Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Edna Cintron

Expand Messages
  • Scott Loughrey
    last Saturday night a group of conspiracy buffs met over dinner to talk about the victims of 9/11.  We ate food, drank wine and sang a few familiar songs.  
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 8, 2010
      last Saturday night a group of conspiracy buffs met over dinner to talk about the victims of 9/11.  We ate food, drank wine and sang a few familiar songs.
      afterwards we sat around the dinner table and held hands.  The room was completely dark.  Suddenly, lightning struck outside.
      Our hostess (who shall remain nameless) encouraged us not to break our connections; so we held hands even though lightning and thunder was now persistent.
      The hostess produced a ouija board and began speaking in tongues, her hands in constant contact with the letters on the board.
      After a few minutes a gasp arose from the assembled.  the letters on the board had somehow been arranged to spell E-d-n-a. 
      by and large the gathering refused to believe it; we challenged the hostess about the accuracy of the letters that had been selected.  Still, the hostess was adamant: these letters were chosen by the spirit which had entered the room.
      No one could recall seeing how the letters actually came to light.  Meanwhile, no one doubted the sincerity of our hostess who plied us with food and bottom-less glasses of wine.  The wind howled outside.  We were informed by servants of the hostess that the roads had now become impassible.  For better or worse, we were not going to leave the chamber until the storm or the weekend had passed.
      The hostess resumed her incantations.  we held each others' hands as if our lives depended on it. More lightning and thunder crackled outdoors.  The electricity went out; candlelight ruled the moment.
      The hostess resumed speaking in tongues.  Suddenly, the ouija board vibrated.  The hostess informed us that a member of the Dead was walking among us.  We all wanted to leave; however, no one would break free of each other's hands as if doing so would invite the greatest terror imaginable.
      Suddenly, new letters revealed themselves on the ouija board.  we saw the words: 'Let it go'.
      The hostess told us what we already knew: We were in contact with the ghost of Edna Cintron.  As we were all familiar with 911, everyone understood the meaning of this.
      Edna Cintron was speaking to us!  She was telling us to leave her memory be.  "Let it go" has no ambiguity; we all understood that she was asking us to focus less attention to her memory.  Edna was telling us to spend less time discussing how she bravely stood near the edge of the WTC Tower waving to indicate the relative temperature of the broken beams visible to world.
      Her presence near the beams spoke volumes about the real temperature of the North Tower before it collapsed.
      Yet, she was communicating to us to let her memory fade.  The ghost of Edna Cintron, now moving efffortlessly among us, was informing us there were better ways of convincing the public that 911 was a scam.
      Suddenly, the French windows blew open.  The storm abruptly lifted.  We stopped holding hands.  Servants arrived to clear the plates on the table.  We felt like the evening was over, even though it was only 9 o'clock.
      Later we wondered: Did Edna Cintron really communicate to us?  Did she tell us to forget about the crucial role she played on 9/11/01?
      We'll never know for sure the answer to these questions.  Yet, the assembled now all agree on a few points.  Edna Cintron had appeared; she was conveying to us the urgency of spending less time *her* and more time discussing collapse physics and TV fakery.
      We resolved not to disappoint the ghost of Edna Cintron.

      --- On Sun, 8/8/10, The Webfairy <webfairy@...> wrote:

      From: The Webfairy <webfairy@...>
      Subject: Re: [planehuggers] Re: Edna Cintron
      To: planehuggers@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 3:32 PM

      Edna Cintron could save your soul.
      But you'd rather see the mangy thing chained to oil and nukes.
      IT is always easier to handwring than to learn something new yourself.

      Edna Cintron was a real person. She arrived at the plane shape hole from
      the 96th floor on the other side of the building by means we can barely
      There were two or three other survivors as well, but none so brazenly
      She stood there waving every time a helicopter came by.
      Every time live coverage got too close to the planeshape hole, it would
      suddenly wink out in interference like the premature BBC news of 7's demise.
      They didn't show Edna Cintron on TV until the end, where it looks like
      she's trying to hide from the helicopter this time.
      The same award winning photographer who captured RFK's last breath also
      caught Edna Cintron and two others falling. I think by no coincidence at

      She deserves to be an Iconic Figure, a Statue of Liberty for our time.
      I've fought off generations of TV Fakery Fakers fake hollering about
      details that really prove stuff REAL AND NOT FAKE.
      TV Fakery Fakers devised a profound coverup taking advantage of the way
      we use our visual brain.
      Back to "Collapse" Physics.

      They used Cold Fusion Energy Weapons.
      Edna Cintron is standing on a "melted" looking beam less than 10 minutes
      after it "melted."
      It was an energetic resonance which created only incidental heat..
      If people came to recognize that this energy source is REAL, that will
      start the process toward personal energy independence, as the power
      transmitters and oil or nukes that feed them become unnecessary.
