[dan-b]

Originally Posted by Ravensnevermore ↗

It's fake- they already found out someone recreated it.

Look, you can give your opinion that it's fake but you cannot say it definitively. Who is "they" for christ's sake?

[dan-b]

Originally Posted by KillingJoke ↗

If the people that made this hoax sent be the raw camera original footage, I could make a credible degraded version in under an hour or two.

Doesn't this damage your own position somewhat? How did the "hoaxers" make it without "raw camera original footage"?

Please go ahead and make your own version and upload it to DR. I look forward to seeing the tangible results of your skills.

[KillingJoke]

Originally Posted by dan-b ↗

Doesn't this damage your own position somewhat? How did the "hoaxers" make it without "raw camera original footage"?

Please go ahead and make your own version and upload it to DR. I look forward to seeing the tangible results of your skills.

Not sure how it "damages my position". My position in that statement was only that they made a couple mistakes in how they handled the degrading.

In particular that the timestamp does not continue over the technical difficulties slate, as it would in a real aircheck.

[sugarrrrsmack]

It does look really real but Idk.. they are supposedly making a movie about her so I heard

[mothmon]

I can't this topic is still going on with people still insisting the video is real. What a bunch of nutty buddies

[Finito2k]

Good find.

[vislaw]

We know that Mollie Nelson (wife of deceased station owner) has gone on record stating that she delivered the footage of the suicide to "a very large law firm." I find it interesting that no representative of Mrs. Nelson or the law firm has gone on record stating that the "newly found" footage is fake. It would seem to me that it would be very much in their interest to make such a statement if this is the case. On the other hand, if the "found" footage is authentic I'd expect them to say nothing. Obviously, this doesn't prove anything but it does make me pause.

[GroperSteve]

Originally Posted by KillingJoke ↗

HAVING SAID THAT, if there were a dedicated aircheck just for the news, then the "technical difficulties" slate would never have been recorded.


THIS ONE MISTAKE is the biggest one the creators of this hoax made. It destroys any credibility in the recording.

I agree with everything in your analysis, although I would add that the "2 Shot"/wide framing, as opposed to a tight frame (described by Sally Quinn who viewed the tape prior to publishing her Washington Post article) should be weighted more heavily against this tape being legitimate. There's no reason for them to frame Chubbuck for the broadcast from so far away as she was the only person in the frame. In all likelihood, the wide framing is there to "show off" the recreation of the studio set to make it look like the real deal. But such a shot would never have gone out live as that framing would've served no purpose and is never done when there's just one person in the frame, reading the news.

If this were supposedly the second camera, which was set up to shoot the interview area where Chubbock had two guests waiting, it would've been positioned over in front of that area, not directly in front of the news desk. And if this tape were really from an aircheck recording, they would've gone with a tight framing, not a "2 Shot"—because what would be the point of showcasing studio talent from such a wide angle?

The only thing I'm confused about, simply because I'm not as familiar with the practices of TV studios as you are, is the above quote from your post. You're saying that if this were a dedicated aircheck recording of her news segment, there'd be no reason for the "Technical Difficulties" card to be included, as that card would've only gone out over the live broadcast, and not be inserted on the aircheck tape, right?

If that's the case, then you'd have to stick to the supposition that this framing was from a second camera, and not the one going out as a live broadcast signal, right?

To that end, what I've read from people who were in the studio that day, is that there was a second camerawoman, but she stepped out of the studio to take or make a quick phone call, as she wasn't needed to operate the second camera for the interview segment while Chubbuck was reading the news. That explanation accounts for the supposed discrepancy between what was reported in the Washington Post piece (there were two camerawomen that day) and what the other dudes (Gilbert, et al.) have maintained about there being only one camera person who used a tight framing for the live broadcast.

[Legalscatboy]

Many fake but a Damm good job.

[KillingJoke]

Originally Posted by GroperSteve ↗

The only thing I'm confused about, simply because I'm not as familiar with the practices of TV studios as you are, is the above quote from your post. You're saying that if this were a dedicated aircheck recording of her news segment, there'd be no reason for the "Technical Difficulties" card to be included, as that card would've only gone out over the live broadcast, and not be inserted on the aircheck tape, right?

If that's the case, then you'd have to stick to the supposition that this framing was from a second camera, and not the one going out as a live broadcast signal, right?

Normally, an "aircheck" is EVERYTHING that is sent to the transmitter, thus it is a check of what actually went out over the air,

It is taking from the final output of the master control switcher. The "technical difficulties" slate is inserted at the master control switcher.

But the point is, the "time date" stamp is something only added on an aircheck tape, and no where else. As such, if there is a time/date in the image it should be on everything, "technical difficulty" slate included.