Previous Chapter


(continued from the last chapter)

Continued from the last chapter.

In the Elisa Lam video below, follows the pixelized digits showing the seconds. The couplet to the far left is the hour of the day. The next couplet represents minutes of the hour, and the third couplet represents the seconds. It's easy to spot the seconds couplet because a digit changes once per second. The video's timestamp starts at 22:00, and it just so happens that the pixelixed 2 digit looks much like a '2'. Note that the two 0's in "22:00" are not the same. Yet, one can prove that this 22:00 point is indeed the start of the video. Note the shape of the 1 digit at 22:01, and then see the same shapes when it reaches 22:11. The 1, 2, 4, 5 digits are identical whether they are on the left or right side of the minutes or seconds couplet, but this is not the case for the 0 digit.

Having spent sufficient time understanding the paragraph above, you now have the ability to decipher the pixelized shapes. Don't be proud, however, because this is easy, and, likely, the police intended that we should decipher it. You need only to familiarize yourself with the look of the various digits, and for this you need to use your pause button. The problem comes when distinguishing between the digits, 0, 8, and 3. They can all look alike, and can be different depending on whether they appear on the left or right side of a couplet. At 2:05 youtube time, you can study the 3 digit on both sides. The timestamp reads 23:33. The two 3 digits of the right sides have a small, black square midway up the back section of the L-like shape that is part of the 3-digit shape. The 3 digit on the left side does not have this small square.

Compare the 3 digit on the left side with the 0 digit on the left side of the hours couplet. They are identical. Note that the second digit (right side) in the hours couplet could be a 3 digit, except that it doesn't have the small square. It's not :03 am, in other words. It could be either :00 or :08 am, however, because the 8 digit is identical with the 0 digit when the latter appears on the right side. Elisa's actions do not speak well to a time shortly after 8 am, but they do speak well of a time shortly after midnight. Apparently, the video begins at 29 minutes, 0 seconds, after midnight.

The timer shows a string of four digits that looks like "3D1D." At first (in all of 2013), I was unable to decipher with certainly more than the 1 digit, which is the third one that looks like a 1 digit (always has a bright, white square at the top). The two D-like shapes eluded me until I realized that they are dimmed 2 digits. The 2 digit always has bright, white squares on a diagonal, as you can see in the minutes couplet. However, these squares are very dim in the seconds couplet, and because they are dim in the 3-like shape of "3D1D," I didn't realize that it was a 2 digit until 2016. It means that "3D1D" is the year, 2013. However, the D-like shapes are not quite like the 0, 3 or 8 digits. Close, but not quite. Although I view the 0, 3 and 8 as L-shapes, all three have a diagonal tail off the top end that starts to make the L look like a D.

When the 0 digit is on the right side of a couplet (as in :10 or :20), it looks like the 8 digit. The 9 digit is identical with the 8 digit except that the 9 has a small, black square midway up the L-like part, making the nine digit exactly like the right-side 3 digit. The way to distinguish any of them is to watch what comes immediately before and after them. This is easy. Too easy. If the police thought that they were hiding it from us, they must have been dodo's. If they truly wanted to hide this, they would have blurred all digits with the same blur throughout, or just put a black strip over them. But, regardless of how they masked the numbers, we can still ask WHY WHY WHY mask the numbers?

There is a single object at the far-right of the timestamp...that I at first thought never changes shape. After thinking that it might be the floor-number indicator, I checked for changes in its shape as the elevator descended floors. No, it did not change shape at those times. But in continuing to check, I found it changes slightly once (2:53 point) when the camera timestamp reads 25:03. Actually, a part of its center goes missing. The thing never reverts back to the original. What could this mean? More drama from the movie producers? I decided that this object had nothing to do with elevator operation, as that would require the two systems to be hooked up in some way.

On the page below (midway down the page), the last character shown in an example of a timestamp is said to be for the international time zone. I've just found another page showing an example of a timestamp, and it too has the time zone in a character at the far right.

Elisa deliberately pressed all buttons in the middle row, and yet, after pressing the hold-door button, she stands at attention as if waiting for the door to close when she knew it would not. It's as though we, the frightened viewers, are supposed to believe that there is an elevator malfunction at that time. By this time, she knew where the 4th-floor button was, even if she needed glasses (her room was on the 4th).

