Elvis wrote:The point of my OP is that two people claim to have captured these images separate from each other. They claim not to know each other or to even have noticed each other when they took these pictures.
DoYouEverWonder, thanks for answering...
You give three good reasons there why the pictures are probably taken separately, just as they say. And to me it looks like not only two cameras were used, but, more significantly, two different lenses were used---accounting for the "fatter" perspective in the one photo (as you'd expect with a 'long' focal length lens e.g.). That would also account for the two photographers not noticing each other at the time; it looks like one of them was a good bit, some blocks, closer to the WTC.
That's the problem. If these images were actually taken by two different people, with two different cameras, I would never have been able to get them to match each other almost exactly, (which is what I've done in Plate #2) unless they were sitting on top of each other.
But let's say they were. We know Carmen Taylor was using a Sony Mavica w a floppy disk drive. I just happen to have one of these cameras and I'm very familiar with this model's shortcomings. The biggest one being a very long lag time between shots, while the camera writes the file on the floppy. The odds of an inexperienced photographer (CT claims she never used this camera before), catching a perfect pic of a plane flying 500+ mph are very, very slim. We also know that Michael Hezarkhani, claims he captured the event on his video camera. MZ has refused to talk about the details of his experience, so I don't know what type of camera he used, but a video camera is a completely different animal, from a Sony Mavica.
However, I would expect the MH video to be of much higher quality and he would have a much better chance of actually getting a good shot of the plane, because he would capture dozens of frames, in the time it would take CT to take one pic. But instead MH's video is of much poorer quality then CT's pics. They're dark and out of focus. CT's pics of extremely hi-res, steady and crisp. You can't take pictures this good with a Sony Mavica.
But okay, so it was CT's lucky day and her camera performed beyond it's capabilities. There is still no way that you would be able to get CT's images and MH's images to match each other perfectly. Yet, that is what I've been able to do in Photoshop. Except, you can't do this with CT's pic, unless you break it into separate pieces and manipulate them individually. If you try to stretch CT's pic to match MZ's pic in one piece, the buildings line up but the plane doesn't. If you can get the buildings to line up, then the plane should match too.
However, if you cut the plane out of CT's and change it's position, then the whole thing matches perfectly. That couldn't happen unless the video and CT's images were from the same original video, with the same plane inserted has a separate element in both versions.
If the Taylor still photo won a Pulitzer prize, then the focal length of the lens and other camera/lens data is probably recorded somewhere (forgive me if I don't look for it myself). Then you could ask the videographer what camera/lens and focal length(s) he was using (or maybe that's also published).
CT was using a Sony Mavica and MH was using a video camera but has refused to give any details where he was or what he was using.
Anyway, if the two photographers were not conspiring to create phony pictures with "clip art" jets, I can't imagine they'd go to all the trouble to produce two fakes from one.
Getting these images out to the public asap was more important then creating perfect images. This had to be done quick & dirty, and they wanted it to look like lucky amateurs captured these images. However, one person catching this event could possibly be debunked. Making sure two people caught the same thing, turned it into indisputable truth instead.
I believe there was one hi-res video created by someone with foreknowledge of the attack. From this video the blurry, darker MZ video and CT's hi res stills were created, and since they were in a hurry and they needed to be sure that the plane looked the same in both versions (same angle, same lighting), they used the same insert in both versions. Only problem, the plane in both pics is exactly the same. Too exact.
Okay, you suggest, maybe they were helping to cover up a 'plane switch' but by that time there were a zillion cameras trained on the towers and it seems unreasonable the plotters wouldn't paint the switched-in plane to match.
Yes, there were a zillion cameras (not really) trained on the Towers. But the majority of them were trained on the gaping hole on the opposite side, or on the big fires and people jumping out of windows on the east side of the Towers. Very few people and even fewer cameras were on the south side, when Flight 175 flew in. And the people that were on that side had their backs to the incoming plane. It turns out there are only a handful of people who supposedly captured Flight 175 on film and of those very few filmed anything more then a gray blob.
I think the "remote control" hypothesis has merit...because that's how I'd do it. But with this, I hate to say it but I think you're chasing a bad lead.
My opinion, is they swapped equipment mid flight and used a guided missile but that is not the point of this thread. Even if Flight 175 did hit WTC2, that still wouldn't prevent people from faking photos, to attain personal fame or fortune.
Ask a reputable image analyst of some sort have a look at the images, I bet he'll point out the lens differences, among other things.
