Jack White Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Yep, that looked like a bird.What about this one? Ron, that one may be a fake. It is just a white blob with no solid form when analyzed. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) I have to disagree Len, watch the video, it's not debris:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksi-_3g_BGo It's clearly an object close to the camera, most likely a bird. What species of bird is disk shaped without wings, and has FIVE LIGHTS around its oval rim? Jack What kind of ufo flaps its wings? In the second frame you posted you can see it's wings rising up. There are no lights on it in either. Edited July 28, 2009 by Kevin M. West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I have to disagree Len, watch the video, it's not debris:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksi-_3g_BGo It's clearly an object close to the camera, most likely a bird. What species of bird is disk shaped without wings, and has FIVE LIGHTS around its oval rim? Jack What kind of ufo flaps its wings? In the second frame you posted you can see it's wings rising up. There are no lights on it in either. THREE lights are seen in the second frame. What bird has lights? What bird has no wings. You are avoiding replying. Non-sequiturs are not replies. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I have to disagree Len, watch the video, it's not debris:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksi-_3g_BGo It's clearly an object close to the camera, most likely a bird. What species of bird is disk shaped without wings, and has FIVE LIGHTS around its oval rim? Jack What kind of ufo flaps its wings? In the second frame you posted you can see it's wings rising up. There are no lights on it in either. THREE lights are seen in the second frame. What bird has lights? What bird has no wings. You are avoiding replying. Non-sequiturs are not replies. Jack No Jack, there are no lights. 3 pixels that were slightly brighter than the rest were made even more so when you turned up the brightness and contrast. You are manufacturing your own delusion. The wings aren't obvious because the bird is too close, too fast, out of focus, and seen from the side, not below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 PS. If you think your 'analysis' revealed more detail, just look at what it did to the TLC logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 West is visually challenged or mentally handicapped to see this as a BIRD. It is an oval shape with five lights evenly spaced around the rim. I do not know what it is, but it is not a bird. It may even be a hoax, but is not even a hoax bird. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 West is visually challenged or mentally handicapped to see this as a BIRD Jack, what a terrible thing to imply. And you go on and on about ad hominem attacks! Who are you to cast aspersions Jack? Every single one of your "studies" I've ever seen (I've stopped bothering to look at them now) is flawed. Even my ten year old nephew managed to debunk one of your appalling "studies" in Murder In Dealey Plaza. Why do you you waste your life and everybody else's time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Your reply was an ad hom to the nth power. IMO, if you do 1/100th or 1/1000 of the work Jack has done toward truth in the events of Dallas or 911 you should consider yourself lucky - and a changed person. How about something substantive and not just an attack on Jack?! That wasn't an attack, Peter. That was a very simple statement of fact. And how does it compare to Jack's implication here that somebody else is mentally handicapped, simply because that person perceived a blurred blob on a film as a bird, rather than an alien spacecraft? Here is another simple statement of fact: Not one of Jack White's "studies" has ever moved anybody closer to the truth. (Unless, of course, the truth happens to be "Jack White is a complete waste of time"). Though I have to admit, I do have something to thank Jack for. His contribution to Murder In Dealey Plaza helped to convince me that the murder of John F. Kennedy was the act of a lone gunman. After all, if that's the best a respected conspiracy researcher can do, there was probably no conspiracy. So thanks Jack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 West is visually challenged or mentally handicapped to see this as a BIRD. Itis an oval shape with five lights evenly spaced around the rim. I do not know what it is, but it is not a bird. It may even be a hoax, but is not even a hoax bird. Jack Amazing that your 'lights' are the exact same color as the sky behind the object. Image compression tends to round out blurry objects, and you increasing the contrast only amplifies that effect. If you watch the video carefully, in it's original form, you can see the object change shape as it crosses the frame, like a bird flapping its wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 West is visually challenged or mentally handicapped to see this as a BIRD Jack, what a terrible thing to imply. And you go on and on about ad hominem attacks! Who are you to cast aspersions Jack? Every single one of your "studies" I've ever seen (I've stopped bothering to look at them now) is flawed. Even my ten year old nephew managed to debunk one of your appalling "studies" in Murder In Dealey Plaza. Why do you you waste your life and everybody else's time? Your reply was an ad hom to the nth power. IMO, if you do 1/100th or 1/1000 of the work Jack has done toward truth in the events of Dallas or 911 you should consider yourself lucky - and a changed person. How about something substantive and not just an attack on Jack?! Jack's posts on this thread prove once again his ability to understand images is below that of most people's. Peter criticizing Paul but being silent about Jack's attrocious