For the purpose of toying with the public's mind, apparently, she was to press several buttons inexplicably. She may have been directed to play sexually interested in a friend for the purpose of making us believe that this person was the killer. It's so Hollywood. We can then entertain the snipping out of some seconds as part of the production team's plan to make us imagine a killer (or more than one) walking by the camera. They made it easy for us to recognize the snipping by making it easy to decipher the digits.

With some cases in court, the judge might challenge your electronic evidence. They want to know that you have not tampered with your digital data and to prove its authenticity...Judges know that time stamps can easily be modified.

A solution for this is digital watermarking... A digital watermark guarantees that the image provided as evidence is from the given DVR, and not taken off of another one. It proves that the footage is authentic, and not corrupted or edited. The digital watermark also provides a date and time stamp on all its videos automatically, even when the video is copied onto a DVD. When an image is printed on a piece of paper, it provides a watermark, the time / date stamp, and would include the company logo imprinted on the paper.

It sounds as though timestamps can be removed/changed. The article speaks on timestamps needing to be set manually, and that they can be set to the wrong times. Therefore, we don't know it the elevator timestamp reflects the true time that Elisa was in the elevator.

I've concluded that the three snips during the 25th minute of timestamp, and the pasted 21:00 at 24:00, are impossible in a scenario where the hotel people are seeking to modify the video to keep the police from suspecting them. The three snips are to be expected if the video was a production for the purpose of having the public believe that the murder of Elisa Lam was imminent. Just the same, the three snips may have actually removed motion on the video.

If the police takes the blame for the snips, it might argue that the snips are where the police wished not to reveal to the public certain, UNRELATED motion on camera, such as people walking by the elevator who were not related to Elisa or the murderers. But shouldn't the police have revealed those people in case they were involved? Absolutely. If they walked by shortly after Elisa was last seen, absolutely.

Online: "Her sister, Sarah Lam, a makeup artist in Vancouver..." It begs the question on whether Elisa's family is part of insider goons that conduct false-flag events. I am not at all convinced that Elisa is in the video. There are other photos of her online, and one can see differences. Personally, I'm not sure either way.

Some have quoted Elisa from her tumblr blogs, showing that she was fresh back to British Columbia from Toronto and Ontario in the second week of December, carrying the flu. Then, a few days before Christmas, she landed a new job in British Columbia selling shoes: "Per the tumblr blogs, she didn't seem to have much money (although 'much' is subjective/relative.) She gets a job (presumably in a women's shoe store) mid December 2012 and mentions that she can now earn 'food money.'" The point there is to roll the question of where she obtained the money for her California trip late January. She apparently quit her shoe job, if she went to California at all. The CIA / FBI has entire families participating in false-flag events where deaths are feigned. All false-flag events have a CIA / FBI teams whose job description is to put disinformation online as "private" citizens; that's a no-brainer.

Judging from the photos of the 15th floor at the top of the page below, one cannot peek out of the elevator and see down a hallway. Scroll down from those photos to see Elisa next to the "Elisa" in the elevator. Compare. Ask why the only good frontal shot of the woman in the elevator has her face go distorted. There is nothing that goes wavy in the entire video as her face does at this frontal shot. The wave follows her face as it moves toward the door. Someone clearly made her face blurred. If the police offered this video to show us her face, this looks like a deliberate attempt to hide it. Besides, the video is itself in low quality. The cameras (intended to catch crime) come with seconds split into 1/100s for splitting hairs if needed, and yet we are to believe that it can't shoot a face, a few feet away, better than this??? She was at this hotel for days; she must be on other elevator cameras. It's hard to imagine the flashing smile on the oldest Elisa photo appearing on the lady in the elevator.

Yet, the hoax would need a wider array of players, aside from the parents and her sister, including Canadian authorities. By now, Elisa's parents have read about these problems, as they perused online information about her daughter, and they would be expected to inform the police in both countries.

The more I take it seriously that this was a reality-show production, the more points that come to mind. For example, she stoops down to press the buttons, not because she can't see the buttons well without glasses, but to assure that her shoulder is not between the camera and the buttons. We could assume it to have been the intention of the production team to make us aware that she was on the 14th floor, and what better way to leave no doubt about it but to have her press all buttons in the middle row to indicate that it was the 14th-floor button that did not light up?

