[–] SexMachine 4 points 1 point 5 points (+5|-4) ago
I see a bunch of shakey ass shit and can't make out what the fuck I'm supposed to be seeing? Loch Ness monster?
[–] Blacksmith21 [S] 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
Watch at 8 seconds in. It's pretty clear a swimmer emerges from the water and then goes back under.
[–] The_Savant 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
Read the entire comment chain leading up to the tweet for full explanation & context. Should clear up your doubts.
[–] Are_we__sure 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
What do you see here?
https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/55ad31781500002d00173856.jpeg?
Because it's just some balsamic vinegar in olive oil.
[–] EricKaliberhall 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Hey @Are_we_sure I've got a question... When driving home from work today, I was thinking; David Brock is definitely the type to kill himself in great tribulation so to speak... You know him, is he the suicide type?
[–] Blacksmith21 [S] ago
It looks like cheap balsamic vinegar in thin crappy olive oil. I know pizza place in DC that has the same shitty standards for ingredients.
[–] The_Savant 1 point 5 points 6 points (+6|-1) ago
Seems fairly conclusive. She's alive on video with no visible injury. She dies at the scene. Enough proof to stand up in court? Probably.
Lock them up.
[–] Are_we__sure ago (edited ago)
She dies at the scene What scene? Passengers were in the water for about 90 minutes drifting. So where did she die?
The screenshot appears to be from this ABC clip. But I can't find where? The whole "diver" bit is less than half a second.
Can anyout point out the time in the original clip where the "diver" bit happens?
http://ondemand.abcnews.com/playback/abcnews/140110_gma_crash_0731_700.mp4
[–] The_Savant ago (edited ago)
90 minutes drifting
Yes. With a life jacket or some flotation device. Strange how she could possibly have died. Also, there was a floating plane to hold onto at least for a little while.
What scene?
I'm talking about the scene of the crash. I'm assuming youre not about to tell me that she could have drifted for longer than 90 minutes above the surface of the water as the search/rescue teams would have found her by that time. Also, it doesn't take a good swimmer to stay roughly near the wreckage to make themself easier to find. And neither the life jacket nor the floating wreckage could keep her afloat?
Also, the cause of death is unknown - not lost at sea, not drowned. Unknown. Mystery. Take a guess. Go on.
[–] The_Savant ago
I made a mistake - that is the right clip - the diver appears at 2:20-2:22 roughly.
[–] Blacksmith21 [S] 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago (edited ago)
I'd stop short of saying Helen Keller could tell it was a diver, but that video is pretty obvious. And it was broadcast on the evening news. Damn.
[–] [deleted] 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago (edited ago)
[–] Are_we__sure 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
You can't see that video in raw form any longer.
You also have never seen this video in a lossless format because some info was lost as it was captured. Gopro videos are heavily compressed into the mp4 format using the H.264 codec.
Broadcast TV uses much higher end cameras. So this is probably transcoded during editing. Another transcode happens when it's compressed for the web and then another round of compression when you make a jpeg out of it. If you're not dealing in what is know a lossless codec, you lose little bits of information all along the way and you have artifacts. Areas where artifacts would occur are borders, especially those with high contrast.
When you start with a high quality image, you can retain a pretty good image all the way through, but you are not going to avoid artifacts. Video artifacts are more noticeable when zoomed in.
You also have the issue of the video can only record so many levels of light, what photographers call dynamic range. If you notice at the beginning of the clip the camera catches the sun and that part of the image is completely blown out. It's not shades of white, it's just all white. If 100 represents the highest brightness that can be captured on that camera setting and you try to capture something that is like 120...like the direct sun may be...that's what you get. Pure White, no detail. An area that is 101 in brightness would look the same as a brightness of 200. With digital once you "clip" the top part of the range, it's gone. If you try to color correct that image, you couldn't bring that clipped part back, because there is basically no variations of color to work with. That info is gone.