behaviour demonstrates once again he is too biased to be a moderator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Rodriguez has changed his story yet again. Since 9/11 he has said that Felipe David, the man with the skin hanging off, came in AFTER the impact. He even stuck to that after he suddenly started claiming in May 2005 that there was an explosion in the basement before the crash. Now he says David came in before the crash. Just goes to prove that liars need to have good memories, unfortunately for Willie his isn't good enough to keep his story straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Len, Rodriquez may change his story, he may lie, but you have misrepresented his testimony. He did not tell the commission he believed the first explosion was caused by the plane hitting the building. He said he heard the first explosion at the time the plane hit the building. There's a difference. Did he know a plane had hit the building? He said he thought the explosion was caused by a "generator," not a plane. He went on to tell the commission that he thought the explosions he heard were caused by an "earthquake." Unless I'm mistaken, earthquakes occur at ground level and lower. They don't occur up in buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Len,Rodriquez may change his story, he may lie, but you have misrepresented his testimony. He did not tell the commission he believed the first explosion was caused by the plane hitting the building. He said he heard the first explosion at the time the plane hit the building. There's a difference. Did he know a plane had hit the building? He said he thought the explosion was caused by a "generator," not a plane. He went on to tell the commission that he thought the explosions he heard were caused by an "earthquake." Unless I'm mistaken, earthquakes occur at ground level and lower. They don't occur up in buildings. Interesting, .I like music, and happens to be one of those who enjoys LOUD music. Thats not very neighbourly. So my car is a bit of an orchestral hall with some ... lets say, interesting gadgets in it. Essentially, at high volume on a long stretch of country road, with music like this : http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=170605 for example, with all the settings right, it is possible to practcally get the sense of a front row seat. (and it adds an entirely new dimension to the experience, nuances that are missed at low volumes) The kicker in the boot is particularly interesting in producing pretty strong sub aural vibrations. We sometimes at gatherings open the doors and crank up the volume. The interesting, let alone amusing, thing happened at one gathering when a mate said, (he was barefoot) ''The grounds shaking'' Well, I'm sure it doesn't take much to figure our what was going on. (the car, on wide, os, tyres stood some ten meters away.) If a cars noise system can do that...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Len,Rodriquez may change his story, he may lie, but you have misrepresented his testimony. He did not tell the commission he believed the first explosion was caused by the plane hitting the building. He said he heard the first explosion at the time the plane hit the building. There's a difference. Did he know a plane had hit the building? He said he thought the explosion was caused by a "generator," not a plane. He went on to tell the commission that he thought the explosions he heard were caused by an "earthquake." Unless I'm mistaken, earthquakes occur at ground level and lower. They don't occur up in buildings. Sorry Ron but your rationalization does not stand up to scrutiny. According to the notes: "Rodriguez said…he was in the B1 sublevel ABM office speaking to Anthony Saltamachia when the plane struck the North Tower (WTC 1). He immediately thought the explosion was caused by a generator. Shortly after the first explosion a second explosion rocked the building and caused the office's false ceiling to collapse. Following these explosions Felipe David, who was severely burned, ran into the office. Rodriguez said there was a third explosion and he believed then the explosions were caused by an earthquake.” In his latter retellings the 2nd explosion came from above and was caused by the plane. He told the commission he though all three explosions were earthquakes not just the first one. Thanks for drawing my attention to this but it undermines his later claims that he could distinguish between sounds coming from above and below. Note that during his his interview he attributed the 1st explosion to the plane impact. Additionally when he was interviewed live on CNN he said the noise from the 1st explosion was like “moving furniture in a massive way”, moving furniture is a sound normally heard from above. My main point about the notes are that they falsified his claim that his “statements [to the Commission] directly contradict the government story” not that the notes prove he said the 1st explosion was the plane crash. As pointed out the contradictions between his post May 2005 versions of what happened and… – each other – his earlier versions and – the know facts …render these latter versions not credible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Customer:What have you got? Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon, egg sausage and bacon Egg and spam Egg, bacon and spam Egg, bacon, sausage and spam Spam, bacon, sausage and spam Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam Spam, sausage, spam, spam, spam, bacon, spam tomato and spam Spam, spam, spam, egg and spam Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Samuel Johnson 1775 "Spam is the first and last resort of Peter Lemkin " Len Colby 2009 Peter's reply #58 is exactly the same as #50 and still doesn't address points undermining Rodriguez's fable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now