0
0

[–] Are_we_sure ago 

@crazy_eyes Are you insane? How would I be covering up for murder? You seem to have an inflated sense of what's going on here. Do you you think people solving are solving a murder here?

They are not.

@blacksmith21

The h.264 codec is not a lossless codec. It's a very good codec, but it is compressed and it's compressed during filming. That is to say, you are losing some color information once you turn the camera on vs higher end cameras. Most of the time this doesn't matter, but everytime you reencode, you will see some small degradation. Especially on footage like this where nothing is still.

1080p is only telling me two things, size of the resulting image and if it's interlaced. It doesn't tell me about the quality of the image or the codec used. GoPros also supported 720 video at 60 fps. This is probably 1080p.

If original video was on a Hero black, it would have been shot in 4K with a 4:2:2 colorspace.

Pretty sure this woman died before the 4K gopro came out.

If you understand 4:2:2 colorspace, you are understanding it's not a lossless codec. No transcoding other than probably H.264 to MPEG4. MPEG4 is the file format. H.264 is the codec, so there's no transcode here at all.

When you turn the camera on you record H.264 video which is stored an MPEG4 wrapper. I believe even older Go Pros were 4:2:2

So I believe you have the initial capture with a slight loss of color, you have the editing of the piece for broadcast and then you have upload for web streaming

Then you have zoom into the image to see any of this and the picture on this guys twitter is a jpeg. So you defintely have chances for compression and video artefacts. The videos I have seen on youtube have obvious color banding.

You are throwing away a ton of information in this image when you zoom into it. Putting this in my NLE and going frame by frame. It's incredibly hard to even isolate this footage.

And yes, I can read a histogram. And not you did not negate anything.

@The_Savant

Your theory of "nothing" (whatever the fuck that means) has far more holes in than our theory.

I was leaning towards compression artefacts on zoomed it video, but now I'm pretty sure it's the womans leg. If it were a diver, he has foot where his left sholder should be. It's her leg. She was weaing black pants and the yellowish bit is the bottom of her shoe. The shoe and the black move in absolutely sync. I have version that I lightened, zoomed in and slowed down, but it's still just so few frames to work with and stuff is in front her that i want to try and play some more.

This tweet clearly shows Fuddy alive and uninjured 90 minutes drifting Yes. With a life jacket or some flotation device. Strange how she could possibly have died.

We know how she died. She died of heart arrhythmia. They were not just floating, they were trying to swim to shore. One guy made it. The guy who took the camera said it very cold and hard to swim in full clothes and shoes. She was 65 years old, I believe.

The guy who made that tweet misidentifies Fuddy in this photo below. He is certainly not any sort of forensic expert. This is not the woman who died. It's a woman who needed help with life vest. She is named in one of the newscasts.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdqxPGbVwAEy-Km.jpg

and also clearly shows the diver. You can lose the quotation marks now, there should be no debate.

Not on my end there's no diver whatsoever.

Ask yourself this question; if Fuddy died purely due to the plane crash, what caused her to let go of the wreckage of the plane? Also, if there was a diver present, why did he not rescue her when he noticed she was in danger? One of your main objections seems to be her lack of assistance in the situation but your scenario is obscured even further so by that question.

Don't have to we know how she died. The local news station have an interview with a guy who was with her before she died.

Now to address a few of your other hurried and panicked queries.

Ha.

Government official on a private flight with an affiliate of Obama's in which she is the only one the dies in a plane crash whilst having a lot of inside information... and it's nothing? I'll let you read this line from an article about the incident:

Officials are still trying to determine the cause of death.

You need to learn to research better. The initial news report did not have her cause of death, since then, they did an autopsy. She was not an affiliate of Obama's. He was not a government official. You are making that assumption and it's incorrect. She was a state official for Hawaii. The inside information she had is still there. Whoever took her place would be able to give out the same info. So yes, nothing.

REALLY? I would have thought the other 8 passengers or the nearby diver might be able to give the answer but apparently not. And I guess the cause of death is also nothing?

See this just looks silly right now. You are jumping to conclusion and silly ones at that. This is a type of logical fallacy called arguing from personal incredulity.

So how would this ludicrous assassination scenario work? Was everyone on the plane in on it? A plane landing a sea is inherently dangerous. That's your scenario to kill one person? What if the plane went in a different way? A more violent way and flipped over. It could easily be a suicide mission. The pilot was briefly knocked unconscious in the crash.

So you crash the plane in location and a diver just happens to be there? Did he come from a boat? He was just there waiting? What if the plane was in flight for 10 or 20 seconds more? They could end up mile and mile away from the diver. How does the diver identify her from below the water?

This whole thing is an exercise in Anomaly Hunting. It's one of the building blocks of conspiracy theories along with pareidolia. It's focusing on this one small anomaly and not on what the whole event would be. I don't see how this conspiracy works unless every passenger was part of it. Otherwise, it would be far too risky that somebody noticed a diver was in the area.

0
0

[–] The_Savant ago 

A leg... You must be blind, old or retarded to come to that conclusion.

0
0

[–] crazy_eyes ago 

Thou doth protest too much

0
0

[–] Blacksmith21 [S] ago 

Check out the big "video brain" on AWS. Hmmm....an NLE. What types of "indie films" are you editing? FWIW - We can sit here all day and debate color space, codecs, etc. All for no particular purpose.

Go ahead and tell me these is nothing in that video which looks like a diver emerging/submerging....(you can even see the yellow air supply line - just like on a Draeger (and other) breathing rig). Explain that to me - lossiness, transcoding or otherwise. It's a fucking swimmer....

2
-2

[–] Are_we_sure 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

https://i.redditmedia.com/ZqcgsUu9yKFgWtoe5ri3Z7LU-0iOh2pwEP3KbVvdhYc.jpg. But I did see Pulp Fiction the day it opened.

My indie film days are behind me, I did audio. There's a great old indie movie with Catherine Keener, Steve Buscemi and Peter Dinklage about working on indie films called Living in Oblivion. The movie in that movie would have seemed higher budget to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVBclV5ps2U

I"m not saying there's nothing in the video which looks like a diver emerging/submerging. I'm saying the thing that looks like that is not a diver. And when you look at what it is, it's clearly not a diver.

Our irrational sides are much stronger than we realize. There's a reason that pyschologists have come up with terms for this sort of thing, because it happens all the time. It's just how our brains work.

Apophenia, Pareidolia, Patternicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia#Pareidolia

You can't even seen anything when looking at the footage in real time. This "identification of a diver" only comes up by people committed to the idea she was murdered. They poured over this footage looking for something.

It's a wierd video anomaly in the midst of an impossible conspiracy theory. It's not an additional human being