Fake Video ALTERS WITNESS perception - HOLMGREN DIED
Researchers at the University of Warwick have found that fake video evidence can dramatically alter people's perceptions of events, even convincing them to testify as an eyewitness to an event that never happened.
Associate Professor Dr Kimberley Wade from the Department of Psychology led an experiment to see whether exposure to fabricated footage of an event could induce individuals to accuse another person of doing something they never did.
In the study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Dr Wade found that almost 50% of people shown fake footage of an event they witnessed first hand were prepared to believe the video version rather than what they actually saw.
Dr Wade's research team filmed 60 subjects as they took part in a computerised gambling task. The subjects were unknowingly seated next to a member of the research team as they both separately answered a series of multiple-choice general knowledge questions.
All subjects were given a pile of fake money to gamble with and they shared a pile of money that represented the bank. Their task was to earn as much money as possible by typing in an amount of money to gamble on the chances of them answering each question correctly. They were told the person who made the highest profit would win a prize.
When they answered each question, subjects saw either a green tick on their computer monitor to show their answer was correct, or a red cross to show it was incorrect. If the answer was wrong, they would be told to return the money to the bank.
After the session, the video footage was doctored to make it look as if the member of the research team sat next to the subject was cheating by not putting money back into the bank.
One third of the subjects were told that the person sat next to them was suspected of cheating. Another third were told the person had been caught on camera cheating, and the remaining group were actually shown the fake video footage. All subjects were then asked to sign a statement only if they had seen the cheating take place.
Nearly 40% of the participants who had seen the doctored video complied. Another 10% of the group signed when asked a second time by the researchers. Only 10% of those who were told the incident had been caught on film but were not shown the video agreed to sign, and about 5% of the control group who were just told about the cheating signed the statement.
Dr Wade said: "Over the previous decade we have seen rapid advances in digital-manipulation technology. As a result, almost anyone can create convincing, yet fake, images or video footage. Our research shows that if fake footage is extremely compelling, it can induce people to testify about something they never witnessed."
HOLMGREN, Gerard died in Sydney 2 May 2010
DW: Hello Gerard, thank you for agreeing to an email interview.
I know that many people, including myself, have read much information and disinformation about the aircraft/no-aircraft used on 11th September 2001, and it is quite confusing.
You appear to have a clear-cut picture, and are prepared to debate your opinion, so it is very kind of you to provide answers to some simple questions.
Q1. — Is it true that the official account of events on 11th September 2001 claims that four planes crashed, one into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre, one into the South Tower, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania?
Q2. — What was the flight number of the plane which reportedly hit the North Tower?
American Airlines Flight 11 from Logan to LA.
Q3. — What did you discover about flight AA11 regarding which aeroplane was used, and what happened to it? Please give references to your source material.
According to official flight logs, no such flight existed on Sept 11, 2001.
The Bureau of Transportation logs every domestic flight ever scheduled from a US airport, conducted by a carrier accounting for more than 1% of domestic air traffic. All scheduled flights, whether actually completed or not must by law be reported to this database, unless the flight is cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.
No such flight appears in the records.
Therefore there are three possibilities.
1. No such flight was ever scheduled
2. Such a flight was scheduled but was cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.
3. If such a flight was scheduled and not cancelled more than 7 days prior, then the database has been illegally manipulated or tampered with in some way, which of course raises new questions.
In summary, the situation is that *according to official records* no such flight ever took place.
It should be noted that after this information was discovered and published as an article, the BT almost immediately shut down its data base, and when it put it back up it had moved it to a different URL without leaving a forwarding address at the old URL (the one which was given in the published article), strongly indicating consciousness of guilt. Ten months later they doctored the database to try to include the flights, although the doctored data, while now claiming that the flight was scheduled, still has it as never departing.
Thus all the evidence points to options 1 or 2, although option 3 is still a theoretical possibility.
Q4. — Has any aircraft wreckage, or black box been found at the purported crash site?
Nothing which can be identified as from an aircraft.