      Power from resonance, Tesla Power, could be ours if people would just
      stop pretending Tesla was Fictional, and Edna doesn't matter.

      TV Fakery has turned out horrible, as Simon Shack has driven it into the
      ground espousing the "everything is fake" position.

      There WERE fake planes, but they were crude affairs. Transmuting crummy
      fake planes to
      subtle "fakery" / anything is fake if it looks wierd to TV Fakery Fakers.
      They never mention the planes anymore, to them it's all fake victims and
      fake damage.
      It's like planehugger zombies who lost their planes, and their bearings.

      Scott Loughrey wrote:
      > yer all by yourself, WF. no one else on this list is as emotionally
      > attached to Edna as you are.
      > i think we should go back to discussing collapse physics, personally.
      > the future is in the past. maybe we have to start at the beginning
      > again. we started with collapse physics and more or less pushed it
      > aside for TV fakery. however, maybe collapse physics was the thread
      > we should have stuck with when convincing people 911 was a scam.
      > of course, another problem we're dealing with is so many people have
      > totally forgotten 911.
      > there's got to be a way to reach this Droid-addicted, text-messaging
      > sea of sheeple.
      > they don't even know that we're in the middle of a new world war.
      > they don't even know they've lost all their rights. they don't even
      > know they will be microchipped in their lifetimes.
      > if we can't reach these numbskulls maybe we can build a time machine
      > and get the Hell out ouf here.
      > --- On *Fri, 8/6/10, The Webfairy /<webfairy@...>/* wrote:
      > From: The Webfairy <webfairy@...>
      > Subject: [planehuggers] Re: Edna Cintron
      > To: "Clare Kuehn" <clarekuehn@...>
      > Cc: "Jack & Sue White" <jwjfk@...>, "ace baker"
      > <acebaker1234@...>, "Jeff Hill" <shure_dj@...>,
      > "MARCUS ICKE" <marcus_icke@...>, "Lenny Bloom"
      > <cloak.dagger@...>, "jfetzer@..." <jfetzer@...>,
      > planehuggers@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Friday, August 6, 2010, 8:58 PM
      > The thumbnail is tucked INSIDE the JPG of the CNN photo.
      > I only noticed because my Video Program, Pinnacle, rendered the
      > thumbnail with the background, so I was having a hard time finding
      > the picture, and then I said Holey Shit!!
      > Whoever cropped it kept the original jfif and exif data.
      > This is PROOF this is a real picture and it has been cropped down.
      > http://webfairy. org/edna/ ednajfif2. jpg
      > <http://webfairy.org/edna/ednajfif2.jpg>
      > http://webfairy.org/edna/ednajfif2.jpg
      > Clare Kuehn wrote:
      >> It is possible, from the graininess of the thumbnail you mention,
      >> in http://video. google.com/ videoplay? docid=2164396237
      >> 994540011#
      >> <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2164396237994540011#>
      >> that the thumbnail is the okay one and the other is not.
      >> But I would suggest that the figure on the right is the one that
      >> was the real figure, but the background could be correct in the
      >> thumbnail!
      >> The point is, this is not a mere compression issue.
      >> To catch a person in almost exactly the same head tilt and hair
      >> and so on, with almost the same expression, after adjusting
      >> eyeglasses or whatever, even on the same day, is NOT real
      >> photography.
      >> And you can see exactly the same highlight on her forehead (and
      >> dulled) and the same shadows (but a bit on the front of the nose
      >> on the nostril on the left (her right) has been shortened (not
      >> the outside edge, but the inside edge, near the tip) to make it
      >> also look like she's turned more.
      >> Clare
      >> ----------------------------------------------------------
      >> *From:* Clare Kuehn <clarekuehn@yahoo. ca>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=clarekuehn@...>
      >> *To:* The Webfairy <webfairy@webfairy. org>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=webfairy@...>
      >> *Cc:* Jack & Sue White <jwjfk@flash. net>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jwjfk@...>;
      >> ace baker <acebaker1234@ yahoo.com>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=acebaker1234@...>;
      >> Jeff Hill <shure_dj@hotmail. com>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shure_dj@...>;
      >> MARCUS ICKE <marcus_icke@ hotmail.com>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=marcus_icke@...>;
      >> Lenny Bloom <cloak.dagger@ gmail.com>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=cloak.dagger@...>;
      >> "jfetzer@.... edu"
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jfetzer@...>
      >> <jfetzer@.... edu>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jfetzer@...>;
      >> planehuggers@ yahoogroups. com
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=planehuggers@yahoogroups.com>
      >> *Sent:* Fri, August 6, 2010 6:50:17 PM
      >> *Subject:* Re: Public Relations Clare
      >> Rosalee, I know you want the one on the left to be real. It can't be.
      >> You have bought the lie on this one.
