What do you got?

Camron Rust · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 07:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

A better video? This one clearly shows everything! We shouldn't need a zoomed-in camera on the basket to be able to tell it went in!

Here are the freeze frames for those that are still questioning it!

The ball headed towards the basket...

The ball entering the basket — note the position of the ball just inside the rim...

The ball IN the basket!!

If anyone still wants to say they are not sure after that, I have no idea what to tell you!!

While I believe the ball when in, those still shots are not at all conclusive. They're too grainy to tell whether the ball is in the basket or in front of it. I think the more telling evidence is how the ball changes path as it passes the rim and the net action....in a way that was consistent only with having gone in.

Brad · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 07:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I believe the ball when in, those still shots are not at all conclusive. They're too grainy to tell whether the ball is in the basket or in front of it. I think the more telling evidence is how the ball changes path as it passes the rim and the net action....in a way that was consistent only with having gone in.

The second photo CLEARLY shows that the ball is within the cylinder. And the third photo you can see that the orange RIM is in FRONT of the ball —*if the ball was in front of the rim, you wouldn't see the rim, you'd see the ball.

Camron Rust · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 07:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

The second photo CLEARLY shows that the ball is within the cylinder. And the third photo you can see that the orange RIM is in FRONT of the ball —*if the ball was in front of the rim, you wouldn't see the rim, you'd see the ball.

I don't dispute the conclusion, only your reading of what the photo shows....

I zoomed and cropped to just the rim in your 3rd shot.

It doesn't show enough detail to determine anything. For all I know, that is bigfoot that is near the rim. It definitely doesn't make it clear that the rim is in front of the ball. (The 2nd shot is equally inconclusive)

Brad · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 10:25pm

You can totally see the rim and that the bottom of the ball is clearly within it. How could the ball possibly be in front of it?

fullor30 · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 10:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

You can totally see the rim and that the bottom of the ball is clearly within it. How could the ball possibly be in front of it?

I think the shot came from the grassy knoll

BillyMac · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2012, 07:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fullor30

I think the shot came from the grassy knoll.

It's "The Zapruder Film - The Sequel".

Toren · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2012, 10:27am

Adam · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 10:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't dispute the conclusion, only your reading of what the photo shows....

I zoomed and cropped to just the rim in your 3rd shot.

It doesn't show enough detail to determine anything. For all I know, that is bigfoot that is near the rim. It definitely doesn't make it clear that the rim is in front of the ball. (The 2nd shot is equally inconclusive)

Hey, take it to the UFO board.

ref2coach · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2012, 11:32am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I believe the ball when in, those still shots are not at all conclusive. They're too grainy to tell whether the ball is in the basket or in front of it. I think the more telling evidence is how the ball changes path as it passes the rim and the net action....in a way that was consistent only with having gone in.

Get real. It is fine and dandy to say we should not NEED the still shots to determine that the ball went in, BUT to say the pictures are "too grainy" to be conclusive, is just silly.

Adam · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2012, 11:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ref2coach

Get real. It is fine and dandy to say we should not NEED the still shots to determine that the ball went in, BUT to say the pictures are "too grainy" to be conclusive, is just silly.

The original stills that were posted are too inconclusive. Until Toren went and got Abby Sciuto to fix them, all we had was speculation but no real proof.

mbyron · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2012, 12:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The original stills that were posted are too inconclusive. Until Toren went and got Abby Sciuto to fix them, all we had was speculation but no real proof.

Had to look up that one.

Camron Rust · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2012, 01:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ref2coach

Get real. It is fine and dandy to say we should not NEED the still shots to determine that the ball went in, BUT to say the pictures are "too grainy" to be conclusive, is just silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The original stills that were posted are too inconclusive. Until Toren went and got Abby Sciuto to fix them, all we had was speculation but no real proof.

Exactly...the original still shots couldn't even be used to prove there was a ball in the picture much less whether it was or was not in the basket.

However, the later still shots were 100% conclusive....ball in basket.