Thursday, July 17, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 17 2008
Update July 27

John Farmer and I agree on many things about the Citgo video, starting with our willingness to even call it what it is - evidence of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. We agree on the shadow of the south path impact aircraft . We agree on the video’s relevance to Robert Turcios’ testimony. On the famous north canopy flash we agree on its origin lining up only with sunlight, making it irrelevant to flight path questions, although I still find that odd in some ways.

Nearly half of Farmer’s recent second-plane north-path flyover paper is dedicated to explaining the Citgo video and how it actually supports the possibility. Even as I’m finding the whole paper something I hope is a joke, there is one valid north path clue and it’s in the video, allowing us to agree on that once again.

“I examined every flash of light or other optical event fully until I was satisfied with the source of each,” he explained, and all but one “could be associated with real-world events” (I’m presuming he means the “official story”). “At 09:40:37, in camera number 2 (south entrance) a light begins to appear on the rough concrete wall to the left of the entrance door,” the first two frames of which are shown at left with the wall shown at center, in a Farmer-provided site photo.

9:40:37 is video clock time, which is about two minutes ahead of the real time, as this light appears at the same moment all clues indicate the crash at the Pentagon happening. As Farmer notes, "in the very first frame, the light is shining over the top of the corner of that wall which is slightly raised from the roof line." Farmer explains the angles of the walls (see my own graphic below) and notes “the light is originating from a point to the left (less than 52.5 degrees from north) and approximately 3 degrees upward relative to horizontal. In simpler terms, the light source is airborne at a relatively low altitude and at least 17-18 degrees north of the impact area!”I can’t vouch for the more precise aspects, but at least I can agree to the basic idea. As he further explained it in an e-mail to me with this accompanying graphic.

“In the first frame where the “flash” is visible, there is a silhouette cast on the concrete wall. This effect can be replicated in one way, and ONLY in one way. So initially, the light source MUST be to the north-east of the wall corner in order to cast the silhouette observed.”
Alright, so I understand the concept, and I’ll call it ‘the silhouette thing,’ a valid clue of a light source from the north. Must this be a plane on a/the north path though? Altitude is important here. I considered the fireball and its known northern (and upward) angle of deflection/propogation. However looking at the scale of difference required this can be dismissed right out. It didn’t spread that far north. I don’t know enough to rule out last light of the banking plane, reflected from another object along that line, like some sign up on a high overpass nearby or something. It does arrive at that upper ledge just before the main light washes the whole wall there for over two seconds.

So I can’t vouch for the implications, I concur that it is viable evidence of some kind of light somewhere over there at that time. It’s in his attempt to divorce all the following east entrance light from what seems to me its true source and give it to an aircraft with, it seems, bizarre reflective properties, that Farmer almost seems to be talking backwards in the vein of our ol’ pals CIT.

“This is a shadowed area which immediately rules out light from the Pentagon fireball.”

Ummm, no. Open sunlight would drown it, but shadowed areas angled the right way would be where to look for fireball glow. He does correctly state that the fireball “would illuminate the entire area under the canopy, not just a spot on a concrete wall.” For two seconds or more after this one strange frame, it appears to me the intense but diffuse light actually being emitted just 1500 feet away DID illuminate every upright surface about right, even under the north canopy. This issue will require a separate post.

Update 7/27: I had meant to include this observation at first but forgot. The usual frame rate when "action" mode is off, and which I had always seen in the other views, was 3 frames per second. Among the things that first struck me about the silhouette thing is that its camera's view has at least four, and perhaps five or six, distinct frames in the pivotal 9:40:37 slot, and action is not blinking. Regarding this, You All Just Haven't Talked About It explains:

"This particular camera is one of the few that refreshes twice in the multiplexer sequence. So it captures a frame, and then 1/30th of a second later captures another. Then it must sequence through 7 frames before refreshing again. This is fortunate, since the first captured frame gives for that instant a definitive clue as to the origin of the source."


John Farmer said...

My my, a guy with 40 years experience in optics must surely be wrong....

Caustic Logic said...

Is that an unsubstantiated appeal to authority?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, so three questions before I proceed:

1) Does the fireball 1500 feet away cast ANY visible light under either canopy in your opinion? Should it?

2) In your analysis, how many frames/seconds does the light on the east entrance wall last visibly?

3) Did you factor in the large tree by the north canopy when expertly predicting light effects there?

I know we've been over this, I'm just giving you a chance to explain it for others.