      >> I'll tell you the conclusions again, and then tell you why we know:
      >> 1. In the left one she's blurred and lightened (made to look in a
      >> cursory way as if she's under strong light); in the left one
      >> they've removed her glasses -- or put them into the one on the
      >> right; her hair and head are at the same angle and so is the
      >> camera therefore (to her head), yet her features are more to the
      >> left side of the photograph, which indicates normally she'd have
      >> turned her head, but if she'd really turned her head her
      >> nostrils, eyes, mouth (in the same expression, too!) would be at
      >> a different perspective than in the first photo.
      >> They're not.
      >> So they've taken away the shadows which show more definitely the
      >> angle on the features, and blurred it so it feels like if "might"
      >> be a change in lighting and angle; but really the features have
      >> been moved over on the head, to the left a bit.
      >> Clare
      >> ----------------------------------------------------------
      >> *From:* The Webfairy <webfairy@webfairy. org>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=webfairy@...>
      >> *To:* Clare Kuehn <clarekuehn@yahoo. ca>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=clarekuehn@...>
      >> *Cc:* Jack & Sue White <jwjfk@flash. net>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jwjfk@...>;
      >> ace baker <acebaker1234@ yahoo.com>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=acebaker1234@...>;
      >> Jeff Hill <shure_dj@hotmail. com>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shure_dj@...>;
      >> MARCUS ICKE <marcus_icke@ hotmail.com>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=marcus_icke@...>;
      >> Lenny Bloom <cloak.dagger@ gmail.com>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=cloak.dagger@...>;
      >> "jfetzer@.... edu"
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jfetzer@...>
      >> <jfetzer@.... edu>
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jfetzer@...>;
      >> planehuggers@ yahoogroups. com
      >> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=planehuggers@yahoogroups.com>
      >> *Sent:* Fri, August 6, 2010 6:35:30 PM
      >> *Subject:* Re: Public Relations Clare
      >> This is still not true.
      >> The CNN one's origin is clearly seen in the Meet Edna Cintron
      >> video, starting 27 seconds in.
      >> http://video. google.com/ videoplay? docid=2164396237 994540011
      >> <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2164396237994540011>
      >> In the other one, she is NOT wearing glasses, not standing under
      >> such strong light,so there's less shadowing under her eyebrows,
      >> and her lips are poised differently.
      >> The only thing the "same" is that both are enlarged details of
      >> pictures with more going on in them.
      >> Claiming enlarged details are "fake" is one of Simon Shack's
      >> biggest lies.
      >> http://webfairy.org/FLIPcintron_edna_small.jpg
      >> Clare Kuehn wrote:
      >>> Me, too.
      >>> The photos are either not of her at all, or the one is fake. But
      >>> the one at least is fake (manipulated, that is).
      >>> Clare
      >>> ----------------------------------------------------------
      >>> *From:* Jack & Sue White <jwjfk@flash. net>
      >>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jwjfk@...>
      >>> *To:* Clare Kuehn <clarekuehn@yahoo. ca>
      >>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=clarekuehn@...>
      >>> *Cc:* Jack & Sue White <jwjfk@flash. net>
      >>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jwjfk@...>;
      >>> The Webfairy <webfairy@webfairy. org>
      >>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=webfairy@...>;
      >>> ace baker <acebaker1234@ yahoo.com>
      >>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=acebaker1234@...>;
      >>> Jeff Hill <shure_dj@hotmail. com>
      >>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shure_dj@...>;
      >>> MARCUS ICKE <marcus_icke@ hotmail.com>
      >>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=marcus_icke@...>;
      >>> Lenny Bloom <cloak.dagger@ gmail.com>
      >>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=cloak.dagger@...>;
      >>> "jfetzer@.... edu"
      >>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jfetzer@...>
      >>> <jfetzer@.... edu>
      >>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jfetzer@...>
      >>> *Sent:* Thu, August 5, 2010 11:54:35 PM
      >>> *Subject:* Re: Public Relations Clare
      >>> I have no doubt that Edna was a REAL person. However, I know of
      >>> nothing which IDs the woman in the videos as EDNA. At
      >>> best, the ID is a guess.
      >>> Jack
      >>> On Aug 5, 2010, at 9:07:59 PM, Clare Kuehn wrote:
      >>>> No, Rosalee.
      >>>> It's not a painting, that photo of the towers with light
      >>>> through it. It might (if you know little of what can be faked
      >>>> and what can't) be fake photography, but it is in no way a
      >>>> painting.
      >>>> I look at paintings a lot.
      >>>> :)
      >>>> As to Cintron: I have said repeatedly she's real in the video
      >>>> you analyzed. YOU are speaking "from your bellybutton" (to be
      >>>> cute as you were attempting as well), if you have not absorbed
      >>>> that I never presented Edna to be an unreal person.
      >>>> There is a numeric mass of clearly fake
      >>>> IDs, too large for this to be likely to be only the ones we've caught.
