Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 17:32:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thefall on Mar 10, 2017 12:31:02 GMT
40 year old eyewitness testimony means nothing if you know how faulty such testimony is even fresh. Add to the fact the witnesses might have a keen interest in "debunking" the video knowing full well about its potential to go viral and reopen old wounds severely.
The user insisting this video is fake has presented ZERO proof. He's the Internet detective who screams everything is fake online. Just like those that claimed the same of 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick when it debuted. Without proper conclusive evidence keeping an open mind is essential.
|
|
|
|
Post by dycaite on Mar 10, 2017 12:57:36 GMT
40 year old eyewitness testimony means nothing if you know how faulty such testimony is even fresh. Add to the fact the witnesses might have a keen interest in "debunking" the video knowing full well about its potential to go viral and reopen old wounds severely. The user insisting this video is fake has presented ZERO proof. He's the Internet detective who screams everything is fake online. Just like those that claimed the same of 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick when it debuted. Without proper conclusive evidence keeping an open mind is essential. Zero proof? Read my messages again, mate. Testimonies aside, the police report DIRECTLY contradicts the fake video: Linda Taylor: "my camera was locked-into the two guests who were on the set"
Jean Reid: "happened I was on that camera with a close-up of her head and shoulders"And I'M the illogical one here? Please explain. Also, NationSquid uses almost identical effects on his other videos. But I guess none of that counts for anything, by your ridiculous standards... The level of sheer blind faith here is unbelievable. I take the time to reach out to not one but two WXLT employees about this, and I'M the one accused of being an ignorant internet detective? Are you serious? |
|
|
|
Post by thefall on Mar 12, 2017 3:53:47 GMT
Dead serious. You emailed witnesses. Congrats. Knowing full well even new eyewitness accounts are very unreliable let alone forty year old ones. You haven't proved anything. You don't even consider the possibility the distortion effect was added to muddy the waters on purpose. It's possible whoever leaked this video could be ID easily so maybe he asked for the copy to be altered just a bit to cause confusion or doubt. Keep an open mind until you have actual facts to back up your theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by dycaite on Mar 13, 2017 8:06:43 GMT
Dead serious. You emailed witnesses. Congrats. Knowing full well even new eyewitness accounts are very unreliable let alone forty year old ones. You haven't proved anything. You don't even consider the possibility the distortion effect was added to muddy the waters on purpose. It's possible whoever leaked this video could be ID easily so maybe he asked for the copy to be altered just a bit to cause confusion or doubt. Keep an open mind until you have actual facts to back up your theory. You just completely ignored the part about the police report (ie. "actual facts to back up my theory"). A lot of people seem to be doing that... A worrying trend. Care to weigh in on that one? Or, y'know, just blindly ignore it again, it's up to you. Doesn't matter how many facts I present you with if you choose to not acknowledge them, so believe whatever you want. Just don't be surprised when you end up looking like a fool. |
|
upset
New Member
Posts: 8 
|
Post by upset on Mar 17, 2017 1:52:07 GMT
I'm (still) not persuaded by this argument. But by all means, make it a hundred more times. That will probably do the trick. I'm not going to base my opinion on the 40 year old memories of a couple of people. That's assuming they're being honest. Since people who don't agree with you are apparently conspiracy theorists, maybe it's not rude of me to ask why you are so seemingly desperate to have everybody agree with you. What do you care what other people think? I made myself VERY clear as to why I keep banging on about this; it sets a dangerous precedent for lost media and ignorant people like yourself are to blame. I've also made it clear that Gordon and Lin's testimonies aside, the police report STILL concludes that only one angle was shot that day. Sure, you might not believe those that were there about this angle not matching, but that's your own problem, mate. The shot was framed on Christine. Why would it not have been? Give me a single reason (hint: you can't). For someone who's reasoning for not believing it's fake is that it's "assuming", you sure are assuming a HELL of a lot yourself. Much moreso than I am. But, but - it must be real! The internet said so! Give me a break. If you choose not to believe 2 people who were THERE, for the sake of some internet detectives, then yes, I am absolutely going to call you a conspiracy theorist. But hey, by all means, skew this whichever way you want, since apparently logic doesn't apply here. Come back when you have an actual argument to put forward other than "you're wrong because I said so" and try again. This is a stupid response to what I wrote. I guess you didn't actually read my posts, but to clarify I am not arguing the video is real, but rather that your argument to the contrary is not persuasive to me. Your clubfooted attempt at condescension aside, the reality is that insisting everyone agree with you is a mark of childishness. Grownups are able to articulate an argument, and then move on. Maybe you could practice this skill by not responding to my post? (I already know what you're going to say anyway.) |
|
|
|
Post by dycaite on Mar 17, 2017 2:04:35 GMT
Edit: Actually, you know what, I'm done. Believe whatever you want to believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefall on Apr 3, 2017 15:51:09 GMT
You're done because you don't have actual proof the video is fake until you can answer who made it, when, where, how, etc. The video remains a mystery.
