Edited by CandyKid, 09 November 2007 - 07:02 PM.
Posted 09 November 2007 - 07:01 PM
Posted 09 November 2007 - 07:03 PM
Posted 09 November 2007 - 07:07 PM
Posted 09 November 2007 - 07:17 PM
Oh, and also.
There is a false bottom. The rabbit was in the hat, the whole time.
Posted 10 November 2007 - 02:11 AM
Posted 10 November 2007 - 08:50 AM
Posted 10 November 2007 - 12:55 PM
At the :43 mark, you'll a view from Criss's camera, angled at his feet. It then cuts directly to a shot from under his feet, pointed upward. There was no camera in the previous shot, looking down. It's a hard cut, there is no time lapse in between the two shots. But the second shot has a camera already positioned beneath his feet. A camera that was not there in the first shot. So either the cameramen are also magicians, or the event did not happen as the video shows it.
What I'm saying is that those two scenes reveal that it was shot and edited together in a way not true to how it really happened. There's no way you couldn't have seen the underwater camera in the first shot. Yes, you can see the cameraman in other shots, but in this particular instance, it cuts straight from a top-view shot to a bottom-view shot, and there's just no time for that camera to have gotten into position.
The giveaway for these types of things is always in the editing. The quick cuts, the different angles. You have to understand, when you change from one camera's shot to a different camera's shot, that could have been two hours of a time lapse (heck, in Lord of the Rings, there are cuts in a conversation between Sam and Frodo that were filmed years apart). There's no way for you to know. The people that make these shows get paid to make that happen; they know how to position people in the same postures, to wait for the wind to stop blowing so the trees are relatively similiar - they're trained to make it look like the cuts are instantaneous. But for those of us that think, it's obvious that the events are not as they appear to be.
At the 1:41 mark in this video, you'll see the woman crawling away, and on the right-hand side of the screen, you'll catch a glimpse of a camera just a few feet away from her. In the very next shot, you see a wider-angle view of the woman - but the camera that was next to her is nowhere to be found. This is just another example of a time lapse in between shots.
EDIT: I know this post probably wasn't necessary, but CandyKid seems to genuinely believe that this is real, so I figured I'd try my best to show him the evidence that leads to the conclusion we've all already arrived at.
Edited by Cocopjojo, 10 November 2007 - 12:59 PM.
Posted 10 November 2007 - 02:01 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users