Simon Shack's King Kong Man debunked
In a recent post at his cluesforum site, Simon 'Shack' Hytten claimed that the falling man video was faked because the man would have to be about 13 feet tall. He called it 'King Kong man':
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2376235#p2376235
The obvious way to analyse the image and determine the approximate size of 'King Kong Man' is to compare his apparent height to the dimension of other elements within the image that are known. Shack attempts to do this but makes a farcically bad job of it.
Shack determined that the height of a WTC window was 7 feet, but he incorrectly identifies the window, what he does is take the height of the bottom pane of a three-pane window and claim that pane is 7 feet high rather than being the bottom portion of the window. This incorrect measurement allows him to suggest that the man is huge, around 13 feet tall!
Well, this notion is easily disproved. The exterior columns of the WTC were 18.75 inches (48cm) wide and were spaced 22 inches (56cm) apart. This information took all of a minute to find with a simple Google search.
I measured these dimensions on a blowup of the image and then measured the approx height of the man. I get a figure of just under 4ft 10 (146cm). Hardly King Kong...
This clearly shows that the cluesforum 'analysis' of this video is utter rubbish. So bad that you have to wonder if they didn't deliberately misrepresent the data, no competent person could have made such an obvious mistake.
Shack presented this image, a photo of the WTC facade in his forum post. It shows single pane windows in the centre of the frame but look over to the left hand side, two three-pane windows are clearly visible.
If we look more closely, and outline one of these windows, it becomes clear what Shack has done - he has misidentified the lower pane as being the whole window! This has given him a wildly incorrect measurement by which to assess the height of the man.
When errors are as mind-bogglingly clear as this one can only conclude that Simon Shack is one of two things:
A. Hopelessly incompetent
B. Deliberately misleading people.