|
|
|
|
Post by voidspy on Apr 12, 2017 1:30:45 GMT
You're done because you don't have actual proof the video is fake until you can answer who made it, when, where, how, etc. The video remains a mystery. It's honesty just sad that a person who is supposed to be a expert in lost media, (aka dycaite), can be so condescending and rude. Not only is he a massive prick, but when he is proven wrong in the future, I'd love to see his response.  His claim is NationSquid used other similar effects on videos, even though the effects aren't even remotely the same in the slightest, (freeze frame and compare each and every video frame for yourself), and therefore he believes that distortion on older videos posted on a channel that is made for re-posting older videos doesn't add up. I will ask again, if you think it was edited/ after effects of any sort, please prove to me with the exact program used to accurately represent the correct distortion on .5" reel film, you can't. It's not possible and it's not fathomable, the distortion made cannot be replicated accurately and has never been replicated to such a degree. I mean, you simply still do not understand the lengths someone would have to go through to fake this.. and for what. a measly 10,000 views on youtube? Really? I don't know if you noticed, but even if it was confirmed to be real footage no one in the world would care, only a small margin of us that still remember the day/drama that circulated throughout that time. So if you think this was really an attempt for a viral video, you're not only mistaken, but you calling us stupid conspiracy theorists really proves the irony of the whole situation. So, once again. If you're going to make the claim that this video is fake, consider having evidence to back it up. And no, asking someone for a memory that happened decades ago isn't evidence. Why would they admit it's true if they most likely believe the video should be kept secret and never released. If you want to continue calling us conspiracy theorists because we don't believe in your assumptions you're not being rational. Feel free to show us, since you seem to be the all-knowing one. Who is the actor, where was this filmed, how was the so accurately made, who edited it, how was it edited.. etc. etc? also, dycaite , stop being a massive twat in youtube comments where people are discussing their opinion(s) stating that it could be real, I've honestly never seen someone so full of themselves. I'm pretty sure it's real, but of course cannot claim that it is since I don't have proof. Unlike you, you'd prefer to call everyone who disagrees with you stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by itwbtc16 on Apr 17, 2017 21:32:45 GMT
The proof that myself and dycaite have provided (albeit in different ways) is not from recent eyewitness accounts and 40 year old recollections - it's from interviews with witnesses that were taken a matter of hours after Christine shot herself. The police reports transcripts state that the interviews/statements that the sheriff conducted with the witnesses were taken on 15th July, 1974, so they were certainly within 24 hours of the fact.
The statements that prove this video to be fake are the ones regarding the only two cameras present. For starters, the police report does indeed confirm that there were no more than two cameras present in the studio, functioning or otherwise. As it happened, both of the cameras were in use. The two people manning the cameras were, Jean Reid and Linda Taylor. Jean Reid specified in these police interviews/statements that her camera was indeed positioning and focused up on a close-up of Christine's head and shoulders at the newsdesk (which was on a separate set to the interview area, where Suncoast Digest was usually filmed - it was in a different area of the studio) with the graphic board behind her to display news-related imagery. Linda Taylor specified in her interview/statement that her camera was facing in a completely different direction - her camera was aimed at the interview area for the Suncoast Digest show, with Christine's two guests for that morning's broadcast waiting on that set for the news segment to finish, and for Christine to segue into the interview portion of the show.