      >>>> There are also several TYPES of (levels os) victim evidence,
      >>>> from missing pages, through name-only, through 1-photo, through
      >>>> some newspaper accounts but problematic
      >>>> photos, through newspaper accounts with problematic photos and family accounts which don't
      >>>> match their own statements in different ways.
      >>>> But one
      >>>> thing's for certain, this fact of fake records does not mean all who have been
      >>>> given fake elements were given them because they were fake persons. Mychal Judge and Edna
      >>>> are two who are real and died. So we know some in the record
      >>>> are real though they have fake elements in their record.
      >>>> Judge's chair photo ops and Edna's 2nd photo are the fake
      >>>> elements, but the persons were real.
      >>>> So as I have said on air and all along ... these aspects of
      >>>> knowledge must be combined!
      >>>> We have a bulk and many types of problems in the victim record,
      >>>> so likely a lot of IDs were completely fabricated, to boost
      >>>> numbers. The death toll, if we didn't know of any real ones,
      >>>> could be considered -- in isolation, therefore -- from 3000
      >>>> down to 0 or anywhere in the middle.
      >>>> But we do know of Edna and Judge. Thus, there were real deaths.
      >>>> So ...
      >>>> We must realize therefore that some persons were killed. So
      >>>> it's not 0 deaths, 3000 fakes.
      >>>> Finally, Rosalee (and
      >>>> audience), we have to add to this basic conclusion the
      >>>> interesting fact that those two known deaths (Edna and Judge) have a partly faked
      >>>> record too. So ...
      >>>> They were added in to confound us, make us fight.
      >>>> Stop fighting.
      >>>> Make sense?
      >>>> Clare
      >>>> --- On *Thu, 8/5/10, The Webfairy /<webfairy@webfairy. org
      >>>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=webfairy@...>>/*
      >>>> wrote:
      >>>> From: The Webfairy <webfairy@webfairy. org
      >>>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=webfairy@...>>
      >>>> Subject: Re: Public Relations Clare
      >>>> To: jfetzer@.... edu
      >>>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jfetzer@...>
      >>>> Cc: "Clare Kuehn" <clarekuehn@yahoo. ca
      >>>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=clarekuehn@...>>,
      >>>> "ace baker" <acebaker1234@ yahoo.com
      >>>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=acebaker1234@...>>,
      >>>> "Jeff Hill" <shure_dj@hotmail. com
      >>>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shure_dj@...>>,
      >>>> "Jack & Sue White" <jwjfk@flash. net
      >>>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jwjfk@...>>,
      >>>> "MARCUS ICKE" <marcus_icke@ hotmail.com
      >>>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=marcus_icke@...>>,
      >>>> "Lenny Bloom" <cloak.dagger@ gmail.com
      >>>> <http://us.mc514.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=cloak.dagger@...>>
      >>>> Received: Thursday, August 5, 2010, 7:04 PM
      >>>> I wish to god you had been following the thread, Jim.
      >>>> I don't care how nice she is when niceness is a job and a
      >>>> skill.
      >>>> When asked to point out something REAL, she chose a PAINTING.
      >>>> I don't work for a public relations firm or anybody.
      >>>> I live with Joe Friendly and get social security disability
      >>>> for my twice replaced hip.
      >>>> I can ride my bike forever, but I can hardly walk.
      >>>> For real.
      >>>> I was a follower of Simon Shack at the beginning, but his
      >>>> every claim has been proven wrong, over and over, and now
      >>>> somebody new and fresh takes off like the past never
      >>>> happened. I fought all this down once already while the
      >>>> VICSIM were trying to make Edna Cintron "fake."
      >>>> Now the same screwy notions have reincarnated with Clare to
      >>>> make them 'sound good'.
      >>>> It is a destruction of evidence, using "intuition" to
      >>>> decide what's fake by political means.
      >>>> Please go back over the thread.
      >>>> I have proven my points at every step of the way.
      >>>> jfetzer@.... edu wrote:
      >>>> > Rosalee,
      >>>> >
      >>>> > I haven't been following this thread, but I would wager
      >>>> that the odds
      >>>> > that something is fishy with Clare are equal to those for
      >>>> The Webfairy.
      >>>> >
      >>>> > Jim
      >>>> >
      >>>> > Quoting "The Webfairy" <webfairy@webfairy. org>:
      >>>> >
      >>>> >> Clare, you were rejecting geometry and trigonometry
      >>>> both, because those are the tools YouGeneDebs
      >>>> >> http://youtube. com/yougenedebs
      >>>> <http://youtube.com/yougenedebs>
      >>>> >> uses to show Simon Shack is a big fat liar.
      >>>> >> Actual lines and angles, not some thought-form- rush
      >>>> meant to enshrine imagination as "scientific" .
