Post by water on Dec 7, 2019 0:09:48 GMT
Dear Forum Members,
In early 2018 I was spending quite some time on the subject of this tape, and the question wether the well know black-and white tape, which looks like having been played over a few dozend times, is a hoax or not.
If the video is real or not is debated on in many places in the internet, and it took me some time to find the detail which is proof enough for me. If found earlier, that could have saved me a night or two.
After I found the answer, I wrote a lengty text on the bottom of a text file where I collected various hints and cititations. I wanted to share it with this Forum, since it was the one of the more (if not the most) serious ones I read through.
________________________________________________
At first I was in favor of the video being real, as almost all of the arguments for it being a fake are at least disputable. These include:
*Gordon: Didn't remember the second camera and might not even say its real, when it is, fo ethical reasons.
*Static: Perfectly natural except for the zooming in and out, which might be a digital filter layed over it to hide the source or make it more legit (<- the "digital filter over original footage"-theory is not from me...)
*Color: Tape for archival purpose in black and white, or the color synch gone missing by copying it too often (which is about 8 times under test conditions)
*Audio: Well its real absolute shit, but who knows? Someone in the copying-chain might have cranked the record volume to distortion by accident. (Ill come to that later)
The H: Lens distortion. The Logo is right, only the original photo is not colorized correct there, in the black and white its similar.
*"stand by"-slide sharper than video: "various technical reasons"
*Not fading into black: Fading to black or fading to the logo does not change the story really much, so maybe witnesses remebered it wrong, said it wrong or journalists wrote it wrong (after all, only very few have actually seen it) because it seemed more appropriate.
*The article decribed a different falling down of her: Thats a difficult one after I read the woman writing the article saw the tape more than once. Otherwise I would have said that the very detailed, minute description in the article might have been written a bit exaggerated or otherwise altered slightly (e.g. by memory, because only seing the horrifyng scene once).
But, what can not be explained is the camera perspective. There where indeed two cameras, but what can be read from the police report is, that the second camera was pointing to the talk guests in another area of the studio, and the camerawomen responsible for it watched christine reading the news, waiting for the second camera being needed. Maybe thats why Gordon did not mention it or forgot it, it was not pointed at the news desk, possibly being quite few meters across the studio. Also, the main camera would normally not have chosen a wide angle, if I remeber correct there are also interviews and descriptions about the angle being "head and shoulder".
Some argue, there might have been a third camera which had been forgotten, set up for archival, training or whatever purpose. Thats higly unrealistic, as video cameras, expecially studio cameras where huge and heavy monsters and they where expensive (not to forget about the associated expensive, huge and heavy monsters of tape machinerey for studio work*). And it was a small station. They shurely would have known, and the police would have noticed, if they had a third camera recording, especially as tape recording of live TV was normally not done and was only done that day on Christine's request.
*Yes I know there was VHS, but they weren't using it for the normal camera and they would'nt have used it for a "third camera" beacause it was a newly introduced consumer product and would have ment dealing with an additional tape format.
I don't know why, but this camera pointing away argument didn't really prove the fake to me (maybe by some odd possibility, theoretically someone could have turned the second camera without the camerawoman cited in the police record to have noticed).
Then theres the analysis of this audio guy, who found a completely short silent sequence before the shot coincing with the synch/frame loss. But it cannot be explained by the image distortion (or the associated tape damage/loss of reading head contact) really, because at all the other flickering events the audio background noise did not change. But well, it is also not a real proof, only a very good hint.
(The guy also said that the crappy audio would be very hard to fake without it sounding edited. That might be true for digital editing, but I have several ideas in my mind how I would create such a sound)
What did the job for me was the statement of someone in another forum pointing out the desk raiser (where they put the papers on so they are not seen on TV) problem.
The raisers are definitely visible in the fake video by the reflections on the desk durface, where the overhead lighting reflected in the small space between the raisers what looks like coffee cups.
And in the questioned video, the person acting has her arms lying on the desk surface, "in" the raiser, just as if it was not there.
Well, that disappointed me... it was not even an ancient fake from the 80s, its just greenscreened.
If you look at the known original photo of the desk with 4 people sitting, you will see that thats the probable source of the photoshopping in the video. And theres a logo of a TV-Station (from which the photo is screenshoted) right above one half of the H.
In the forum where this hint was posted, someone said the raisers are removable and maybe wasnt there ont the day of her death, and was maybe later put back from under the desk storage directly after the event for whatever reasons (to explain the crime scene pictures). If you want to believe something, you will always find a strange explanation for it...
Well, theres photos of the scene showing the raiser with blood stained papers and the weapon upon it, and you can judge for yourself why anyone should have altered a crime scene that way, moving the wet papers and everything. And still, the raisers are clearly there in the questioned video seen by their front line showing and the reflections between them.
After that discovery I was a bit more open for details that show the fake, which before I oversaw: The actress hitting her head on the table very fast, and no recoil or whatsoever from the gun (despite the fact, that Rob Smith said the original footage he saw, while the program director copied it, "looked fake". The copies where later destroyed, you can read the interview in the reddit link below).
__________________________________
Theres also an reddit comment who points out the same, but I found it in some different, less known forum I forgot the title of.
