I guess I am an Orb debunker

Leifer

Senior Member
I searched the Icke forums, and did not find ONE (1) post claiming that most "orb" photos were simply dust or insects captured photographically with the aid of a flash or other bright light.
So I started a polite post on this topic....

Orbs are just dust

I don't really feel a need to "debunk" such a subject....but with my newly renewed photography hobby ....I felt the need to say something, especially after "floating' through the Icke Orb gallery of photos....

Icke Orb Gallery

...Plus, I think the belief in "orbs" does not crucially threaten anyone, or anything.


Honestly, it's not a particularly difficult topic to debunk....but the fact was, I saw no opposition to these flighty beliefs, at all.

If you have any Orb links, I'd like to see them.....thx...

.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You could write a book on all the ways photos are misinterpreted. Especially digital photos, which get zoomed in. Unfortunately people are not always familar with things like lens flare, bokeh, compression artifacts, resolution, even the notion of pixels.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
I remember (years ago) trying desperately to describe the attributes of a telephoto lens, vs a wide angle.
This was a 9/11 debate...Some felt that the helicopter shot of the WTC with the Verrazzano Narrows Bridge in the background... was faked and staged because they could not grasp the photographic telephoto effect.



No matter how hard I tried....most would not even attempt to consider a well-documented photographic principle.
In fact, I think presenting them with even a basic "proof of concept"....may have closed their minds further, in that it went directly against their well-held beliefs.
Here is my video...



Well known 911 conspiracy theorist, Ace baker, actually got it right on this concept, on the Bridge perspective concept, and made a nice video.....
 

GuitKitty

New Member
I know this is an old thread, but I had a question. I get that the apparent size of the bridge versus the building is due to the telephoto lens (thanks for the video, Stupid), but what causes the (seemingly) drastic lateral movement of the bridge compared to the buildings? Is it just because the video is shot from so far away? The angle of the buildings doesn't seem to change much, but the bridge moves across behind it. And just so you know, I'm not a CT believer, I'm just interested in photography and hadn't noticed this effect before. Thanks!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The effect is magnified because of the high zoom. You have a pretty narrow field of view, so anything in that field of view will move across it very quickly if the view angle changes.

Now the camera is focussed on the towers, so they stay in the middle of the picture. But everything else moves - relatively speaking everything is rotating around the towers by the angle change caused by the movement of the helicopter. The further away it is, the more it will move (in the shot).

Try this experiment: close one eye, and hold a finger up at arms length in front of your face. Move your head from side to side (the motion of the helicopter), and see how much the background shifts relative to the finger. Repeat this with your finger close to the screen, and then with your finger held so there's something 20+ feet behind it. Notice the huge difference in relative motion.

Now just think about cropping that image to about the width of your hand. Move you head real slow in the 20 foot setup. Notice how quickly the things 20 feet away move out of frame (more than the width of your hand away)
 

GuitKitty

New Member
Excellent description. Thank you, Mick. I think what was throwing me off (and probably what confused some other people, too) is that the angle of the buildings didn't seem to change at all. You expect to see more of the side of the building as the chopper swings around. But I noticed while doing your finger experiment that it takes a pretty dramatic shift of view to create a change in the angle of my finger (if that makes any sense at all). And I guess that's all just a matter of distance.

I also wonder how many people realize that that video of the WTC was shot from miles away. It sure looks like the chopper is very close due to the telephoto lens. Of course, when you think about it it's obvious that the air space around the WTC would've been closed, so they would've had to film from a distance.
 

911 orb

New Member
The wide angle has it right except the orb/missile really came from the west not south. The nose does not come through the north side in the wide angle, live footage, or even the dive bomber footage. This further proves video fakery and makes the west to east path stronger.



 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why are you using the worst available footage? There is plenty more that shows exactly what happened to WTC2





Besides thousands of people actually being there and seeing it.
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member
In a college drawing class, one day my teacher had an interesting art assignment for the day.....
He projected a slide on the screen....all blurred-out.
We were told to start drawing what we saw, or thought we saw.

Every 15 minutes or so, he would focus the image a bit more. Half way through the class, we still could not determine what the image was, as it was still too blurry.
At that point, we looked at each others work, and everyone had different drawings....even though we were all looking at the same image.
People had drawn buildings, some drew landscapes, some drew figures....etc...

At the end of the class, he brought the slide into focus.
It was a still-life of apples on a table.
 

Related Articles

Top