AuthorTopic: Prelude Part 8) An Analysis of the FBI Video of the Road Block resulting in Lavoy Finicum’s Death.  (Read 866 times)

Offline Guest Blogger

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
    • View Profile

Peter Offermann

Contact Author

February 18, 2016

Click here for links to all parts of this article.

My original intent for part 8 was to briefly summarize what was presented in part 7 and fill in a few gaps such as showing the footprints in the snow  after Lavoy was dropped and then move on to the gunfire sequences. The close examination required to do the prep work for this brought forward some details I had previously missed which require quite a bit more time to document. Part 8 will remain on the shooting sequence and part 9 will cover the gunfire.

Spoiler: You will need to view the video at as large a size as possible to see this. Near the point when Lavoy turns back towards the truck just before he is dropped watch the action around the 3 blockade trucks. There are only 2 people moving during the period. Do you notice anything unusual about them?

Also during this close examination I came across some evidence that supports what I say in part 2.

In part 2 I showed this blown up image of the truck supposedly immediately after it stops in the snow and Lavoy exits. The link below will allow you to open  a larger version.

first f open door_resize

Click Here for larger version

I found a frame after the authorities have surrounded Lavoy’s body that presents the truck from almost an identical angle to when it first stopped. One of the agents had kindly opened the driver’s door shortly before this. He can be seen doing this through the trees earlier in the video. His actions confirm Lavoy did not have the door fully open as the agent had to smack the door a couple of times against the crest of the snow wave caused by the truck , and push hard, to get the door to open about 1 to 1.5 ft further so it would remain open.


The frame was underexposed and taken from closer in from the second camera platform so had much more detail.

In order to do a comparison I first adjusted the exposure and contrast to be similar to the earlier image of the truck. I then cropped out the truck and reduced it in size from 254×254 pixels to 50×50 pixels. I did this to remove detail from the truck which approximated the lower resolution that a camera would capture from the location of the camera which took the original image. I tried varying different size reductions, both smaller and larger, than the 50×50 pixel resolution I chose. I then chose 50×50 because it gave the closest resemblance of enlargement artifacts once blown up to approximately the 1920×1804 size I blew up the original image to.

For the final enlargement I used the same filter and settings as described in part 2.

new truck blowup from 50_sm

Click Here for larger version

Do you see the major differences between these images where the big purple blob is in the original image. In the second image the detail artifacts in that area closely match those of the rest of the image and clearly show the post between the doors, the inside area of the cab at the drivers position as an identifiable area, the delineation between  the windshield and the top outline of the door, and light through the drivers door window. Even if Lavoy was standing somewhere in that area in this image the detail is good enough that we would be able to roughly identify his pose. All that detail is masked by the blob in the original image.

So far in this assessment I hadn’t clearly identified which copy of the original file I was working from and wanted to clarify this.  In order to do that I went back through the history in my browser and found the listing of where I got it on January 29th, 2016. Clicking on the link took me to the screen below which is the FBIs Youtube Channel.

fbi video with all files

Notice the box at the top right of the video. I use Internet Download Manager to get streaming media off the internet. The drop down from the bar shows all resolutions a particular video is available in.

One of the reasons I wanted to clarify this information was that I wanted to see if it was possible to verify my version of the video against ones that other people have using an md5 hash. Out of curiosity to see if I would get the same md5 hash when downloading the same video a second time I downloaded the video again. In doing so I noticed a very strange thing.

I keep an untouched safety copy of the original video I originally got off the fbi's site in a safe place and do all my work on copies made from it. When I compared this second downloaded copy to the first one the file was 31mb or 32,934,166 bytes smaller than the original  copy which is a substantial difference and which of course gives a totally different md5 hash as seen below. To confirm the md5 hash works properly I then downloaded  a third copy of the video from the same link. The md5 hashes are identical on the last 2 copies.


In order to see the extended exif data of the new file I then used exiftool as I did on the first copy. The data is identical to the first file in all aspects including all dates and resolutions.

I then watched the whole new version of the video and extracted frames out of it to compare them to frames from the original version for resolution or missing sections. In a preliminary run through I could not spot any differences.  What I suspect, and will confirm later if correct, by accurately comparing runtime and random frames is that they possibly removed some frames in a systematic fashion to hide something they did. Most video editing software allows you to do this easily.

If you watch the area I suggested in the spoiler above you will notice something happening that suggests missing frames. Missing frames in only one section of video is very suspicious but if frames are missing in a continuous pattern throughout they are easily explained away. 

In order to do this you could tell an editing routine to only display 25 of every 30 fps instead of 30. You could then hide what you are doing by using a process called tweening to duplicate 5 out of every 30 frames to get the frame count back to where it was originally. The length of the video would stay the same but the compression process would be more efficient, reducing the file size,because there are now a bunch of duplicate frames that don’t need to be stored separately, instead only referred to a single stored copy of the frame when extracting the frames for viewing. This will be difficult and tedious to prove but I will do it later if deemed necessary.

CORRECTION FOR PART 1: The note on the video on the FBI’s site clarifies one point on which I was wrong. The time shown of 00:25:35 (25 minutes past midnight) is valid in the 24hr clock format. They note they uses zulu time (GMT) not PST which is -8 hours off GMT or 4:25:35 PM PST. This is just before the shooting took place.

Back to work on Part 8…

Click here for links to all parts of this article.


Related Topics