What Do You See?

Good Morning America ^ | Feb 21, 2014 | Butterdezillion

[butterdezillion]

Remember that video of the plane crash in Hawaii after which Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy "died"?

You need to take a closer look.

[butterdezillion]

Wow. I can’t imagine what you’ve been through or are going through now. You must have a will to fight that matches your FR name. Somehow, you’re gonna lick this. I’ll keep praying.

[butterdezillion]

You are as tiresome as ever, demanding what I’ve already given. Learn to listen and everybody will be spared a lot of time wasted.

[cousteausghost]

Yes I am tiresome - but so are you. You get angry and irrational when someone engages with your evidence but disagrees with you. So please explain the maths behind overlaying images taken from different angles on different cameras and coming to any meaningful conclusions from doing so. Just explain that one thing then we can move on to the next item in your theory. The onus is on you, remember. If you want to be taken seriously you need to convince some doubters - just explaining it to your fans hasn’t got you anywhere has it?

[butterdezillion]

Anybody with a brain knows that when you move from being mostly in front of an object to being mostly to the side of that object, the view of the object changes. If you move positions enough to make the relative position of the plaque to the casket and window change drastically, it’s going to impact the view of the stand also - because you’re basically taking a side-view shot of the stand instead of a frontal view. If the view of the stand doesn’t change when you do that, something is very wrong.

I loved geometry because geometric proofs required a person to think through the implications of data and to make conclusions justified by laws. In order to have the mullion of the window disappear behind the plaque, the vantage point has to be substantially to the left of the mullion - so far to the left that when you draw a ray between the vantage point and the mullion the plaque is in the way.

If you draw a ray from that vantage point to the stand it’s going to give a different side/perspective of the stand than if you draw a ray from a vantage point looking straight at the mullion. Photos of the stand taken from substantially-different vantage points should not be able to be laid on top of each other and match.

[corlorde]

Basically, there is little to nothing showing there was anything abnormal at Fuddy's funeral. Which sucks for you, because it doesn't fit with the rest of your far out theories and the whole house of cards collapses around you. So at the end of the day, there isn't much here, just a whole lot of insignificant trivialities that only a handful of you are entertaining.

Let me know when you have something real.

[Kickass Conservative]

>”Well, I have the opinion your are judgemental jerk”<

If that’s what you think, so be it.

I have an Opinion that you have a Right to your Opinion.
I guess that makes me a “judgemental jerk”.

[4Zoltan]

Are you taking into account the distances between the cameras, the casket, the plaques, the flowers and the window mullions? The angles would be very shallow.

Here is the "genuine" image that gives you some ideas of the distances. Note the location of the easel for the Legislators' memoriam and the flowers.

Also see the location of her hands compared to the top of the casket (well below the top of the lid). Why would they Photoshop the entire image when they only need to Photoshop the casket opening?

As the family gathered around the casket, you can still see her hands and notice the plague with the lei has been moved. And the distance between the two cameras.

you can also see her hands in the earlier footage.

[butterdezillion]

Nobody has a face in those photos. Now I understand why it seems like a different building; these photos have been blurred so it seems like a room with no overhead lighting, in the middle of the afternoon. Like it’s a non-lighted barn rather than a Co-Cathedral. The lighting appears to be totally different because all the colors are dulled and the clarity greatly reduced. Look at the faces, look at the shirts, look at the arms. It really looks like these images have had blurs placed over the original image. If this is news footage it was either taken with the world’s crappiest camera as opposed to the other photos taken, or else it was taken with a good camera but deliberately blurred afterwards.

If it was a focusing issue there should be SOMETHING in the image that is clear, and the other things are just out of focus, but I don’t see anything that is crisp in these images. We can see enough detail to know the shape of the signatures on the plaque but can’t make out the heavy lady’s hand, or the elbow of the woman right beside her.

These images are screwy.

[corlorde]

Nobody has a face in those photos.

Those aren't photos (I've explained this to you twice now). They are stills from a video file. Low resolution stills at that.

[butterdezillion]

The images are not credited to anybody else - just have the kitv logo - so these were apparently taken with KITV’s camera. Why are blurs added to the images?

[corlorde]

You won't believe this, but I think you might be onto something. Being prior service and a super secretive ex military operative, I have specialized image software that allows me to reveal the true image within the image as it were. Look what I uncovered:

image hosting gif

[corlorde]

Blurs ‘were not added’ it is how it can look when a moving video file is paused. The video itself is low resolution. I’ve watched it a couple of times now, and you can see the faces a little clearer as the video unfolds. Again, it proves nothing.

http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/a-final-aloha-for-state-health-director-loretta-fuddy/23609562

[cousteausghost]

Now that your concerns with this video have been explained as nothing more than artifacts of a poor resolution video, can this please stop?

[butterdezillion]

Yes, the video is much clearer. Must have just been a fluke of the particular screen capture.

[4Zoltan]

These aren't still images, I run the YouTube video of KITVs story in Full screen mode paused the video and used Print Screen (Prt Scrn) to save a screen shot to the clipboard on my computer. I wasn't concerned with the faces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7yDNyDLYGM

I didn't adjust the resolution and it defaulted to 240p. Next I opened Adobe Photoshop and pasted from the clipboard the screen shot and saved it as a .jpg.

Here is the image at 480p:

Her hands are visible. There are about 3 seconds of the mourners filing past the casket and another 3 seconds of the family gathering around the casket. Added to the 2 seconds of close up video.

There is still no reason to Photoshop the entire 8 seconds of video. All that was necessary was to Photoshop the opening in the casket.

[butterdezillion]

Unless things got moved around, to have a photo where the left-most wooden frame of the window was not blocked by the plaque, the camera would have had to be way off to the right, where the people are walking or even farther to the right. Draw a line from the edge of that wooden window frame to the edge of the plaque, and then extend that line to see where the camera would have to be in order for the window frame to show and not be hidden by the plaque.

The perspectives would be wildly different in order for one image to have the window frame show and the other to not have it show.

Editor-surveyor, you talked about drawing rays. If I’m screwing up how to do this, or how to understand it, would you please point it out to me, using the enlarged image that corlorde posted? Just ignore the stupid mocking graphics. If I’m misunderstanding I want to know. It’s no skin off my back either way; I just want to know the truth.

Maybe she WAS murdered. I’d sure like to think that all those people in the plane with her weren’t participants in covering up a murder, but maybe they were. Whatever the evidence says. That’s all that counts.

[butterdezillion]

But the opening in the casket would have to be photoshopped on each frame of the video where the inside of the casket appeared, right?

[cousteausghost]

Are you now suggesting someone digitally altered the video, frame by frame, between the filming of the funeral at 11am and showing the video on the news shortly afterwards?

[butterdezillion]

I’m trying to make sense of the things that seem anomalous to me and trying to understand what variables would be involved in the scenarios that could potentially explain those anomalies.

That’s what people do when they’re really trying to understand and figure out what’s going on.

I don’t expect you to understand that process.

[corlorde]

Maybe she WAS murdered. I’d sure like to think that all those people in the plane with her weren't participants in covering up a murder, but maybe they were. Whatever the evidence says. That’s all that counts.

Exactly. What really matters is the evidence, and where it leads. What have we learned today? That there is really very little evidence pointing to anything nefarious. If the "evidence" as presented thus far was shown to an impartial jury, it would be an acquittal. So, in conclusion, until something groundbreaking emerges, we should give this whole thing a collective shrug.