Look for comment of SteveGroper:
www.reddit.com/r/Lost_Films/comments/5uybwt/lost_is_there_anyone_here_that_did_actually/
Best regards
In early 2018 I was spending quite some time on the subject of this tape, and the question wether the well know black-and white tape, which looks like having been played over a few dozend times, is a hoax or not.
If the video is real or not is debated on in many places in the internet, and it took me some time to find the detail which is proof enough for me. If found earlier, that could have saved me a night or two.
After I found the answer, I wrote a lengty text on the bottom of a text file where I collected various hints and cititations. I wanted to share it with this Forum, since it was the one of the more (if not the most) serious ones I read through.
________________________________________________
At first I was in favor of the video being real, as almost all of the arguments for it being a fake are at least disputable. These include:
*Gordon: Didn't remember the second camera and might not even say its real, when it is, fo ethical reasons.
*Static: Perfectly natural except for the zooming in and out, which might be a digital filter layed over it to hide the source or make it more legit (<- the "digital filter over original footage"-theory is not from me...)
*Color: Tape for archival purpose in black and white, or the color synch gone missing by copying it too often (which is about 8 times under test conditions)
*Audio: Well its real absolute shit, but who knows? Someone in the copying-chain might have cranked the record volume to distortion by accident. (Ill come to that later)
The H: Lens distortion. The Logo is right, only the original photo is not colorized correct there, in the black and white its similar.
*"stand by"-slide sharper than video: "various technical reasons"
*Not fading into black: Fading to black or fading to the logo does not change the story really much, so maybe witnesses remebered it wrong, said it wrong or journalists wrote it wrong (after all, only very few have actually seen it) because it seemed more appropriate.
*The article decribed a different falling down of her: Thats a difficult one after I read the woman writing the article saw the tape more than once. Otherwise I would have said that the very detailed, minute description in the article might have been written a bit exaggerated or otherwise altered slightly (e.g. by memory, because only seing the horrifyng scene once).
But, what can not be explained is the camera perspective. There where indeed two cameras, but what can be read from the police report is, that the second camera was pointing to the talk guests in another area of the studio, and the camerawomen responsible for it watched christine reading the news, waiting for the second camera being needed. Maybe thats why Gordon did not mention it or forgot it, it was not pointed at the news desk, possibly being quite few meters across the studio. Also, the main camera would normally not have chosen a wide angle, if I remeber correct there are also interviews and descriptions about the angle being "head and shoulder".
Some argue, there might have been a third camera which had been forgotten, set up for archival, training or whatever purpose. Thats higly unrealistic, as video cameras, expecially studio cameras where huge and heavy monsters and they where expensive (not to forget about the associated expensive, huge and heavy monsters of tape machinerey for studio work*). And it was a small station. They shurely would have known, and the police would have noticed, if they had a third camera recording, especially as tape recording of live TV was normally not done and was only done that day on Christine's request.
*Yes I know there was VHS, but they weren't using it for the normal camera and they would'nt have used it for a "third camera" beacause it was a newly introduced consumer product and would have ment dealing with an additional tape format.
I don't know why, but this camera pointing away argument didn't really prove the fake to me (maybe by some odd possibility, theoretically someone could have turned the second camera without the camerawoman cited in the police record to have noticed).
Then theres the analysis of this audio guy, who found a completely short silent sequence before the shot coincing with the synch/frame loss. But it cannot be explained by the image distortion (or the associated tape damage/loss of reading head contact) really, because at all the other flickering events the audio background noise did not change. But well, it is also not a real proof, only a very good hint.
(The guy also said that the crappy audio would be very hard to fake without it sounding edited. That might be true for digital editing, but I have several ideas in my mind how I would create such a sound)
What did the job for me was the statement of someone in another forum pointing out the desk raiser (where they put the papers on so they are not seen on TV) problem.
The raisers are definitely visible in the fake video by the reflections on the desk durface, where the overhead lighting reflected in the small space between the raisers what looks like coffee cups.
And in the questioned video, the person acting has her arms lying on the desk surface, "in" the raiser, just as if it was not there.
Well, that disappointed me... it was not even an ancient fake from the 80s, its just greenscreened.
If you look at the known original photo of the desk with 4 people sitting, you will see that thats the probable source of the photoshopping in the video. And theres a logo of a TV-Station (from which the photo is screenshoted) right above one half of the H.
In the forum where this hint was posted, someone said the raisers are removable and maybe wasnt there ont the day of her death, and was maybe later put back from under the desk storage directly after the event for whatever reasons (to explain the crime scene pictures). If you want to believe something, you will always find a strange explanation for it...
Well, theres photos of the scene showing the raiser with blood stained papers and the weapon upon it, and you can judge for yourself why anyone should have altered a crime scene that way, moving the wet papers and everything. And still, the raisers are clearly there in the questioned video seen by their front line showing and the reflections between them.
After that discovery I was a bit more open for details that show the fake, which before I oversaw: The actress hitting her head on the table very fast, and no recoil or whatsoever from the gun (despite the fact, that Rob Smith said the original footage he saw, while the program director copied it, "looked fake". The copies where later destroyed, you can read the interview in the reddit link below).
__________________________________
Theres also an reddit comment who points out the same, but I found it in some different, less known forum I forgot the title of.
Look for comment of SteveGroper:
www.reddit.com/r/Lost_Films/comments/5uybwt/lost_is_there_anyone_here_that_did_actually/
Best regards
