Jessica222
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 9
Part 8
Somewhere there may be a film with the killing of Elisa Lam.
Here's a point:
I thought it quite strange for a young woman to want to go to work on a farm in Santa Cruz. I searched for Elisa Lam and Santa Cruz and came up with a connection with a Buddhist monastery/retreat...It was the James Creek Farm:
"We are a small organic farm (1 out of our 150 acres is farmed), off the grid, at 4000 feet in the Coast Range of central California. We grow mixed vegetables and fruits for the Tassajara Zen Buddhist Monastery and are on the way toward becoming a retreat center. The farm is in a very remote and spectacular location. It's not easy to get to town but cell phones and computers w/wireless work here. No alcohol or tobacco please. Please write or call for more information." There is another source that said they accept guests.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9055753"]Elisa Lam - What Happened? - Page 8 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
I've just come across someone echoing most of my questions, and am happy to see that someone put it out there:
1. Why was the video slowed down? Was it to make it easier for police to pick up small details that might be useful and for all to have a clearer look at Elisa's features?
2. The video shows the duration between 0:22 to 0:26. (Supposedly 12:22-26 am, Feb 1st). Now every 3s of the actual footage has been slowed down to 4s, which means the 4-min long video we see is actually 3 minutes long originally. Yet the duration of the video seen from the counter is 12:22-26, almost exactly 4 min long too. As pointed out, this can be accounted for by the missing 54s and the three jump cuts just before the elevator door closes. Now why is this 1-min footage missing? If it was the motion sensor cutting off the video, then what caused it to cut back on just before the three jump cuts? I doubt it was edited out by a perp and the timing manipulated to fool the police. It would be naive to think the police would not scrutinize such things.
3. In fact, why release all 4 minutes of the video in the first place given that Elisa no longer appears from the 2:30 mark? Would it not be more convenient to just cut off the video at 2:30, instead of extending it and thus revealing the missing 54 minutes and the three jump cuts? I do not believe the timing counter was deliberately blurred out for it seems like a half-hearted effort if it was so. It would simply be easier to just black it out.
Really puzzling issues but unlikely that a hotel employee was responsible for the missing minute, because LAPD has denied the rumor that a hotel employee has been detained...
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200566&page=9
The point is well taken that the timer was partially obscured and yet not totally obscured. In fact, the only decipherable parts are those exposing the reduced speed and the other tampering, suggesting that someone wanted us to discover the tampering. But that idea cracks my brain with an effort to resolve the reason. I need time to think. Here's the long-version video again if you haven't got it handy:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TjVBpyTeZM"]Elisa Lam Video - YouTube[/ame]
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/blog/article/the-tourist-in-the-tank/index.html
Resolved: the police wanted us to discover the parts of the timer that are decipherable. The police either wanted someone out there to know this because the hotel staff were obviously seeking to get away with such tampering, or the police wanted us to know because someone(s) in the police department is a fellow plotter(s) with the production team. Or, there is a logical explanation that no one I have read knows about.
JUST FOUND. Apparently, someone from Russia (username, arkadiy) has the ability to take the video apart frame by frame. It is asserted that there are duplicated frames at the snips:
02:54:553 (frame 2620) - 02:55.219 (frame 2629) fake 9 frames, half second, enough for somebody to bypass door
02:55.886 f2639 - 02:56.686 f2651 fake 11 frames, enough for somebody to bypass door
02:57.019 f2656 - 02:57.952 f2670 same situation Then door starts to close, no fake frames.
So if 3 guys bypass door, it was quick march at 2-4 meters per sec
...it has actually very creepy frames, where girls face looks like a wax mask, with no eyes, only black holes. But all strange gesturing part doesn't seems to be edit someway.
http://www.***********************/forum1/message2150426/pg1?COLLCC=2237961630&
Arkadiy claims to be finding spliced or "fake duplicated frames" in three areas corresponding to the three snipped segments between 25:04 and 25:14. He doesn't say by what criteria he determines the frames to be duplicates. To the best of my ability to follow, his first set of spliced frames is located less than a second after 25:04, where the elevator camera suddenly reads 25:07 (because :05 and :06 are snipped out). His second set of spliced frames seem to be located from the jump between 25:07 to 25:10 (where :08 and :09 are snipped out). His third set of spliced frames is then almost a second long from 25:11 and into 25:14 (this is where :012 and :13 are missing).