"As I recall, I think one of the Chinese sleuthers noted that pressing a floor button would override the Door Hold button." That sounds correct, which should explain why, in her bout with the buttons, she pressed the door-hold button last, apparently, either at 1:47/48 or 1:50 youtube time. Although we are unable to see her hand on the button, at 1:50, it seems obvious by her body motion that she was pressing a button, yet we don't know which one.

Cody Fry has offered the video (below) at a faster speed matching youtube speed. Caution: perhaps it wasn't the video, but rather the timestamp, that was slowed. At the faster speed shown, I cannot see anything to suggest that it's definitely too fast for reality. Both video speeds could be deemed "normal." This video addresses, without explanation, "time stamp freezes" in the 25th minute prior to 25:14. He realizes that the freezes go until 25:14 only, yet doesn't say how he knows. I haven't read one person telling that they deciphered the pixels as digits, and my material has been online for three years. What's going on?

If one merely counts the seconds in the pixelized version of the timestamp, 25:14 turns out to be 25:13 because there are only 13 seconds after 21:00. Therefore, how did Cody Fry know to say, "Time Stamp Freezes Multiple Times Then Resumes Normally at 12:25:15"? He implies that the freezes last until 25:14. One is easily able to pick out 25:10, when the left-hand digit changes from a 0 to a 1, but there are only two digits after this to 25:14. How did Cody Fry know to say the above?

The timestamp pixels show no freezing of any digit. I therefore have no idea why he calls them freezes.

He then says, "Somehow We've Lost 12:24:06 - 12:25:00 (54 seconds)." It means that he hasn't yet deciphered the pixels to know that 24:00 was replaced by 21:00. Moreover, there is no 21:05, but he appears to think so by starting his count of 54 missing seconds at 24:06. Somehow he's got the impression that there were six seconds, after 23:59, to 24:05, before the switch to 25:00. But the pixels clearly show only five seconds, to 21:04, before the very next second is 25:00. I'm not trying to pick at Mr. Fry, just to say it pays to decipher the pixels. Why didn't he go that far? It seems like the natural thing to do to assure that you're reading the stamp right.

Have people read my work, yet refused to believe that 24:00 was replaced by 21:00? It's a complication, yes, but also revealing. It means that they were forced to remove roughly five seconds between 25:00 and 25:14, otherwise they would not have added the five seconds from 21:00 - 21:04. And if they were forced to remove those seconds, they must have had a good reason. Here is what they did, with youtube time on the left:

2:41 = 23:59
2:42 = 24:00 instead of 21:00
2:43 = 24:01 instead of 21:01
2:44 = 24:02 instead of 21:02
2:46 = 24:03 instead of 21:03
2:47 = 24:04 instead of 21:04
2:48 = 24:05 instead of 25:00
2:50 = 24:06 instead of 25:01
2:51 = 24:07 instead of 25:02
2:53 = 24:08 instead of 25:03
2:54 = 24:09 instead of 25:04
2:55 = 24:10 instead of 25:07
2:56 = 24:11 instead of 25:10
2:57 = 24:12 instead of 25:11 (short blip) and 25:14 (door close)

If there was nothing to remove, they would have used 24:00 as 21:00, and would not have entered 25:00 at all in place of 21:05. They obviously had the ability to paste the timestamp to any video section, for they pasted 21:00 - 21:04 over the video that had all four buttons lit, and we know for a fact that these four buttons were not lit between 21:00 and 21:04. They were not lit until after 22:00. If they had truly gotten a clip from the 21st minute, there would be no lights. As they therefore had the ability to paste a timestamp to any video section, they had the choice of pasting 24:00-04 to 24:00:04 (no one would have thought anything wrong), yet, they chose to paste 21:00-04 to 24:00-04, suggesting that they wanted to "get caught." And they then added 25:00 in place of 21:05 to make sure they would catch someone's attention to this area of the timestamp, even if we didn't know how to decipher the pixels. If they wanted to get caught, they must be some very strange human beings, powerful and satanic (lunatics) to boot.

If correct that a production team made the video, it's not necessary for there to have been more than one or two other people in the hall with the actress. No equipment would have been needed; the camera was already there. Rehearsal took place elsewhere. Look at the way the woman lifts her right hand at or above shoulder level, upon entering the elevator for the first time, to torpedo in on the buttons. It's not natural. Before slipping into the corner, there is a slight bravado evident at her mouth, what could be expected from an inexperienced or amateur actor.

