who has the camera, anyway?

cbizzle44 · Post by **cbizzle44** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:23 pm

okay. so looking around here, it seems the general concensus is that some order person went into the desert looking for bree, and got shot (by brother or someone). but when i watch the video, it looks to me like daniel gets out of his bathtub and takes the camera with him. then he runs out into the desert. also, bree seems fine when the camera-holding-person walks up to her at the end, which seems to imply that person is on her side. and the shoes at the end seem very deacon-like if you ask me, which would make sense... the order person shot daniel, who was holding the camera.
just another theory

Jo_16_2 · Post by **Jo_16_2** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:30 pm

hmmm the camera was at the same exact place, daniel just disabled it temporarily to run away, and we dont knwo to where he went, and she doesnt seem fine when she sees the guy, and if it was someone that she knew, she wouldnt have just ran away without looking back

cbizzle44 · Post by **cbizzle44** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:46 pm

but when he walks right up to her, either he's sneaky enough not to be noticed from about 4 feet away, or she isn't bothered by him. she does freak out, but thats after the gunshot/loud noise

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:50 pm

cbizzle44 wrote:but when he walks right up to her, either he's sneaky enough not to be noticed from about 4 feet away, or she isn't bothered by him. she does freak out, but thats after the gunshot/loud noise

The person runs up on her like a locomotive (and it looks like their intent was to plow right into her). She never seems to notice their presence until they get shot right behind her (she certainly never looks toward the camera; she's constantly surveying her surroundings, but the camera stays focused on her; whoever had the camera was only interested in watching her, and she was only interested in her surroundings). It appears definite that she was being snuck up on.

She also wouldn't have simply ran away if Daniel were shot.

As for Daniel taking that camera at the beginning, that camera doesn't have the same lens effect, and it doesn't move after Daniel messes with it. It's still there - at the same height and angle - when the static clears and he's gone.

longlostposter · Post by **longlostposter** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:11 pm

What Lurker said.

Hey, Lurker, go look at the vid. I don't think Daniel disabled the camera at all. It looks like someone sneaked up on him from behind, possibly with a club.

Jo_16_2 · Post by **Jo_16_2** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:25 pm

juli, i see what you're talking about, but that "club" is actually daniel's finger, but really close, he's turning off the camera or whatever, look closer

raigne · Post by **raigne** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:27 pm

I still think it's a hidden camera in the sunglasses. (well, the roving order camera anyway...)

cbizzle44 · Post by **cbizzle44** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:39 pm

raigne wrote:I still think it's a hidden camera in the sunglasses. (well, the roving order camera anyway...)

*just got a visual of daniel just noticing a tall man wearing sunglasses outside his little bathtub home. and his first instict is to poke it*

that actually makes a lot of sense when cameraperson is running around in the desert. as to the bathroom, it was most likely a different camera

mincartaugh · Post by **mincartaugh** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:43 pm

As for Daniel taking that camera at the beginning, that camera doesn't have the same lens effect, and it doesn't move after Daniel messes with it. It's still there - at the same height and angle - when the static clears and he's gone.

Lurker, you keep saying this, but you never address the fact that the lens effect goes away when the camera falls!! As for the camera at the same height and angle, don't you put things on shelves? ...or bolt them to the wall? If Daniel is behind the camera he can't be seen. If the camera is on a shelf it would be in the same height and angle. If the static is disconnect, the empty shot of the bathroom is right before Daniel turns it off to take it with him!

raigne · Post by **raigne** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:55 pm

cbizzle44 wrote:*just got a visual of daniel just noticing a tall man wearing sunglasses outside his little bathtub home. and his first instict is to poke it*

that actually makes a lot of sense when cameraperson is running around in the desert. as to the bathroom, it was most likely a different camera

Hence the, "well, the roving camera anyway"

The one in the room is quite obviously stable. Either it's sitting somewhere or it's a fixture.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:11 pm

mincartaugh wrote:
As for Daniel taking that camera at the beginning, that camera doesn't have the same lens effect, and it doesn't move after Daniel messes with it. It's still there - at the same height and angle - when the static clears and he's gone.
Lurker, you keep saying this, but you never address the fact that the lens effect goes away when the camera falls!! As for the camera at the same height and angle, don't you put things on shelves? ...or bolt them to the wall? If Daniel is behind the camera he can't be seen. If the camera is on a shelf it would be in the same height and angle. If the static is disconnect, the empty shot of the bathroom is right before Daniel turns it off to take it with him!

So you're telling me that Daniel not only does something to engage the lens effect but also stands there in the room for seven whole seconds after triggering an alarm so he could take this camera. How is it at all believable that in that seven seconds he makes no effort to move the camera and get out of there at all, even though that's what he was supposedly trying to get before making his escape?

And that's just a couple of several problems with the idea. We'll find out soon if it's true, of course, but my money is on it not being true.

mincartaugh · Post by **mincartaugh** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:39 pm

The time issue is valid. That does make it unlikely, but the other seems less likely to me. Why would the order bother to fix a dead camera in an empty room while all hell has broken loose outside?

As for the lens effect, I'll explain one more time When the camera shows the bathroom, it is in a darkened room. The camera shade has nothing to shade, hence the lack of mark. In the desert the camera is in full sun; the lens effect shows up. When the camera man falls, the lens shade is knocked off the camera; hence the lack of effect in the last few scenes.

raigne · Post by **raigne** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:44 pm

mincartaugh wrote:The time issue is valid. That does make it unlikely, but the other seems less likely to me. Why would the order bother to fix a dead camera in an empty room while all hell has broken loose outside?

As for the lens effect, I'll explain one more time When the camera shows the bathroom, it is in a darkened room. The camera shade has nothing to shade, hence the lack of mark. In the desert the camera is in full sun; the lens effect shows up. When the camera man falls, the lens shade is knocked off the camera; hence the lack of effect in the last few scenes.

The lens effect is present in the kidnapping vid as well though, and that occurs at night. That to me indicates two different cameras, rather than an feature not visible in low lighting.

mincartaugh · Post by **mincartaugh** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:53 pm

Raigne: What about at the end of the video? The camera that had the lens effect all through the chase scene suddenly doesn't have the effect

raigne · Post by **raigne** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:57 pm

mincartaugh wrote:Raigne: What about at the end of the video? The camera that had the lens effect all through the chase scene suddenly doesn't have the effect

The lens and whatever it was housed in are no longer intact. They've been hit by a bullet. The hole we see appears to be on the edge of the lens, so it's not a stretch to imagine that the unit itself may be in pieces.

Edited: Damn homophones.