I think Arkadiy had not yet realized how to decipher the pixels, and for this reason, he didn't know (when submitting this post) that at least two seconds are missing at each snip. He therefore thinks that a person walks/runs by the elevator door in far less time than two seconds per person. He could be right that people were crossing the camera at those three points, but there is another explanation that does not require any people in any part of the 25th minute.
I'll trust Arkadiy where he mentions no spliced frames between 25:00 and 25:04. If he is correct concerning the locations and durations of the splicing thereafter, the first thing coming to mind is that the entire run, from 25:05 to 25:14, was a spliced-in repeat of an earlier part of the video having no activity. I'm saying that this was the original plan: almost ten seconds in all of repeat. Note that, from the start of 23:51, the last time the woman makes for activity, to the end of 23:59, there are nine seconds to take from, but there was likely some of 24:00 to 24:04 to take from too. This is important because it tells us that there were not any other ten-second intervals in the video from which to borrow for splicing in at 25:05 to 25:14. If there were other no-activity segments long enough, they would not have needed their three snips.
Follow me here. If, assuming there was one motionless segment of about ten-second duration somewhere in the 24th or 25th minute, then, because we hadn't yet viewed it, they would naturally have used it. But if the only segment to borrow from was the end of the 23rd minute, then, because it was already shown to the viewer, they had to disguise it. It became obvious to them that the tonal changes on the wall, for example, could have us discover a repeated section of video. Perhaps they at first jumbled, helter-skelter, small segments throughout the 10-second run, but in the end, as a quick fix to disguise the splices, they just snipped out of few parts hoping we wouldn't catch the evidence in the timer.
If this is correct, there never were people walking by the elevator door in the stretch from 25:05 to 25:14 (it lasts only four seconds elevator time due to the snips). But that doesn't necessarily mean no people walking by the door in the early part of 24th minute, when this stretch was spliced in. Why else might it have been spliced in?
A logical purpose of the splice would be to give the false impression of two possible things in the early part of the 24th minute: 1) no activity, and, 2) an open elevator door. As it seems the elevator door had no reason to close at this time unless someone walked in a pushed the door-close button, it appears that they were not concerned with the condition of the door, but rather with hiding people who appeared at the start of the 24th minute.
But wait. Could there have been another possible reason for adding in the splice? Did the camera stop taping at 24:04? For whatever reason, might this stoppage have been cause for making the splice? I've tried to look at this scenario, but have failed to see it's viability. It could be that it's too complex for my mind to grasp at this time, but in any case, I'm going to reject the idea of the camera rendered inactive in the first seconds of the 24th minute. I'm going to assume that the camera was rolling during 24:05 and 24:59, but that this segment was replaced with 25:05 to 25:59.
Arkadiy does not say that the 25:14 - 25:59 stretch was spliced in, but rather concludes that a 15-frame segment immediately before the stretch was spliced in. The way that I see his words, the entire 14th second, not including the door closing late in that second, was the 15-frame splice job. These 15 frames were taken from some other point in which the elevator door was fully open.
It seems obvious that, prior to adding the splice, the 24th minute was snipped out. First step: snip out the entire 24th minute except for 24:00 to 24:04 (so that 25:00 follows immediately after 24:04). Second step: splice and replay 23:51 to 24:00 between 25:05 and 25:14. Third step: make the three snips. Fourth step: change the timer for 24:00 to 24:04 by pasting in the timer for 21:00 to 21:04.