Neither of these two descriptions of where either of the two cameras that were present that day were facing and what they were recording, match up with what we see in that video. And since we know that absolutely no other cameras were present on the day (again, something which was confirmed on the day of the fact, in the police reports - before the injunction was granted preventing the video's release, before anybody says that somebody may have lied to protect people who have the video), we can deduct from that that the NationSquid video is a fake, because there was nothing present on that day that could have actually captured that angle of the footage.
|
|
wa27
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by wa27 on May 30, 2017 2:14:30 GMT
I realize I'm late to this party, but I just wanted to throw my hat in the ring. And I don't want to present anything iffy like "I do video editing and that is clearly fake!" or "the station manager says it's fake so that's the truth" My first thought was this video was fake. This was primarily because of the two conflicting elements of the Newswatch logo, which have been discussed to death (The sun and the "H"). However, I then found a high-res photo of the set: i.imgur.com/bSxq1BY.jpgThat made me realize that the commonly available photo sourced from the Nationsquid video has been colorized (Probably by Nationsquid for the video itself). And the colorizing on the sun logo was done improperly. You can see in the hi-res that the sun is, in fact, positioned properly, and reaches as high as the suicide video depicts. As for the "H", I don't buy that the letters are raised enough for that to matter. The hi-res doesn't indicate that, and other shots from the same set from a similar angle as the suicide video do not show any abnormal "H". One such photo is linked below: i.imgur.com/nKdJzwv.jpgHowever, I do believe that the "H" could have been distorted by the camera lens. At this point, I was leaning toward the video being real after all. Then I noticed something glaring. Look at the two photos linked above. Notice the tilted riser that sits in front of each anchor. These are tilted back so the anchor's copy isn't visible on TV. Notice that these risers were present in Christine's broadcast that night, as seen in the crime scene photo above, and the photo below, taken at the same time: i.imgur.com/5tlhSai.jpgNow go watch the suicide video again. The risers are there in front of each chair. This is particularly clear after Christine falls. But if the riser is there, that means Christine is positioning her arms and the paper she's holding in an impossible position. Her body appears OVER the riser, as if it's a flat part of the desk. Her body is superimposed over the desk, which made me completely certain about what is going on with this video: Someone did fake this. The set was likely digitally created, using photos of the set which were widely available. It's a fairly simple shot, the camera isn't moving, and any imperfections are masked by the poor video quality. This would be way way way more feasible than actually making a recreation of the set. One person could do it if they are skilled enough in Photoshop. The woman was filmed separately - it could have been any countertop. Then she was superimposed on to the digital set. I want to stress that what is seen in the video with Christine's arms is simply a physical impossibility. This is not circumstantial like everyone claiming that the tape distortion is "obviously" fake, or that the logo doesn't match. Those things can all be explained away, but the tilted riser problem can't. |
|
|
|
Post by mysterytrip on Jun 3, 2017 16:36:39 GMT
The chair where she's sitting and the nearby chair are unmoved in the video. In the crime scene shots, there are no more chairs which means they are not fixed in place.
|
|
shait
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by shait on Oct 17, 2017 5:20:58 GMT
Ok. Let's get this riser issue out of the way once and for all. If you look closely at the image with the people sitting with their risers in front of them, you will notice that all but one are uniform in placement. One riser sits back a bit and is slightly askew, which indicates that the risers are not fixed in place in any fashion. This is likely due to the need for newscasters to be in a position to see whatever is on their risers comfortably. Once you take that into consideration, it is entirely possible that Christine either removed hers or had it removed prior to her broadcast. It could easily have been placed under the desk, only to have been put back up there by emergency responders or the police afterwards for cleanup or whatever.
As for the entirely too played out argument over the single/ double camera deal: it is not uncommon for an additional camera to be used for several reasons: B roll, archival footage, backup, or promo are the first ones to come to mind. Such cameras are often off the main view and run automatically, concurrent to the primary camera. In the panic and confusion, this may have been forgotten, and someone got their hands on it later, keeping it a secret for fear of violating the court ordered injunction.
Truth is, I just don't know whether this video is real or not. Even so, their are reasonable explanations for both sides of this debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by liambob58 on Apr 23, 2020 2:22:46 GMT
Almost been three years since then, wow.
|
|
|
|
Post by nintendocraftcec on Apr 25, 2020 4:03:48 GMT
Almost been three years since then, wow. Feels like just yesterday when I found out that the footage had be "found." I'm still not convinced on the authenticity of this tape, and I don't think we will ever have concrete evidence that proves this as real. If anyone can truly debunk or prove the authenticity of this video, please do. |
|