Q5. — Are there any official records of passengers boarding the flight?
If so, they have never been released. However, many media outlets did publish lists which purported to be official lists, but which were proven on close examination to be fabrications.
So while one can never 100% rule out the theoretical possibility that the flight existed and the theoretical possibility that somewhere there are official passenger lists, the fact that the media published fake lists and passed them off as official, leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that no such official lists exist.
Q6. — Are any recorded passengers known to be missing, or have had death certificates issued?
To my knowledge there is no official documentation, but it's certainly possible that such documentation exists. Through local enquiries I have confirmed from personal contacts that at least one person listed by the media as being on that flight is definitely missing and that his family believes that he was on the flight.
While I have seen little to prove the missing/dead status of those allegedly on the flight, I have also seen nothing to disprove it. There is a hole in that area of my knowledge of the subject.
Q7. — Is there any video or other evidence that a commercial passenger airliner hit the north tower?
No. the video shows clearly that the object was not a large passenger jet, nor a conventional plane of any type.
Exactly what it is, is difficult to tell but it appears to be some kind of highly advanced secret technology.
Q8. — What was the flight number of the plane allegedly involved here?
United Airlines 175 from Logan to LA.
Q9. — What was the tail number of the plane allocated to that flight?
N612UA. The BTS flight logs record the tail number.
Q10. — What is the status of that registered plane today?
Valid, according to the FAA aircraft registry. Search the registry at http://220.127.116.11/acdatabase/acmain.htm.
Q11. — So your research indicates that aeroplane N612UA, which was allocated to flight UA175, which is purported to have hit the South Tower is, according to official FAA records, a valid registration today?
Q12. — Is there any aircraft wreckage or video or other evidence that a commercial passenger aircraft hit the south tower?
TV fakery of South Tower hit. Notice no break in the building wall between the port engine and fuselage. South Tower was built with a self-healing exterior!
The videos which purport to show such a crash have been exposed as fakes.
The live shot (which did not actually show the plane hitting the building, but passing behind it, giving the illusion that it has impacted the hidden face) appears to have been animated in real time with this technology:
Lying with Pixels, by Ivan Imato, MIT's Technology review, July/August 2000.
And the footage shown retrospectively which appeared to show the strike directly has been animated with flight simulator. See the two links above for video analysis.
Q13. — Regarding flight AA77, which purportedly hit the Pentagon, what is known of this aircraft?
The answer is the same as for AA11. Not scheduled according to the BTS records.
So far we appear to have established that no commercial aircraft hit either the North or the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, and that the aircraft which is purported to have hit the Pentagon was not even scheduled to fly.
Q14. — At the scene of the Pentagon incident was there any evidence at all which indicated that a commercial aircraft was involved?
No. In fact the damage to the building shows that its impossible for an aircraft of any significant size to have been involved.
Q15. — What information is available regarding flight UA93, which is purported to have crashed in Pennsylvania?
It was flown by tail number N591UA. The plane is still valid in the FAA aircraft registry. The scene where it is alleged to have crashed shows no evidence of any aircraft wreckage.
It therefore appears that considerable evidence exists to demonstrate that none of the four aircraft mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report actually crashed as stated.
Additionally, there appears to be a total lack of evidence to support the Kean Commission's claim.
Q16. Is this summary correct?
Q17. Do you have anything further to add, before we offer this interview for debate?
There's plenty more which could be added on the subject of Sept. 11 generally.
DW: Thank you, Gerard.
Comment by Peter Meyer: When Gerard Holmgren first announced his discovery that there was no record in the BTS online database of AA11 and AA77 departing on September 11, 2001, I checked if what he claimed was true, and I found that it was. Accordingly I (as well as Gerard) saved the relevant web pages. They are available for download both from Gerard's website (as stated above) and from this Serendipity website. I discussed this matter in my article Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11 (published March 14, 2005), and I reproduce this section below:
As regards the planes, we must first note that the terms "AA 77", "UA 93", etc., do not denote planes, they denote flights. The statement "AA 77 hit the Pentagon" really means "the plane which departed (assuming it did) from Dulles Airport at 08:10 on 9/11 bound for Los Angeles hit the Pentagon."