Arkadiy has his 15 frames ending at 2:57.952 youtube time. But the door doesn't start to close until the start of 2:58. It can mean that my claim still stands where concluding that the timer for 25:14 to 25:59 (2:58 - 3:59 youtube time) was pasted in...to explain a door abruptly closed almost a foot in distance in the late part of the 14th second. I'm assuming here that the 15 frames above do not touch any part of the door opening.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they did not have the capability to paste in timers. By "paste," I simply mean to splice them in at any point aside from changing the video scene. That is, they could shift around any part of the timer without moving in the scene from which the timer part was taken. Let's assume they did not have this capability. It requires us to believe that the elevator door was open until 21:04, with the same four floor buttons lit as when the woman walks in a minute later and lights up her four buttons. It would require the elevator to go, in the span from 21:04 to 22:04, down three floors -- the 10th, 7th, and 4th -- and then return to the 14th in time for the woman to enter again and press the buttons all over again. There isn't quite enough time, is there? If not, then the 21:00 timer must have been pasted in to the 24:00 slot, meaning that timer parts were shifted around at will.
Next topic. Thanks to Arkadiy, I've just learned that the elevator door starts to close early in the video, then changes its mind. Hmm. Yes, between 12 and 14 seconds youtube time, the elevator door closes about an inch, then goes back to fully open. Arkadiy says (see post above) that, at the 14.929 second mark of youtube time, frames 224 - 225 are "100% glued," then follows up: "Important! Frame 224 00:14.900 timelapse, surveillense cam supposed to be at 11:18. Elevator works well, door actually starts to close, than montage, frame 225 seems to be a 11:77.. on surveillanse cam timer. Door opens, end of montage."
Hey, you know, it's a wonder that the Russians are beating the Americans to these details. Are there no video experts in America that can share these findings? Or are they too afraid to speak out?
I think what Arkadiy means is that two frames at 22:11 of the camera timestamp have been spliced in. But why only two? No eye can catch that? Why bother changing two frames? Doesn't it suggest that more frames were altered? Yes, and these two frames are right at the end of the small closing and opening of the door. Where it's said, "Door opens, end of montage," it means that frame 225 ends just after the door is fully open again. My sample of the video (saved on my personal system) has the door fully open again in the first quarter of the 11th second; Arkadiy has the end of frame 225 at the third quarter of the 11th second. That's how close the frames are to the door motion.
Somewhere there may be a film with the killing of Elisa Lam.
Here's a point:
I thought it quite strange for a young woman to want to go to work on a farm in Santa Cruz. I searched for Elisa Lam and Santa Cruz and came up with a connection with a Buddhist monastery/retreat...It was the James Creek Farm:
"We are a small organic farm (1 out of our 150 acres is farmed), off the grid, at 4000 feet in the Coast Range of central California. We grow mixed vegetables and fruits for the Tassajara Zen Buddhist Monastery and are on the way toward becoming a retreat center. The farm is in a very remote and spectacular location. It's not easy to get to town but cell phones and computers w/wireless work here. No alcohol or tobacco please. Please write or call for more information." There is another source that said they accept guests.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9055753"]Elisa Lam - What Happened? - Page 8 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
I've just come across someone echoing most of my questions, and am happy to see that someone put it out there:
1. Why was the video slowed down? Was it to make it easier for police to pick up small details that might be useful and for all to have a clearer look at Elisa's features?
2. The video shows the duration between 0:22 to 0:26. (Supposedly 12:22-26 am, Feb 1st). Now every 3s of the actual footage has been slowed down to 4s, which means the 4-min long video we see is actually 3 minutes long originally. Yet the duration of the video seen from the counter is 12:22-26, almost exactly 4 min long too. As pointed out, this can be accounted for by the missing 54s and the three jump cuts just before the elevator door closes. Now why is this 1-min footage missing? If it was the motion sensor cutting off the video, then what caused it to cut back on just before the three jump cuts? I doubt it was edited out by a perp and the timing manipulated to fool the police. It would be naive to think the police would not scrutinize such things.
3. In fact, why release all 4 minutes of the video in the first place given that Elisa no longer appears from the 2:30 mark? Would it not be more convenient to just cut off the video at 2:30, instead of extending it and thus revealing the missing 54 minutes and the three jump cuts? I do not believe the timing counter was deliberately blurred out for it seems like a half-hearted effort if it was so. It would simply be easier to just black it out.
