September Clues - Layers of Deception - Part Three
An Independent Analysis
Preface
This article was originally published on the 31st October 2016. To date, to the best of my knowledge, Simon Shack has never corrected his errors which I point out in this analysis. The reference linked material used in this analysis is from Simon Shack’s film September Clues, which is from Simon Shack’s YouTube Channel, which is now no longer available.
Analysis
In part three of this analysis I’m going to explore two claims made by Simon Shack, starting at timeframe - 100:22 into his film September Clues. Shack claims Pavel Hlava’s video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage of the same event.
Shack also claims at 100:51 in his film that the Bankers Trust building is missing in the Pavel Hlava video. This isn’t the first time that the absence of this building has been wrongly presented in a video. Another “video fakery” promotor named Markus Allen also made a claim about Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage having the Rector St building missing, which I proved to be a false claim. Follow the link below to read my article analysis covering Markus Allen’s “Disappearing Building” claim.
http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/markus-allens-disappearing-buildings-on.html
At 100:22 in September Clues, Simon Shack claims Pavel Hlava’s video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage.
At 100:30 - Simon Shack then uses a comparison split screen / side-by-side shot of Pavel Hlava’s video footage and Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage, suggesting a “Similar Gentle Zoom-out” and “Similar Angle of WTC and Airplane”.
If this was a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage, the perspectives and angles would be the same, as they would have been taken from the same location or in very close proximity. Shack says they are “similar”, which implies they are not the same!
This is a key point, because looking at the two videos suggests that they were captured from two different locations, and would prove that Pavel Hlava’s video footage is genuine and not a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s.
From previous research I conducted into Michael Hezarkhani’s video, it can be shown that his location was on the top deck of a ferry which was stationed in Battery Park.
http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/flight-175-and-truth-about-truth-in-7.html
This corresponded with Carmen Taylor’s location, where she took her photographs – and they too show something very similar to Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage. Carmen Taylor disclosed her location to Canadian researcher Jeff Hill in a phone call (at a time code 1 minute 44 seconds into the conversation).
Carmen Taylor phone call here below:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/JeffHillsPhoneCalls/Pumpitout.com%20-%20Carmen%20Taylor%2014%20Oct%2007.mp3
To prove that Pavel Hlava’s video is different, and not a re-edit of the Hezarkhani video I set-out to find exactly where Pavel Hlava was located when he took his video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower.
Please see location images below:
Using the Google Street view images above, we can now determine that Pavel Hlava captured his video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower when he was at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel entrance. To understand the difference in locations of Michael Hezarkhani and Pavel Hlava I plotted their locations on a map.
See map below:
As we can observe from their locations above on the map, Pavel Hlava and Michael Hezarkhani were quite some distance away from each other. Shack fails to point this out when making his claim that Pavel Hlava’s video is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s.
Another thing which Shack doesn’t take into account is the camera’s zoom level in Michael Hezarkhani’s video, which can give you a false perspective of his location compared to Pavel Hlava’s location, which was closer to the South tower.
See example below:
This comparison screen-shot above in the September Clues film at 100:30 looks quite convincing in support of Shack’s claim regarding a re-edited version of Michael Hezarkhani’s video. Also note how Shack has squashed the Hezarkhani video, which makes it appear more like Pavel Hlava’s video.
When watching complete versions of both videos, you can see the zoomed-out sequence in the Michael Hezarkhani video gives you a completely different perspective from Hlava’s, demonstrating perfectly that they were taken from two different locations.
See below: camera zoom analysis comparisons
Shack also fails to explain that the Hezarkhani video was zoomed-in when he captured the plane in his video footage, whereas Pavel Hlava’s was already zoomed-out when he captured the plane in his video footage. In the Michael Hezarkhani zoomed-out sequence it shows a different foreground, compared to Pavel Hlava’s already zoomed-out sequence. This proves conclusively that the two videos were taken in different locations to each other! We can even see different buildings in the (real) foreground, as shown in the two images below:
I have shown that Pavel Hlava’s video was taken from the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, and the foreground is genuine in his video, so we can now see that Shack is clearly wrong in his suggestion of one or more “missing” buildings, to support his claim of video fakery . This is shown at 100:51 in his film.
Again when analysing Shack’s claim, it becomes clear that he conceals evidence – for example by not showing the viewers the full Pavel Hlava video sequence. Instead, Shack decides to show a still image, thus concealing clear evidence about one or more of the alleged “missing” buildings – which are, in fact, visible in the both videos!
See below: video evidence of the "Banker's Trust" building, which Shack claimed was missing.
See Below: Supporting evidence using a computer 3D model of the Banker's Trust building location in the Pavel Hlava video.
In conclusion:
Again questions are raised about Shack’s presentation of video evidence and the methods he uses in his September Clues films. Why did Shack not show the full video sequence of the Pavel Hlava video? This would have proved there was no “missing building” ! Why did Shack claim Pavel Hlava’s video was a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video, when clearly both videos are taken from two different locations, which was easily established when researched correctly?
Is Shack promoting the idea of ‘video fakery’ to discredit the video evidence record of 9/11? When studying Shack’s presentation in his film, it becomes clear that he has continually omitted or misrepresented evidence – by using cleverly timed editing. This has therefore concealed evidence which shows a number of his claims are false. From my past analysis, where I have disproven other claims he makes in his film, it is now appearing to be a deliberate pattern of deceptive and misleading behaviour, rather than poor research skills, suggesting an agenda to promote disinformation about the video record on 9/11.
Is Shack promoting the idea that the ‘video fakery’ to explain anomalies in the behaviour of Flight 175, when it crashes into the South Tower? Is Shack attempting to discredit the 9/11 videos to help conceal what was really captured in the videos? Again, the question has to be asked - is Shack disseminating disinformation in an attempt to hide the fact that advanced 3D volumetric image projection technology was used to create the illusion of the plane crashes?
For further information regarding Simon Shack read this article by written by Andrew Johnson in May 2012: 9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175 - http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60
This case is now closed.