17-year-old arrested in killing of 2 people in Kenosha

If this case isn’t tossed with prejudice:

We’ve learned prosecution can withhold evidence, that is clearly important as it’s an exhibit.
We’ve learned prosecution can say you are chasing someone when video shows you running away.

Remember this when it’s your turn and act accordingly.
 
Last edited:
resolution = pixels. The more original, unaltered pixels - the better the image quality and the better the quality - the less blur will occur when you zoom in.
When an image is enhanced, pixels are beeing added and the colors of those pixels are "guessed". You can read here about AI vs Algorithm here:

I call BS

If you zoom in you OBVIOUSLY have more pixels.

Here, see this documentary clip on enhanced zoom:

 

I don't know if this ijit has shown up on this thread but someone should Bugs Bunny him and whack him in the head.
View attachment 543306
I can't really tell what I'm looking at here. Has this image been pinch zoomed? What interpolation algorithm was used? Looks like nearest neighbor but it might be bilinear? Did you write these algorithms???
 
I can't really tell what I'm looking at here. Has this image been pinch zoomed? What interpolation algorithm was used? Looks like nearest neighbor but it might be bilinear? Did you write these algorithms???
256290650_10224051790815943_1527858086874335378_n.jpg

Any better? It's a guy wearing a knights helmet outside the courtroom.
 
I don't know if this ijit has shown up on this thread but someone should Bugs Bunny him and whack him in the head.
View attachment 543306
Following the prosecution’s logic regarding things like armor and carrying a firearm.
1) A helmet like that is used for defending against things like swords.
2) Wearing that helmet means he expects someone to attack others with a sword.
3) Him still being there anyway means he’s looking for trouble.
 
Thank you. I just saw this. And it depends now if I watch this on a 4k TV or lower res, right?
If you watch a high res video on a lower res monitor, you will lose quality if you view it full screen. But you could potentially view it cropped/zoomed in and see part of it in as much resolution as the video can provide.
 
Who knows, maybe Wisconsin has a weird section of law that permits carrying a firearm near a school as long as you have a CC license.

Kinda like how you can’t carry on an ATV or snowmobile in NH unless you have a license.
Oh you certainly can!! Haha

NH says no gun free school zone if you have PRL. I have no idea how that applies with open carrying a rifle....
I call BS

If you zoom in you OBVIOUSLY have more pixels.

Here, see this documentary clip on enhanced zoom:


why was Horacio not called in on this case?
 
For you smart computer people:

How much, would it matter, if the source/original video was a much lower resolution than the ADA used in the closing?

That the ADA used an AI/algorithim enhanced video and that is the HiDef video they gave to the Defense after closing statements. The HiDef is actually an altered video all along.

It can matter a lot, especially once sharpening is applied. Noreaster and Pappy are on point, but the biggest thing to remember is that both compression and upscaling (sans) AI are playing averages. Compression (source to storage in any situation that isn't *RAW*) is playing averages on a pixel to pixel basis to average out for storage size reduction. If that video was from a feed and not off large internal storage of the drone, even that has been compressed to transmit down and you'd find it by applying sharpening and detecting hard edges on the resulting artifacts with blocky shapes in the footage.

Upscaling by algorithm does the same, but in reverse- its looking at the averages, and finding where "breaks" may have occurred across colors or relative brightness. When it does, it calculates what contrasts between pixels could have caused this, and fills the newly created spacing (made by more pixels) with these expected contrasts- and you can get large variances, including entirely the wrong color or brightness. And then that stands out again as something completely new- texture that was never there, in the final sharpen pass.

Add in a layer of AI looking at those new textures for pattern matches, and you're seeing something even more made up of whole cloth.

The tell, at least to me, is the part where their "forensics expert" reportedly spent 20 hours working those couple of frames to make it appear Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the Ziminskis- and the result of that work looks even shittier than this new HD. 20 hours spent *obscuring* good data to make it look like something it wasn't.
 
WTF? Scroll down to the transcript of the viewing of the drone video where the ADA states they have a better version.

Kraus needs to be beat repeatedly. You know a fist fight.


1637173456527.png
 
Last edited:
WTF? Scroll down to the transcript of the viewing of the drone video where the ADA states they have a better version.

Kraus needs to be beat repeatedly. You know a fist fight.


View attachment 543308
This is taken out of context.
They were not prepared to have their guy come back with the video to play it upon request at this time. So they called their analyst back, but he was not around. To speed things up, the female that sat with the defense team thought she could pull it up on her laptop.

You can argue that her computer may not be capable of showing the best view. She could have lost quality depending on how she accessed the video from her laptop.
Was the video on her hard drive?
Was she streaming from a cloud?

The video is shit either way, but this is someone twisting what actually happened to make it seem worse than it was.
 
This is taken out of context.
They were not prepared to have their guy come back with the video to play it upon request at this time. So they called their analyst back, but he was not around. To speed things up, the female that sat with the defense team thought she could pull it up on her laptop.

You can argue that her computer may not be capable of showing the best view. She could have lost quality depending on how she accessed the video from her laptop.
Was the video on her hard drive?
Was she streaming from a cloud?

The video is shit either way, but this is someone twisting what actually happened to make it seem worse than it was.

The purpose of the quoted transcript and the linked post was that it was now known there was a HiDef version that the defense didn't have. Not what caused that discovery. Just its existence.
 
The explanation of the uncovering and dissemination of the HD video is happening now. Doesn't seem as sinister as I expected.

Kraus just stated he gave the file on a thumb drive to the detective but emailed it to Wisco. Why did he give it to the det. on a thumb drive. I think he did know.
 
Kraus just stated he gave the file on a thumb drive to the detective but emailed it to Wisco. Why did he give it to the det. on a thumb drive. I think he did know.
I thought he said he was air dropped on their "side" but could not be air dropped to Wisco due to Androids.

Wisco also just referred to the file as a 4 "millibit" file, so we aren't exactly dealing with tech geniuses here.
 
I thought he said he was air dropped on their "side" but could not be air dropped to Wisco due to Androids.

Wisco also just referred to the file as a 4 "millibit" file, so we aren't exactly dealing with tech geniuses here.

This is where I get lost. He couldn't air drop because she had an Android. He emailed it, she opened it in the 'evidentiary' computer so never on the phone. It opened in that poor quality. Every other piece of evidence was done by 'dropbox', per Wisco. Kraus is getting buried by her.

Wisco just called Kraus a liar.

Kraus just threw Binger under the bus about using GMail, an unsecured email.
 
This is where I get lost. He couldn't air drop because she had an Android. He emailed it, she opened it in the 'evidentiary' computer so never on the phone. It opened in that poor quality. Every other piece of evidence was done by 'dropbox', per Wisco. Kraus is getting buried by her.

Wisco just called Kraus a liar.

Kraus just threw Binger under the bus about using GMail, an unsecured email.

Dropbox works just fine on Android.

He's full of shit.
 
None is surprising. Some of this is what you get when you have people who think they are smarter than they are trying to explain something they don’t understand. Like when the first nitwit detective “corrected” the defense attorney by telling him the four shots weren’t fired in 76 hundredths of a second but “seventy six tenths”. These people are morons using bad faith plus their own stupidity to try and ruin people’s lives.
 
Back
Top Bottom