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >> Where's the Fox 5 Camera
      >>>> >> http://www.youtube. com/yougenedebs# p/a/u/4/7KqXuckq
      >>>> US0 <http://www.youtube.com/yougenedebs#p/a/u/4/7KqXuckqUS0>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >> An excellent example of yougenedebs rigor:
      >>>> >> The Russian Pix, Part 3
      >>>> >> http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=p-fAqC- 3hlY
      >>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-fAqC-3hlY>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >> The little rented plane is actually seen flying past in
      >>>> the supposedly "fake" footage.
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >> Simon Shack and Phil Jayhan were both in need of damage
      >>>> control and public relations spin.
      >>>> >> It turns out our friend Clare works for a public
      >>>> relations firm in Toronto called "Strategic Communications"
      >>>> as a fundraiser, according to your LInkedin profile
      >>>> >> http://ca.linkedin. com/pub/clare- kuehn/8/b11/ 954
      >>>> <http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/clare-kuehn/8/b11/954>
      >>>> >> "Strategic Communications" Toronto
      >>>> >> anything named "stratcom" makes me automatically suspicious:
      >>>> >> http://www.torontot hebetter. net/2stratcom. htm
      >>>> <http://www.torontothebetter.net/2stratcom.htm>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >> The reason it seems like a cover name is that it's
      >>>> really hard to get a google search on such a common word
      >>>> choice.
      >>>> >> http://www.google. com/search? q=%22strategic+
      >>>> communications% 22+toronto
      >>>> <http://www.google.com/search?q=%22strategic+communications%22+toronto>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >> VICSIM developed their techniques disputing Edna
      >>>> Cintron's identity.
      >>>> >> Enlarging details from a picture or video gives a soft
      >>>> focus at best. Edna Cintron looks like she was filmed
      >>>> behind a shower curtain on highly magnified enlargements.
      >>>> >> A pixel of photo or video information does not get one
      >>>> bit more resolution or depth when blown up bigger.
      >>>> >> Compression artifacts show. They are proof it is real.
      >>>> >> But compression artifacts make something "fake."
      >>>> >> The cartoonieness and blemishes look just fine at the
      >>>> size supporting the pixel resolution as intended.
      >>>> >> The pictures Clare is trying to pass off as "fake" are
      >>>> two headshots created by cropping larger scenes. The CNN
      >>>> version was put on the web with it's metadata intact. The
      >>>> thumbnail shows the entire office scene that closeup was
      >>>> cropped from.
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >> This is objective evidence that the cropped picture was
      >>>> not only created by a camera, but the specific model of
      >>>> camera and the date the picture was taken were both in
      >>>> perserved metadata saved along with the picture.
      >>>> >> http://video. google.com/ videoplay? docid=2164396237
      >>>> 994540011#
      >>>> <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2164396237994540011#>
      >>>> >> starting 21 seconds in.
      >>>> >> In a world where there is PROOF, this is proof that
      >>>> picture came out of a camera and was not composited in any
      >>>> way shape or form.
      >>>> >> But the Fakery Fakers that Clare is making respectable
      >>>> face for will simply change the subject and find another
      >>>> excuse to call fake.
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >>
      >>>> >> Clare Kuehn wrote:
      >>>> >>> Rejecting geometry?
      >>>> >>> Rejecting trigonometry?
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> You've got to be kidding.
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> LOL
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> The trigonometry is the height angle and distance
      >>>> changes on the objects.
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> The visual distortion comes from Vanishing Point
      >>>> Horizon Line (eye direction is where it is, and height
      >>>> above the ground is angle on objects in it) as distinct
      >>>> one's height up from a plane such as the earth's ground
      >>>> plane, which gives the Horizon Line if we're near the plane
      >>>> (but not out in space!), and gives the amount of
      >>>> information we see.
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> Clearly, I know what I'm talking of. Can you not
      >>>> recognize depth -- a pun there, ha ha.
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> Clare
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
      >>>> --------- --------- ------
      >>>> >>> *From:* The Webfairy <webfairy@webfairy. org>
      >>>> >>> *To:* ace baker <acebaker1234@ yahoo.com>
      >>>> >>> *Cc:* Clare Kuehn <clarekuehn@yahoo. ca>; Jeff Hill
      >>>> <shure_dj@hotmail. com>; "jfetzer@.... edu"
      >>>> <jfetzer@.... edu>; Jack & Sue White <jwjfk@flash. net>;
      >>>> MARCUS ICKE <marcus_icke@ hotmail.com>
      >>>> >>> *Sent:* Wed, August 4, 2010 7:58:51 PM
      >>>> >>> *Subject:* Re: Comedy Clare
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> I just wish it were funny.
      >>>> >>> I figure Jayhan and Shack were both so thoroughly put
      >>>> in their place that they had to hire a Public Relations
      >>>> Consultant.
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> Gibberish indeed.