The same thing happens on the other edge of the dynamic range. If you have too little light, it goes full black. That is what's happening here. What you are seeing is I believe the back side of a wave as it's cut off from the sun. What appears to be something black breaking the surface of the water is, I believe a patch of the surface of the water, losing light and thus appearing black. There are glints of sun on top of the wave and you just created a boundary of pure white to pure black. GoPros have automatic exposure which means the lens is opening and closing as you film, there's a tiny lag each time.
You can take that picture into a photo forensics tool like this one and play around with it. That pure black area does not look like a human form, it doesn't have curves so much as zig and zags like the letter Z. Not the glint of white light there is water is not somebodies head.
Also looking at this some more there are three life vests in the picture. Assuming there are people in each of those life vests, there's someone next to fuddy. That person would be facing the other way and then you go from yellow on the sole of a sneaker to black pants to lifevest. That actually looks pretty good, black pants could account for both lack of light and the zig zag.....wonder if there's more video of about that moment. EDIT: The guy who annotated the images identifies Fuddy as the person facing the other way. He even identifies her leg in the photo right before this. THE SPOT where he claims to see a diver surface, IS EXACTLY WHERE HE JUST IDENTIFIED HER LEG. Is the diver supposed to go through her body? It's the same spot. It's under a half second of time, her body would still be right there. Unbelievable.
https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#forensic-magnifier
Try it with these tools and play around.
Level Sweep
Luminance Gradient
Principal Component Analysis
Photo compression artifacts + not enough dyanmic range + pareidolia accounts for this.
Pareidolia is the human tendency to see patterns in randomness. We are really, really good at connecting the dots. by the way if you turn your head to left and look at the image, the illusion is pretty much broken.
https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/55ad31781500002d00173856.jpeg
*dunno what the yellow bit is on the left. Edit see above....could be a sneaker.
Can anypoint to the original broadcase footage and say when this clip happens?
[–] crazy_eyes 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
So, covering up for murder is your thing?
dangerous
[–] The_Savant ago
Original clip: https://twitter.com/intheMatrixxx/status/998311134540320769
Pay attention from 2 seconds onwards. Definitely a diver.
Here is a smaller image so the distortion is lower
Lower down the thread is a tweet showing Fuentes as a registered sex offender. Not just a government affiliate.
[–] Blacksmith21 [S] ago
Are you gonna tell me you know how to read a histogram now? So much wrong with your vomit. Not worth the time.
[–] Blacksmith21 [S] ago (edited ago)
Transcoding during editing. It was shot in native 1080p. No transcoding other than probably H.264 to MPEG4. No effect on the color gamut. No effect on native res. Mild lossiness. If original video was on a Hero black, it would have been shot in 4K with a 4:2:2 (I think, may be 4:4:2 don't recall) color space and 36 or 48-bit color depth.
Wanna fuck with me on this subject dipshit @are_we_sure?
That pretty much negates all of your bullshit. Next?
[–] Quicktor 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
JUST TO ADD...
there is a continuing/growing belief/suspicion that Frank Marshall Davis Jr. (Bathhouse Barry) isn't just a CIA/Bolshevik Manchurian candidate but an absolute Kosher Crypto-Jew (blessed by Bill Ayers and Rahm Emanuel...fuck me...) meaning his mother Stanley Ann Dunham has perhaps Jewish...read well-researched articles below...
http://mybigfatanti-zionistlife.blogspot.com/2012/06/is-obamas-mother-stanley-ann-dunham.html
https://www.henrymakow.com/is_obama_literally_americas_fi.html
I hope if you are reading this you have a vague understanding of the history of Jews involved in Bolshevism, the CIA, Hollywood, the Chicago crime syndicate, Washington DC being owned/operated by Israel, etc....I mean I'm no coincidence theorist but a LOT of arrows point to a another "Oy Vey" moment to be publicly disclosed in the coming year/s...
food for thought...
[–] derram 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
https://archive.fo/MCF83 :
This has been an automated message.