The actress may have been Elisa herself, in which case they had her murdered afterward as part of their plan. That is, she willingly went along with the production not knowing the real story behind it, that she would be the victim.

Perhaps she was made to think that there was opportunity for an acting career, and told that the plot involves a horror movie at the 14th floor. She agreed to try out as an actress, and did what she was directed to do in the elevator, nothing complicated so that the first take would be sufficient. It may be that the first take, the only one allowed in order to keep certain hotel staff from seeing two or more of the same "scene," was not perfect as planned, but it had to do.

So-called "snuff films" are not new, and would definitely entail occult types. Snuff films involve murder scenes where the actor is actually killed in the scene without knowing beforehand. "The very first recorded use of the term 'snuff film' is in a 1971 book by Ed Sanders, The Family: The Story of Charles Manson's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion. He alleges that The Manson Family was involved in making such a film in California to record their murders." California, hum?

Somewhere there may be a film with the killing of Elisa Lam.

Here is a good comment:

"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..."

Great point. If the purpose of the release by police was to show us what she looked like, why would police release the rest without her, and with all of the suspicious material. The police obviously have no fear of bringing suspicion on either themselves or the hotel staff. But wait. Did the police release the timestamp irregularities to tip the public off that someone in the hotel muddied the video? Then why is the video at .75 percent true speed? Wouldn't police be expected to go in and seize all camera footage of all elevators? In that case, they have all videos at real speed. Moreover, they could have put out a super-quality photo of Elisa's face in the elevator. Where is it? Why did they put out the video instead, with blurred face??

Resolved: police wanted us to discover the timestamp problems.

Just found. Apparently, someone from Russia (username, arkadiy) has the ability to inspect the video frame by frame. Although he says nothing about having deciphered the timestamp snips, perhaps that's to be assumed, for he finds problems exactly where the snips are:

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 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.

Arkadiy claims to be finding spliced or "fake duplicated frames" in three areas corresponding to what others view as the three snipped / deleted segments. He doesn't say by what criteria he determines the frames to be duplicates. As he may not have a good grasp of English, he probably means non-existent frames rather than fake frames. By using "fake," he may be trying to convey the idea of a trick. He is not necessarily seeing frames, therefore, but is able to count the exact duration of the snips, and from that he can find the number of frames missing. He is therefore telling us the duration of the snips where I can't be that accurate. The first snip is .666 of a second, no kidding. The 2nd snip = .8 second; 3rd snip = .93 second. Arkadiy doesn't mention this, at least not in this post. I wasn't able to find him under "Arkadiy" at any other page.

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 :13 and :14 seconds youtube time, the elevator door closes about an inch, then goes back to fully open. She presses the 10 button at 22:07, thus activating the door timer to close. Two seconds later, she presses the door hold, but by that time, the door had begun to close, no big deal, nothing suspicious, yet Arkadiy mentions the point that there is nothing wrong with the door.

The production team would have wanted to remove this door movement if the purpose of the video was to make the viewer believe in an elevator malfunction. We were not to know that she pressed the door-hold button, wherefore the producers deemed this door-closing a liability. But it was probably deemed impossible to delete the door motion because she was moving too much over those two seconds.

He says (post above) that, at the 14.929 second mark of youtube time, frames 224 - 225 are "100% glued..." This explains why the video changes color tone at the end of :14. It's when she's just standing there virtually still. What was this edit for? Nothing in the video changes aside from this slight shift, or whatever it is. If he's correct, what would be the purpose of gluing / adding two frames = .15 second? Perhaps they wanted to elongate the video at this time, did so, but then removed the elongation, leaving in two, residual frames in the process. Perhaps they tried to freeze her standing for longer when they needed more timestamp time for fixing the botched 25th minute.

If true that the close-door button overrides the hold-door button, then she never once, in all of that fancy fingerwork, hit the close-door button. This exposes the reality, that she never intended to go down the elevator. Therefore, all of her mad fingerwork was a put-on, a fake, an act. That's why no one can explain it in view of being a real-life event. It wasn't a real-life event. It was an acting job with a purpose.

No one but the hotel staff / owner was an overseer of the video. Doesn't it suggest that the hotel staff / owner was in cahoots with the producers of the video? Might they have been one and the same? How could the producer(s) of the video possibly edit the video unless he/they were at least in cahoots with someone at the hotel?