Really puzzling issues but unlikely that a hotel employee was responsible for the missing minute, because LAPD has denied the rumor that a hotel employee has been detained...
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200566&page=9
The point is well taken that the timer was partially obscured and yet not totally obscured. In fact, the only decipherable parts are those exposing the reduced speed and the other tampering, suggesting that someone wanted us to discover the tampering. But that idea cracks my brain with an effort to resolve the reason. I need time to think. Here's the long-version video again if you haven't got it handy:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TjVBpyTeZM"]Elisa Lam Video - YouTube[/ame]
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/blog/article/the-tourist-in-the-tank/index.html
Resolved: the police wanted us to discover the parts of the timer that are decipherable. The police either wanted someone out there to know this because the hotel staff were obviously seeking to get away with such tampering, or the police wanted us to know because someone(s) in the police department is a fellow plotter(s) with the production team. Or, there is a logical explanation that no one I have read knows about.
JUST FOUND. Apparently, someone from Russia (username, arkadiy) has the ability to take the video apart frame by frame. It is asserted that there are duplicated frames at the snips:
02:54:553 (frame 2620) - 02:55.219 (frame 2629) fake 9 frames, half second, enough for somebody to bypass door
02:55.886 f2639 - 02:56.686 f2651 fake 11 frames, enough for somebody to bypass door
02:57.019 f2656 - 02:57.952 f2670 same situation Then door starts to close, no fake frames.
So if 3 guys bypass door, it was quick march at 2-4 meters per sec
...it has actually very creepy frames, where girls face looks like a wax mask, with no eyes, only black holes. But all strange gesturing part doesn't seems to be edit someway.
http://www.***********************/forum1/message2150426/pg1?COLLCC=2237961630&
Arkadiy claims to be finding spliced or "fake duplicated frames" in three areas corresponding to the three snipped segments between 25:04 and 25:14. He doesn't say by what criteria he determines the frames to be duplicates. To the best of my ability to follow, his first set of spliced frames is located less than a second after 25:04, where the elevator camera suddenly reads 25:07 (because :05 and :06 are snipped out). His second set of spliced frames seem to be located from the jump between 25:07 to 25:10 (where :08 and :09 are snipped out). His third set of spliced frames is then almost a second long from 25:11 and into 25:14 (this is where :012 and :13 are missing).
I think Arkadiy had not yet realized how to decipher the pixels, and for this reason, he didn't know (when submitting this post) that at least two seconds are missing at each snip. He therefore thinks that a person walks/runs by the elevator door in far less time than two seconds per person. He could be right that people were crossing the camera at those three points, but there is another explanation that does not require any people in any part of the 25th minute.
I'll trust Arkadiy where he mentions no spliced frames between 25:00 and 25:04. If he is correct concerning the locations and durations of the splicing thereafter, the first thing coming to mind is that the entire run, from 25:05 to 25:14, was a spliced-in repeat of an earlier part of the video having no activity. I'm saying that this was the original plan: almost ten seconds in all of repeat. Note that, from the start of 23:51, the last time the woman makes for activity, to the end of 23:59, there are nine seconds to take from, but there was likely some of 24:00 to 24:04 to take from too. This is important because it tells us that there were not any other ten-second intervals in the video from which to borrow for splicing in at 25:05 to 25:14. If there were other no-activity segments long enough, they would not have needed their three snips.
Follow me here. If, assuming there was one motionless segment of about ten-second duration somewhere in the 24th or 25th minute, then, because we hadn't yet viewed it, they would naturally have used it. But if the only segment to borrow from was the end of the 23rd minute, then, because it was already shown to the viewer, they had to disguise it. It became obvious to them that the tonal changes on the wall, for example, could have us discover a repeated section of video. Perhaps they at first jumbled, helter-skelter, small segments throughout the 10-second run, but in the end, as a quick fix to disguise the splices, they just snipped out of few parts hoping we wouldn't catch the evidence in the timer.