      >>>> >>> But it's the sort of gibberish that gets people nodding
      >>>> along.
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> After rejecting Geometry and Trigonometry from the
      >>>> capable hands of YouGeneDebs, Clare substitutes a "make it
      >>>> up as you go along" version pulled out of her bellybutton.
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> God has a much better eye for picking horizon lines
      >>>> than Clare does.
      >>>> >>> Mother Nature does tremendously sophisticated effects
      >>>> naturally and in real time because Laws of Nature like the
      >>>> laws of motion and the math of perspective. The geometry of
      >>>> perspective.
      >>>> >>> Mother nature does what she does 60 times a second
      >>>> easy. If they made a higher framerate, each one would still
      >>>> be unique and not duplicates.
      >>>> >>> One thing life never does is stand still. Duplicates
      >>>> show fakery. Zapruder shows up to 6 duplicate frames at a
      >>>> time. They used the same uneven pattern of dupes as is
      >>>> displayed at http://webfairy. org/doubletree
      >>>> <http://webfairy.org/doubletree>
      >>>> >>> The source of Zapruder was real footage. They chose the
      >>>> worst frames, but the source was known real.
      >>>> >>> Unless the Fakery Fakers declare JFK never died cos the
      >>>> video is wonky.
      >>>> >>> That could be next.
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> He pointed out particular windows of particular
      >>>> buildings where different 911 footages were filmed.
      >>>> >>> HE does this using trigonometry.
      >>>> >>> Actual locales for what Simon Shack was claiming were
      >>>> fictional backdrops.
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> http://youtube. com/yougenedebs
      >>>> <http://youtube.com/yougenedebs>
      >>>> >>> All the stuff Clare handwaves about YouGeneDebs was
      >>>> actually doing.
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>>
      >>>> >>> ace baker wrote:
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Thanks for the laughs.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> If you would like to use triangulation to prove an
      >>>> inconsistency between two videos, fine. A triangle has 6
      >>>> elements - 3 sides, and 3 angles. Essentially, if you know
      >>>> any 3 of the 6, you can then figure out the other 3. Google
      >>>> Earth allows you to plot points accurately, and has a handy
      >>>> ruler. The positions of the towers, bridges etc. are easy.
      >>>> You might run into problems trying to figure out exactly
      >>>> where the helicopters were. But this is an approach that
      >>>> would be scientific. You would say something like:
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> At time 1, helicopter is at point "A" (x1,y1,z1), at
      >>>> time 2, helicopter is at point "B" (x2,y2,z2). A particular
      >>>> mark on the tower is point "C". The distance between Point
      >>>> "A" and point "B" is such and such, angle "ABC" is this,
      >>>> angle "BAC" is that, so we know the distances AC and BC.
      >>>> Then you could extend a straight line back to the bridge
      >>>> and say it should be here but it's there, or this object
      >>>> should exist at that angle, or whatever. It's high school
      >>>> geometry.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Instead you write gibberish. The only question is
      >>>> whether you're just taken in by the Killtown-Shack- Fred
      >>>> gang, or are a new pro player. That is my curiosity.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
      >>>> --------- --------- ------
      >>>> >>>> *From:* Clare Kuehn <clarekuehn@yahoo. ca
      >>>> <mailto:clarekuehn@yahoo. ca>>
      >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Wed, August 4, 2010 3:24:14 AM
      >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Important typos corrected: Re: The fuller
      >>>> (harder?) verison of the perspective "triangle" and horizon
      >>>> line issues
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Important typos corrected. Re-sending to Ace as well.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
      >>>> --------- --------- ------
      >>>> >>>> *From:* Clare Kuehn <clarekuehn@yahoo. ca
      >>>> <mailto:clarekuehn@yahoo. ca>>
      >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Wed, August 4, 2010 6:00:24 AM
      >>>> >>>> *Subject:* The fuller (harder?) verison of the
      >>>> perspective "triangle" and horizon line issues
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> This was a message to Ace which he didn't understand.
      >>>> Perhaps you guys will though it takes work to understand.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> There is an easier version, too, in your Inboxes,
      >>>> entitled "Simpler version of the 'triangle' of objects and
      >>>> the horizon line".
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> But in case you want the fuller explanation, here it is.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Take your time. These things are easy but are really
      >>>> quite often messed up when taught in schools, if they are
      >>>> taught. I had to reverse engineer my own education and what
      >>>> the Renaissance was so thrilled about ... in order to
      >>>> understand that optics is the point, perspective the means.
      >>>> Mere measurement isn't the issue: it's the relationships of
      >>>> several lines of inference (physically related
      >>>> understandings, in this case) all changing at the same
      >>>> time, which makes it a good mental training.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Sincerely,
      >>>> >>>> Clare
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
      >>>> --------- --------- ------
      >>>> >>>> *From:* Clare Kuehn <clarekuehn@yahoo. ca
      >>>> <mailto:clarekuehn@yahoo. ca>>
      >>>> >>>> *To:* ace baker <acebaker1234@ yahoo.com
      >>>> <mailto:acebaker1234@ yahoo.com>>
      >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Wed, August 4, 2010 12:06:54 AM
      >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: I will try to send you ...
