Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Nuggets of Clues

Hide All / Expand All

Herr der Elf : Red-meat for this forum

2012-02-19

Postby Herr der Elf February 19th, 2012, 3:00 am

To the gracious participants of the clues forum,

I respectfully ask your indulgence. I am "Herr der Elf" here, because it is easier to type than the "Señor El Once" I use over at Craig McKee's "Truth & Shadows blog" http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie.

I am the resident champion there of both September Clues and Dr. Wood, although I do it in an admittedly left- and back-handed manner.

I objectively review all that I can; I think for myself; I stand on the shoulders of others and mine, re-fine, and re-purpose nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.

Disclaimer: I do not know Dr. Wood and have no association with her or her textbook; Mr. Shack I only know from cyberspace.

I have been in email contact with Mr. Shack and requested the assistance of him and the Clues Team. I am hoping that you could focus your digital-artifact-seeking-eyes on a select group of images acknowledged by everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement... but particularly by Dr. Judy Wood.

In preparation for that, Mr. Shack sent me some links to review, which includes this very thread (the middle link to CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE). From Mr. Shack:
simonshack wrote:My historical outlook concerning the Judy Wood character: THE KOOKIE CLUB:
viewtopic.php?p=2365280#p2365280

Here is why I believe the Ground Zero imagery cannot be trusted: OLIVER STONE'S RUBBLE FIELD:
viewtopic.php?p=2353367#p2353367

Here is why I believe that the entire pool of WTC collapse imagery is a fraud:
CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802

Here is proof that the rubble imagery is also untrustworthy: FAKING THE RUBBLE
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=489

And here is further proof of the same: THE HEROIC FIREFIGHTERS
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458

I'm sorry to have to ask you to spend time looking out all these links, but I reckon that this is a necessary requirement for anyone asking me to allow my forum to indulge in an umpteenth, circular debate of the technicalities of the WTC collapse - such as those infesting most 9/11 truth forums.


I have reviewed them (mostly). They all have merit. You have sold me on the updated "Ronnie Ray-Gun" paraphrase to distrust but verify when it comes to all 9/11 imagery.


Mr. Shack wrote:
simonshack wrote:I do believe most longtime Cluesforum members share my views about Judy Wood, i. e. - that her gatekeeping role is to uphold at all costs the credibility of the 9/11 imagery - as she specifically struggles to 'make some sense' of the physically impossible/ ridiculous visuals of the ("dustifying") tower collapses proposed by the media.


I disagree with this characterization of Dr. Wood's efforts. It can easily be proven wrong. If Dr. Wood's purpose was "to uphold... the credibility of the 9/11 imagery", then we would see all of the images that she collected re-used elsewhere. We see some, because the borrowing went from established 9/11 sources to Dr. Wood and everyone else. The more curious cases are the images that she borrows and nobody else does, like the anomalous damage to vehicles. These are avoided by the mainstream leaders of 9/11; these don't get an explanation in their versions of what happened.

The above paragraph takes nothing away from any of the discoveries of 9/11 image tainting and the possibility that tainted images made it into Dr. Wood's work (as well as everyone else's). It would be a case of Dr. Wood being duped, just like the world was duped.

In fact, it was the Anonymous Physicist who suggested that Dr. Wood's purpose was to take all of the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event and wrap it under some zany theme. (I use the term "nuclear event" to include potentially multiple milli-nuclear devices as well as nuclear and/or cold fusion reactors to power DEW devices.) Thus, Dr. Wood's purpose wouldn't be "to uphold... the credibility of the 9/11 imagery", but to garbage-in/garbage-out misinterpret the significance of what was depicted.

Mr. Shack, you write:
simonshack wrote:Is anyone going to tell Judy that she is looking at CGI imagery?
Needless to say, for any scientist to base a thesis on fake imagery... isn't very scientific at all!


To your first sentence: I don't have direct contact with Dr. Wood, but will mention it to those I think might.

To your second sentence: Very poor... no, "lame"... framing on your part. Did she know the images were tainted? The vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement are not suspecting image/video manipulation, so we should be gracious and give her the benefit of the doubt. Basing a scientific thesis on tainted information does indeed call the thesis into question; only after answering the "what did she know and when did she know it" questions can any sort of innocence or guilt be affixed to the scientist. So, please. Let us be courteous and mindful by separating the thesis from the scientist.

Elsewhere, you wrote:
simonshack wrote:Doesn't Judy Wood do her very best to provide a "scientific explanation" for the absurd imagery of the WTC tower collapses?


Mr. Shack, you have proved that some of digital image/video manipulation occurred in the corporate media on and after 9/11. You have indeed justified the distruct but verify position we should take on everything presented to us. Anyone marginally familiar with military (and political) actions knows that "controlling the media (and the message)" are top agenda items.

What you have not proven, Mr. Shack, is the degree of digital manipulation on individual images and more especially as it relates to the whole set. You have given us reason to question all images, but you haven't proven that all are tainted and should be taken off of the table (which appears to be your agenda). And even of the instances where tainting is proven, the degree of taint versus the complementary degree of "probably real" isn't provided. Admittedly, you have proven multiple instances where everything is CGI imagery; other cases you've proved items were photo-shopped in. My point concerns the aspect of imagery that appear as original, weren't digitally inserted, but had digital things inserted on top of.

You mention the "the absurd imagery of the WTC tower collapses". Yes, it is absurd. Its defiance of the rules of physics blows holes in the official govt conspiracy theory (OCT). If we go with the premise that the perpetrators had deep pockets and deep connections such that they could control the media, what was depicted, and were actively doing this on and after 9/11, why did the various angles of absurd, physics-defying WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 towers destruction ever get CGI made and broadcast? It would not have taken much more digital-manipulation effort to make them physics-compliant and not so absurd.