In her second visit to the button panel, she did not, as she did at first, wait in the elevator after pressing the buttons to see whether the door would close, but walked out immediately, knowing it would not close. If you take careful notice of her face as she turns from the mirror to enter the elevator for this bout with the buttons, you can catch a split-second happiness on her face. It indicates another person out there. Under the circumstance that this was a natural event, not an act, with another person out there, she wouldn't likely be looking straight into the mirror with her hands on her head, adjusting her hair for some 12 seconds (16 youtube time). Instead, it's more likely that she was directed to stand there looking into the mirror and meanwhile letting some of her body show for the camera, and all the while she was talking to someone in the production crew who made her smile. She couldn't get the smile off her face in time not to be caught on camera.

To a question posed on the camera's timestamp, Arkadiy says: "Yes, in left corner is name of the cam, date, time hour:minute:sec:milisec...Seems to be AXIS cam, but I need screen from such cam in good quality, to compare fonts." Here's an example of a crisp view from a surveillance camera by AXIS.

Why didn't police give us high quality? The poor-quality video was at least partially due to making the button panel less visible.

The fact is, the police are responsible for choosing, above and beyond the choice of the hotel management, which video to put out there. The police have said that they've looked through hundreds of hours of video seeking the best shots of Elisa Lam. They apparently had free access to the whole gamut of hotel video. What about Elisa at the front desk? Surely, they had a great shot of her face there. Could we at least hold the Los Angeles police under suspicion of collusion with the hotel and the video producer(s)? Someone needs to arrest the LA police chief and jail the higher ups. Whose going to do it? The FBI? Someone needs to arrest the FBI. Whose going to do it for the sake of itty-bitty Elisa Lam?

We can be assured that the hotel manager / owner, if he were guilty of a crime, would not have permitted this video to go to the police in the condition that its in. If the hotel was going to tamper with the video at all under such a scenario of covering its donkey, it would have covered over the entire four minutes with a splice of a closed-elevator shot so as not to attract the police to that part of the video.

Let's assume that neither the owner nor the manager knew anything about this video, and that both are innocent. Instead, it's a staff member who is the guilty party, a person with access to the security camera's hardware and software. The story doesn't change here. We still expect the guilty staff member to cover over the entire four minutes with a closed-elevator scene...unless it was wanted that the video should go to the police in this condition.

No matter how you cut it, the fact that the hotel staff / manager / owner wanted the video to go to the police in this condition, it smells of police collusion. By this, I purely mean that the police was in agreement with putting out the production from an occult production team. I can see only one kind of glue between the two groups: satanism and/or some form of Freemasonic brotherhood. An occult police chief could tolerate a murder if done for a human-sacrifice purpose. There must be some police chiefs in the country who engage human-sacrifice cults.

The hotel people should be the prime suspects, and yet the police said they detained (i.e. have someone in jail) someone other than a hotel staffer. You don't suppose the real killers framed someone else for the murder, and that the police are going to play along with it??

Of the thousands of theories circulating about the death of Elisa Lam, the one best worth considering [says who?] comes from the case's lead investigator. Los Angeles police Det. Wallace Tennelle [imbecile] gave his thoughts in a deposition.

...Tennelle took the call in February 2013 about a Canadian national was missing from the Cecil. And he had peered into the open hatch of the rooftop water tank and seen Lam's lifeless body. "My opinion is that she fell off her medication, and in her state, she happened to find her way onto the roof, got into the tank of water," Tennelle told the lawyer. "At the time, I think that water tank was maybe full. But as people used the tank, used water, unknown to her, the level was dropping to a point where she could no longer reach out and escape, and she died that way."

Tennelle's an accomplice to the cover up, which is why he's talking like an imbecile. As the lead detective, he knows fully concerning the timestamp. No one who knows that timestamp, and who's the lead detective on the story, can argue that her death was an accidental drowning. This is the new world, people, with the police more corrupt, brutish, murderous, and dastardly than many whom they jail. It's coming.


Russia's Middle-Eastern Move of 2015
This page is accessed from a link at the top of Results of My Dragon Hunt
because the latter is immediately after an update
emphasizing Pierleoni Jews of Rome.

Results of My Dragon Hunt
This would be a good place to jump in to get a small picture
of all that I've uncovered by a unique method
of tracking people groups.

Questions, comments, dialogue

Table of Contents
Pre-Tribulation Planning for a Post-Tribulation Rapture