I wondered what you were referring to. It turns out that an Anon (worth his name) did some background research regarding the plane's flight path and discovered that it indeed was behind that building. No CGI (pre-CGI). It is a simple consequence of what amounts to a telescopic picture. At a sufficiently far distance, the focal plane is the same for everything in view and it all looks like it is at the same distance. I noticed this strange effect in TV coverage of football games when I was growing up in the 1950s: the spectators in the stands looked as large as the players on the field. Distance suppresses the perspective effect.
So, wannabee "anons" can hug their conspiracy blankets and decry "CGI" when this was all before that technology was available, and a real anon dug into the picture and the flight path and discovered that the image was real.
Well, I don't happen to have that in my Roladex. The point was: the anon matched the flight path to a map with the location of major buildings and determined that the airplane did indeed fly "behind" the building that obstructed the view of the wingtip. And what was wrong with that? The uninformed viewer starts out with an incorrect assumption of the depth of the images---which is a characteristic of images taken at long distance. Normal perspective cues for distance are obliterated by the fact that the images are all at the "same" distance. There wasn't anything to "show" except his statement of what he found.
But the fact seems to be that you give creds to the credulous.
Edit: Primitive CGI was available earlier (e.g., "Tron") but the kind of CGI that we are familiar with and can expect today was not. Nor is it clear how that could be inserted into a video. But since the airplane flight path and the location of identified buildings confirms that the plane flew behind the one in question, it is moot.
Look up Logo Insertion. They could insert network logos in realtime so they could probably do a logo shaped like a plane. Show it when everyone's traumatized and it'll pass. Then hide all the video once the brainwash takes hold. Standard MK trickery.
Logos are fixed in the field of the frame. There are no moving logos, at least not in the time frame of interest.
But it is one thing to surmise, quite another to prove. There is no proof of any such manipulation, and plenty of observational, photographic, and material evidence for the collision. Your arguments are of the same form as the "We never went to the Moon" crowd. When everything is a lie---why should I believe you? And why should you believe that everything is a lie?
Where is the proof that there were no moving logos at the time?
It's established fact that the TV networks were all working with Digital TV signals, most at 1080i for the main subchannel, except I believe for FOX which was doing 720p. Digital signals enable logo insertion and all sorts of other manipulation, and the code to make it move is basic linear math. You simply refuse to imagine it. Why is that?
How big is the lie that Biden won the election? Yet people believe it. If they can lie that large then no "facts" are safe, so it's prudent to start from zero. I don't need planes for the simplest explanation. Maybe they were there, but I'm not sold on it. Same goes for the moon. Fakery and brainwash is simpler and cheaper. Same for the pandemic. Totally fake would've worked, with placebos for the jabs.
It's difficult to give up on so many "truths". But I found I can live without moon landings or the dinosaurs and not much changes. If eventually they prove truly real then I'll celebrate. But we have to turn the corner on so much else first.
I wondered what you were referring to. It turns out that an Anon (worth his name) did some background research regarding the plane's flight path and discovered that it indeed was behind that building. No CGI (pre-CGI). It is a simple consequence of what amounts to a telescopic picture. At a sufficiently far distance, the focal plane is the same for everything in view and it all looks like it is at the same distance. I noticed this strange effect in TV coverage of football games when I was growing up in the 1950s: the spectators in the stands looked as large as the players on the field. Distance suppresses the perspective effect.
So, wannabee "anons" can hug their conspiracy blankets and decry "CGI" when this was all before that technology was available, and a real anon dug into the picture and the flight path and discovered that the image was real.
An anon worth his name… please provide sauce… we don’t give creds to spoofs. Show his proofs
Well, I don't happen to have that in my Roladex. The point was: the anon matched the flight path to a map with the location of major buildings and determined that the airplane did indeed fly "behind" the building that obstructed the view of the wingtip. And what was wrong with that? The uninformed viewer starts out with an incorrect assumption of the depth of the images---which is a characteristic of images taken at long distance. Normal perspective cues for distance are obliterated by the fact that the images are all at the "same" distance. There wasn't anything to "show" except his statement of what he found.
But the fact seems to be that you give creds to the credulous.
Edit: Primitive CGI was available earlier (e.g., "Tron") but the kind of CGI that we are familiar with and can expect today was not. Nor is it clear how that could be inserted into a video. But since the airplane flight path and the location of identified buildings confirms that the plane flew behind the one in question, it is moot.
Look up Logo Insertion. They could insert network logos in realtime so they could probably do a logo shaped like a plane. Show it when everyone's traumatized and it'll pass. Then hide all the video once the brainwash takes hold. Standard MK trickery.
Logos are fixed in the field of the frame. There are no moving logos, at least not in the time frame of interest.
But it is one thing to surmise, quite another to prove. There is no proof of any such manipulation, and plenty of observational, photographic, and material evidence for the collision. Your arguments are of the same form as the "We never went to the Moon" crowd. When everything is a lie---why should I believe you? And why should you believe that everything is a lie?
Where is the proof that there were no moving logos at the time?
It's established fact that the TV networks were all working with Digital TV signals, most at 1080i for the main subchannel, except I believe for FOX which was doing 720p. Digital signals enable logo insertion and all sorts of other manipulation, and the code to make it move is basic linear math. You simply refuse to imagine it. Why is that?
How big is the lie that Biden won the election? Yet people believe it. If they can lie that large then no "facts" are safe, so it's prudent to start from zero. I don't need planes for the simplest explanation. Maybe they were there, but I'm not sold on it. Same goes for the moon. Fakery and brainwash is simpler and cheaper. Same for the pandemic. Totally fake would've worked, with placebos for the jabs.
It's difficult to give up on so many "truths". But I found I can live without moon landings or the dinosaurs and not much changes. If eventually they prove truly real then I'll celebrate. But we have to turn the corner on so much else first.