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Hi, Ace.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Exactly. The issue is Proportions: not only of the
      >>>> building heights and not merely of foreshortening on the
      >>>> buildings individually, but of their distance relationship
      >>>> to each other, the same points on each building as you
      >>>> raise higher to also see the ground plane more.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Any rise more than the original angle of view will
      >>>> show a tilt on the ground plane more. Merely receding at
      >>>> the same angle changes height, but always remains relative
      >>>> to the original scene though it might seem not to. Your
      >>>> view angle is actually the determining "plane". The ground
      >>>> itself is always at the same angle to your eye height off
      >>>> it if you are receding at the same angle to the original
      >>>> scene, though you are getting higher.
      >>>> >>>> To back up ...
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Now, in the low video, the real horizon (not the
      >>>> viewpoint vanishing point "horizon") is at infinity behind
      >>>> the buildings in the low video. If we go higher than the
      >>>> buildings we will see them from a new higher angle.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> In one clip, we have gone higher up. But when we do
      >>>> so, the object relations will change in nature (they will
      >>>> become a taller "triangle"), not to mention that the
      >>>> objects will be more foreshortened in other ways.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> So in the one clip we are higher. The real horizon is
      >>>> higher in relation to the *objects*, not merely out of
      >>>> frame. If we try to put the horizon back in frame by merely
      >>>> tilting our view, but staying in place otherwise, the
      >>>> objects would stay the same distance from the horizon,
      >>>> though the horizon would come into view. (The objects would
      >>>> move close to or out of frame.) So that doesn't give us our
      >>>> original "triangle" of object relations back.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> So if we're higher, the object relations "triangle"
      >>>> would be different than when we were low. If the low was
      >>>> correct, then the high view video is wrong.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> But if the high view "triangle" object relations is
      >>>> right, then the low one is wrong.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> ............ ......... ......... ......... ........
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> To try to correct this by pulling back in distance in
      >>>> either situation alleviates nothing either.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> If we pull back in such a way as wish to keep the same
      >>>> angle on the buildings, we keep have the same "triangle" of
      >>>> object relations. But we also gain NO more planar change in
      >>>> the horizon than we had before. That means we kept the
      >>>> triangle of object relations but ALSO the objects'
      >>>> relationship to the horizon!
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> We are talking of physically being at the same angle
      >>>> to the objects. (This does not mean tilting your viewing
      >>>> vanishing point horizon at the same angle as you merely
      >>>> increase height or pull back but at a higher angle than
      >>>> before. If you're doing that, you tilt your eye down and
      >>>> keep the view line on the buildings, but the objects would
      >>>> change for the increasing angle height difference, even
      >>>> though you look back down on them with your tilt. Some
      >>>> foreshortening details would flatten in angle or widen in
      >>>> depth from eye viewpoint vanishing horizon line, a
      >>>> different concept than physical height horizon line, but
      >>>> that's complicated to explain so I'll leave subtleties of
      >>>> vanishing point horizons versus height horizons out of this
      >>>> for the moment.)
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> If instead of pulling back with greater height and the
      >>>> SAME angle on the scene, we pull back and increase our
      >>>> height and ANGLE on the buildings, then yes, we increase
      >>>> our relationship angle with the ground of the scene of
      >>>> course, which changes the horizon as I said above. But as I
      >>>> mentioned, with angle height change comes a change in the
      >>>> "triangle" of object relations.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> This means we can pull back the same as our original
      >>>> angle of view to keep the triangle, low or high, but be
      >>>> stuck with the same horizon line height relative to the
      >>>> objects OR we can change the height angle of view on the
      >>>> objects (near or far) and change those buildings relative
      >>>> to the horizon, but be stuck with the triangle of object
      >>>> relations changing too. We can't have both horizon change
      >>>> AND consistency in object relations triangle.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... .
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> There is one final tidbit of a point -- which I hope
      >>>> doesn't confuse you. But I bring it up because it's
      >>>> something you might think of and get confused here
      >>>> yourself. So I'll bring it up in case you'd have thought of it.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> You DO change physical angle on the ground around when
      >>>> you are keeping constant angle on an object. I simplified.
      >>>> Yes, way out from the objects there are points which are
      >>>> now in your view, at a very oblique angle. But this makes
      >>>> almost no difference to the horizon line information you
      >>>> see. What you DO see is a stretching, in extreme cases, a
      >>>> stretching of what you already saw in the background.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Why?