The official story posits four planes, associated with four flight numbers, namely, AA 11, AA 77, UA 175 and UA 93. But we have no physical evidence of the existence of any of those four planes. According to the official story, the planes which departed as AA 11 and UA 175 completely disappeared as a result of the collapse of the Twin Towers, the plane which departed as AA 77 completely disappeared when it hit the Pentagon, and the plane which departed as UA 93 completely disappeared when it hit the ground at Shanksville. All four Boeing jets, big 757s and 767s, completely disappeared, with not one single piece of metal which can be proven to have come from any of those planes. Isn't this a bit odd?
So no physical evidence. But how about evidence from records of those flights? Records concerning domestic flights within the US are maintained online by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. When 9/11 researcher Gerard Holmgren checked those records he discovered that flights AA 11 and AA 77 were not scheduled to fly on 9/11. He published his discovery on 2003-11-13 and it was confirmed by others, including the author of this article (who saved the BTS web pages). Late in 2004 the BTS doctored their database so that now when one tries to confirm the original observation one reaches a web page (local copy here) stating:
On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.
But there were originally records confirming that UA 93 and UA 175 departed (see the BTS web pages), so apparently these flights did exist. BTS removed those records to conceal the fact that there were never any records for AA 11 and AA 77.
If flights AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then there are only two planes, not four, to be accounted for. Investigators who have checked the tail numbers for the planes which departed as UA 93 and UA 175 on 9/11 (namely N591UA and N612UA respectively) believe that these planes are still in service. If so, and if AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then the number of Boeing 757s and 767s destroyed on 9/11 was not four, as the US government maintains, but rather zero.
Note added by Peter Meyer, 2005-06-29:
For those few who need it spelled out, the significance of Gerard Holmgren's discoveries in the BTS database is as follows: The Bush administration declared on 9/11 that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were hit by Boeing 757 and 767 jetliners which had been hijacked by Arab terrorists. On the basis of this assertion it implemented a (previously-prepared) plan for an attack on Afghanistan (to remove the Taleban and install a US-friendly government in Kabul), and it rushed through (previously-prepared) legislation restricting civil rights to the extent that the US Constitution was violated and every person subject to US jurisdiction became a potential terrorist until proven otherwise.
If Flights AA 11 and AA 77 never flew on the morning of 9/11 then they could not have been hijacked, and so could not have been hijacked by Arab terrorists. If Flight UA 175 was not destroyed on 9/11 then it did not crash into the South Tower and so whatever caused the South Tower explosion was not a jet flying under the control of Arab terrorists — though it may have been a (previously-prepared) napalm-loaded jet flying under remote control.
Thus if the records in the BTS database are to believed (and we have no reason to question the original records) then the claim made by the Bush Administration that 19 Arab terrorists (named within two days by the FBI) hijacked four Boeing jetliners on 9/11 is not only false, it must have been concocted as a deliberate attempt to deceive the people of the United States and the rest of the world, a deception intended to justify the ensuing US wars of aggression. Clearly whoever was responsible for the deception (no doubt the same people responsible for the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks) must be removed from office, indicted, tried, convicted and punished appropriately. This is necessary if the U.S.A. is ever again to recover any degree of respect by the rest of the world.
(Sunday May 2nd 2010) at 7.30am. He was 51. Gerard only found out 2 weeks ago that he had inoperable cancer, and spent his final days in the palliative care unit of Canterbury Hospital surrounded by loving friends.
26.11.1958 - 02.05.2010.
Passed away peacefully on Sunday in Sydney after a
short illness. Hats off to
a consummate blues and
jazz guitarist, sceptical environmentalist, fearless
pro-forest campaigner and insightful conspiracy debunker.
We join with your fellow musicians and students to
mourn your passing and celebrate your life. The music
Your friend and class mate