If this is correct, there never were people walking by the elevator door in the stretch from 25:05 to 25:14 (it lasts only four seconds elevator time due to the snips). But that doesn't necessarily mean no people walking by the door in the early part of 24th minute, when this stretch was spliced in. Why else might it have been spliced in?
A logical purpose of the splice would be to give the false impression of two possible things in the early part of the 24th minute: 1) no activity, and, 2) an open elevator door. As it seems the elevator door had no reason to close at this time unless someone walked in a pushed the door-close button, it appears that they were not concerned with the condition of the door, but rather with hiding people who appeared at the start of the 24th minute.
But wait. Could there have been another possible reason for adding in the splice? Did the camera stop taping at 24:04? For whatever reason, might this stoppage have been cause for making the splice? I've tried to look at this scenario, but have failed to see it's viability. It could be that it's too complex for my mind to grasp at this time, but in any case, I'm going to reject the idea of the camera rendered inactive in the first seconds of the 24th minute. I'm going to assume that the camera was rolling during 24:05 and 24:59, but that this segment was replaced with 25:05 to 25:59.
Arkadiy does not say that the 25:14 - 25:59 stretch was spliced in, but rather concludes that a 15-frame segment immediately before the stretch was spliced in. The way that I see his words, the entire 14th second, not including the door closing late in that second, was the 15-frame splice job. These 15 frames were taken from some other point in which the elevator door was fully open.
It seems obvious that, prior to adding the splice, the 24th minute was snipped out. First step: snip out the entire 24th minute except for 24:00 to 24:04 (so that 25:00 follows immediately after 24:04). Second step: splice and replay 23:51 to 24:00 between 25:05 and 25:14. Third step: make the three snips. Fourth step: change the timer for 24:00 to 24:04 by pasting in the timer for 21:00 to 21:04.
Arkadiy has his 15 frames ending at 2:57.952 youtube time. But the door doesn't start to close until the start of 2:58. It can mean that my claim still stands where concluding that the timer for 25:14 to 25:59 (2:58 - 3:59 youtube time) was pasted in...to explain a door abruptly closed almost a foot in distance in the late part of the 14th second. I'm assuming here that the 15 frames above do not touch any part of the door opening.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they did not have the capability to paste in timers. By "paste," I simply mean to splice them in at any point aside from changing the video scene. That is, they could shift around any part of the timer without moving in the scene from which the timer part was taken. Let's assume they did not have this capability. It requires us to believe that the elevator door was open until 21:04, with the same four floor buttons lit as when the woman walks in a minute later and lights up her four buttons. It would require the elevator to go, in the span from 21:04 to 22:04, down three floors -- the 10th, 7th, and 4th -- and then return to the 14th in time for the woman to enter again and press the buttons all over again. There isn't quite enough time, is there? If not, then the 21:00 timer must have been pasted in to the 24:00 slot, meaning that timer parts were shifted around at will.
Next topic. Thanks to Arkadiy, I've just learned that the elevator door starts to close early in the video, then changes its mind. Hmm. Yes, between 12 and 14 seconds youtube time, the elevator door closes about an inch, then goes back to fully open. Arkadiy says (see post above) that, at the 14.929 second mark of youtube time, frames 224 - 225 are "100% glued," then follows up: "Important! Frame 224 00:14.900 timelapse, surveillense cam supposed to be at 11:18. Elevator works well, door actually starts to close, than montage, frame 225 seems to be a 11:77.. on surveillanse cam timer. Door opens, end of montage."
Hey, you know, it's a wonder that the Russians are beating the Americans to these details. Are there no video experts in America that can share these findings? Or are they too afraid to speak out?
I think what Arkadiy means is that two frames at 22:11 of the camera timestamp have been spliced in. But why only two? No eye can catch that? Why bother changing two frames? Doesn't it suggest that more frames were altered? Yes, and these two frames are right at the end of the small closing and opening of the door. Where it's said, "Door opens, end of montage," it means that frame 225 ends just after the door is fully open again. My sample of the video (saved on my personal system) has the door fully open again in the first quarter of the 11th second; Arkadiy has the end of frame 225 at the third quarter of the 11th second. That's how close the frames are to the door motion.