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Because from the greater and greater distance on a
      >>>> flat (not spherical surface), you will see across way more
      >>>> distance from the new height if you are keeping the same
      >>>> angle on an object. We are talking backing up to hundreds
      >>>> of miles. But what's interesting is this creates MOSTLY a
      >>>> distortion and not much new information.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> It flattens out the farthest items, widening them
      >>>> slightly, with a very thin amount of new information which
      >>>> covers so much more distance for the same angles, that it
      >>>> hardly fits into a slice.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> But in order to have a perceptible difference on the
      >>>> objects you originally were pulling back from at the same
      >>>> angle, so as to keep the object relations the same, you
      >>>> would have to increase angle on them, is the point. The
      >>>> eventual slight shift in angle on the farthest horizon, if
      >>>> you pulled back far enough at the same angle on the
      >>>> objects, would not change their relationship to the horizon
      >>>> enough to be significant.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> So ... to sum up:
      >>>> >>>> If you go farther out at a higher angle to get more
      >>>> ground you also change the object relations when you change
      >>>> the horizon relative to the objects. This is because the
      >>>> horizon relative to the objects is your height *angle* to
      >>>> the far-off points of the ground plane. It is not your mere
      >>>> height, since when you pull back at the same angle you have
      >>>> an increase in height but no shift in horizon (except that
      >>>> slight flattening effect on the uppermost edges of the
      >>>> horizon, which I mentioned in the last section).
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Clare
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
      >>>> --------- --------- ------
      >>>> >>>> *From:* ace baker <acebaker1234@ yahoo.com
      >>>> <mailto:acebaker1234@ yahoo.com>>
      >>>> >>>> *To:* Clare Kuehn <clarekuehn@yahoo. ca
      >>>> <mailto:clarekuehn@yahoo. ca>>
      >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Tue, August 3, 2010 5:47:57 PM
      >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: I will try to send you ...
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> What's wrong with the proportions?
      >>>> >>>> Sincerely,
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Ace Baker
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
      >>>> --------- --------- ------
      >>>> >>>> *From:* Clare Kuehn <clarekuehn@yahoo. ca
      >>>> <mailto:clarekuehn@yahoo. ca>>
      >>>> >>>> *To:* ace baker <acebaker1234@ yahoo.com
      >>>> <mailto:acebaker1234@ yahoo.com>>
      >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Tue, August 3, 2010 2:11:07 PM
      >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: I will try to send you ...
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Thanks!
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Yes, great analyses.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Yes, we're "looking up" and "looking down". That's fine.
      >>>> >>>> In other words, there is a possibility that either
      >>>> scene would be fine in reality (we don't know which that
      >>>> would be, if either one). But in reality if those
      >>>> proportions work for one, they cannot work for the other.
      >>>> Pick either one to love, and you have to throw out the
      >>>> other one.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Life sucks. (It's a joke.)
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> But I hope some of the ideas come through, below -----
      >>>> some of the gist of the problems. It's not the images
      >>>> individually ... it's their comparative truth.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> UPSHOT: The two scenes are incommensurable --------
      >>>> though either one could have been accurate in real life
      >>>> maybe. But not both.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> The issue is, the mutual exclusivity of all the
      >>>> optical angles on the foreshortening would change if we
      >>>> were high and close enough to have the horizon line out of
      >>>> frame and the buildings in roughly the right widths. But
      >>>> maybe we'd have the "triangle" in our view.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Or, if we were way far enough back to get the horizon
      >>>> line out of frame and have a flatter foreshortening
      >>>> (semi-high angle but also very very long distance), then
      >>>> the "triangle" would change and the width relationships
      >>>> would too, because we are at a different distance than we
      >>>> started at.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> I know the images are supposed to be zoom-cropped and
      >>>> all that.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Imagine, though, where the horizon line IS, in one's
      >>>> total view. Where IS it?
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> WAY up there. Yet the buildings show a tilt which
      >>>> would place the horizon relatively near them.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Angles point to horizons.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Do these?
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> No.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Now, if they did, let's see if all the items between
      >>>> the closer image could work:
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> If we are lower and the horizon is low, then fine. But
      >>>> could we achieve BOTH views with the same FATNESS of the
      >>>> objects? No. Width increases as one moves nearer or
      >>>> decreases farther (all rationally).
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> So if we're far enough away to get the ground level in
      >>>> *and* have oblique foreshortening on the towers as they be
      >>>> "below" us, then try to have a similarly oblique angle on
      >>>> the towers and have the horizon way lower (at ground level)
      >>>> yet have the same angle change (only its opposite) looking
      >>>> up, we'd have to be nearer.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> Yet nearer would change the buildings to be
      >>>> proportionally fatter.
      >>>> >>>>
      >>>> >>>> The point here is, the object relationships do not
      >>>> change in the right way (the triangulation) with the other
      >>>> aspects that are changing. And if the latter DID, change
      >>>> the same scene would require, in nature, ALSO a fattening
      >>>> or thi

      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.