an image of
something which was not a real physical plane, thus disseminating
disinformation in an attempt to hide the fact that an advanced "image
projection" technology was used to create the illusion of plane
crashes? It is clear that Simon Shack has been promulgating
falsehoods in his September Clues films, so one must consider carefully OBF's
close alignment with Simon Shack (Hytten).