Thus, the thesis I make is that the vast majority of the images/videos of the tower destructing is "real" or close enough to the "real-reality" in the grander scheme that the towers were destroyed in a spectacular fashion. When the hand of digital manipulation entered, it may have been to mask out tell-tale flashes, anomalous destructive features, or projectiles that were too energetic. They wanted to show the world that the towers were being destroyed, but not give away methods.

In terms of the photoshopping of individual images? Advertisements already photoshop drop-dead georgeous women into unreal images of beauty. I can certainly see all manner of publications on 9/11 taking license with images in terms of crafting a single composite image from separate images of debris, firemen, American flags, etc. It doesn't mean the individual elements were all false or didn't exist at ground zero.

simonshack wrote:Wasn't she perhaps brought in to "protect" (and uphold the dwindling credibility) of at least PART of the prefabricated, made-for-TV 9/11 Hollywood movie?


Again, no. If she was brought in for anything nefarious, it was to scoop up all evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event, to misinterpret it into being something "zany" (Hutchison Effect, free-energy from Hurricane Erin), and to thus take said evidence off of the table from further consideration.


Here's some red-meat for this forum, particularly for those who have little respect for Dr. Wood.

Want to debunk her (or at least part of her premises)?

Please caste a keen eye on the following images, being on the look out for artifacts of digital manipulation.

Caveat: Part of the assignment may include finding another web repository for the images that will be closer to being source or the original.

I apologize in advance that this isn't my forte, so I haven't been collecting them and don't have as great a knowledge of all that exist or are even available as you in this forum do.

Image
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/hotslagil3.jpg

Image
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/5139_0_s.jpg

Image
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/jn08.jpg

Image
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/September_13_from_space.jpg

Image
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/browse.jpg

Image
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc1blowupconcretefull.jpg

Consider this the starting set of images needing review to see if and how much digital manipulation occurred.

The prospective second set of images for digital forgery review could be those on Dr. Wood's website (or a source website) that show damage to vehicles.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

Final note: I own and have read Dr. Wood's book. It is pretty crafty, really. She presents information well for a science-challenged audience, particularly in disproving the OCT. She offers several new concepts that could have scientific validity; applicability to 9/11 is a different question. She does not definitively connect these with 9/11. Her textbook is a worthy addition to anyone's 9/11 library, even if parts of it are proven as disinformation. (The latter will be for our grand children to show how our generation was played.) I have found few errors in Dr. Wood's textbook, but that may change if various images provided to her are found tainted.

I am a respectful, open-minded, and objective participant. When the foundation upon which my opinions are based is proven in error, I am man enough to change my opinions. Mr. Shack has already done this several times for me with regards to my understanding of 9/11.

I know that some regular participants here will want to ban me on sight for the crime of even mentioning Dr. Wood in a favorable light. Yours is a forum for image manipulation, not discussions on Dr. Wood. They are related and must be discussed, particularly where they overlap.

My challenge to you is to find the errors in the photographic evidence upon which Dr. Wood bases her work. You will be doing the 9/11 Truth Movement a great service. Aside from the images that you rake over the coals as frauds, it will be just as important to preserve those images that are not and that remain as valid nuggets of truth that the true theory of 9/11 must address.

I ask that you be respectful and focused on the facts; please stay away from attacks on the person, Dr. Wood. If found warranted, you'll have plenty of opportunity to venture there once the investigative work has unhinged (or not) the foundation of her evidence.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this manner,
Herr der Elf
Hide All / Expand All

Herr der Elf : What would someone proving exactly HOW the towers were brought down contribute to exposing the 9/11 Hoax?

2012-02-19


Herr der Elf : faking everything might just be a step into the disinfo bin

2012-02-21


Herr der Elf : find the artifacts of digital manipulation

2012-02-21


Herr der Elf : Do it for your own reputations

2012-02-21


Herr der Elf : Concentrate on the pictures and analyze their taintedness level

2012-02-21


simonshack : a logical thought process

2012-02-22


simonshack : The long and slow zoom-in motion for all of 18 seconds and...whoopee, the WTC1 starts collapsing!

2012-02-22


Herr der Elf : a grade on each and every image

2012-02-22


Herr der Elf : Disagreeing with Simon's Assessment

2012-02-22


nonhocapito : The only purpose of Judy Wood is to pollute the idea of fakery with fantasy scenarios in order to keep the terror factor high

2012-02-22


Makkonen : The bizarre grey-blue color blend

2012-02-22


simonshack : Falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus

2012-02-22


Maat : pearls before der schweinehund

2012-02-22


Herr der Elf : focus like an ironic space-based laser beam on the imagery of her textbook/website and take it out of play legitimately

2012-02-22


Herr der Elf : Thank you so much for your effort in scrutinizing images used by Dr. Wood

2012-02-22


Herr der Elf : Most astute observation, Mr. Shack.

2012-02-22


Herr der Elf : Google: "Patricia Ondrovic"

2012-02-22


nonhocapito : All I know about Judy Wood is that she does one very imbecile or malicious thing: draw unwarranted, fantastic conclusions from imagery that we have all the reasons to believe is fake.

2012-02-22


simonshack : fully stand by the replies Nonhocapito has offered

2012-02-22



Maat : impervious to any 'clue bat'

2012-02-23


Herr der Elf : my gratitude for the assistance

2012-02-23


simonshack : characterize our entire 9/11 research as some sort of sinister 'ploy'.

2012-02-23


nonhocapito : the whole truther repertoire

2012-02-23


Maxwell C. Bridges : Since starting this email, looks like I've been banned.

2012-02-23

No comments: