Sanders accused of sharing edited video

[Tiggs]

4 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

It wasn’t edited at all. They just zoomed in on the assault. It wasn’t sped up or slowed down or edited in anyway but the zoom function. 

Looking at the reported tech analysis (source: Wall Street Journal) — the video was clearly edited to repeat frames — and in such a way as to make the arm sweep appear more violent.

[+and-then]

15 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Looking at the reported tech analysis (source: Wall Street Journal) — the video was clearly edited to repeat frames — and in such a way as to make the arm sweep appear more violent.

The fact that the guy spoke over the president, repeatedly, and then pushed the Intern's hand away when she attempted -a third time - to take the mic... that's okay with you, Tiggs?

[Tiggs]

11 minutes ago, and then said:

The fact that the guy spoke over the president, repeatedly, and then pushed the Intern's hand away when she attempted -a third time - to take the mic... that's okay with you, Tiggs?

I thought I’d been pretty clear that I don’t care about the incident itself.

The White House propagating tampered video evidence? That I do care about. 

[Setton]

2 minutes ago, seanjo said:

It wasn't tampered with it was zoomed in on.

 

 

45 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Looking at the reported tech analysis (source: Wall Street Journal) — the video was clearly edited to repeat frames — and in such a way as to make the arm sweep appear more violent.

 

[+OverSword]

48 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Looking at the reported tech analysis (source: Wall Street Journal) — the video was clearly edited to repeat frames — and in such a way as to make the arm sweep appear more violent.

That website freezes my browser.  can you paste the relevant parts of the analysis please?  

They were showing the actual video on the local news this morning and the contact itself is not violent and when Acosta's hand hits her arm it looks unintentional to me now, but he did step way over the acceptable line of behavior.  I don't care who you are when addressing a president former or current you do so with respect and you defer IMO.  Bill Clinton ruined my life for a few years, and it's never quite recovered when he signed NAFTA, but if I ever was introduced to him I would say "It's a pleasure to meet you Sir."

Edit: ^{which would be a lie because he's a stinking traitor to the working class Americans and I will dance in celebration the day he dies.}

Edited November 9, 2018 by OverSword

[toast]

On 8.11.2018 at 5:32 PM, aztek said:

i have seen the video of the event live,  he absolutely deserve getting kicked out,.

Thats not of relevance to the topic but I agree with you that #45 absolutely deserved to get kicked out of the press conference.

Edited November 9, 2018 by toast

[+Hammerclaw]

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That website freezes my browser.  can you paste the relevant parts of the analysis please?  

They were showing the actual video on the local news this morning and the contact itself is not violent and when Acosta's hand hits her arm it looks unintentional to me now, but he did step way over the acceptable line of behavior.  I don't care who you are when addressing a president former or current you do so with respect and you defer IMO.  Bill Clinton ruined my life for a few years, and it's never quite recovered when he signed NAFTA, but if I ever was introduced to him I would say "It's a pleasure to meet you Sir."

It doesn't say anything about repeating frames, it says three frames showing the contact were paused. This is an ordinary technique used by the media to emphasize a point in a video or film.  It does make the incident look worse, but that in no mitigates the inappropriateness of his actions and demeanor toward the President.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[Tiggs]

4 minutes ago, seanjo said:

I suspect that's a problem with the editing software used, not a deliberate act.

As far as I’m aware —no-one has claimed to be able to replicate it using the same software that was used. 

 

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That website freezes my browser.  can you paste the relevant parts of the analysis please?  

It’s a WSJ video article — so, not really pasteable. 

This, however, should suffice:

Many social media users accused Ms Sanders of posting footage which sped up the contact to make Mr Acosta’s movement appear more aggressive.

But according to analysis by The Independent, the video instead appears to have been doctored to freeze for three frames the moment before Mr Acosta’s hand pushes down on the aide’s arm.

Source: The Independant

[+Hammerclaw]

There's no question that he made contact; the illuminated video shows he clearly did. Having their own methodology used against one of their own, rankles the media.

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

Looking at the reported tech analysis (source: Wall Street Journal) — the video was clearly edited to repeat frames — and in such a way as to make the arm sweep appear more violent.

BS. There is a side by side video on top of this page. It’s the exact same video

[+and-then]

39 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

I thought I’d been pretty clear that I don’t care about the incident itself.

The White House propagating tampered video evidence? That I do care about. 

Considering it is literally unprecedented for a reporter to behave in such a disrespectful way to a U.S. president, why doesn't the incident concern you?  Do you find such behavior acceptable with all future presidents?

[Tiggs]

8 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It doesn't say anything about repeating frames, it says three frames showing the contact were paused.

What do you think a repeating frame is, exactly?

 

18 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

This is an ordinary technique used by the media to emphasize a point in a video or film.

Not when it’s used in real-time playback to replace other frames.

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, Tiggs said:

What do you think a repeating frame is, exactly?

 

Not when it’s used in real-time playback to replace other frames.

All it did was show the exact same frames to clearly delineate the contact. Nothing was fabricated. It's the same technique used in sports video reviews of questioned calls.

[Tiggs]

3 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

BS. There is a side by side video on top of this page. It’s the exact same video

You know there’s this thing called video-editing software, where you can examine each frame in detail, right?

[Tiggs]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

All it did was show the exact same frames to clearly delineate the contact. Nothing was fabricated. It's the same technique used in sports video reviews of questioned calls.

Utter b******s.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Utter b******s.

Obviously not since you've been reduced to profanity. You don't dispute what he did, you just don't like the way they nailed him for it. Tough.

[Tiggs]

 

13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Obviously not since you've been reduced to profanity.

If you prefer the longhand version — your first problem is that the man who made the video — Paul Joseph Watson, editor-at-large for InfoWars — is claiming he didn’t manipulate it, at all.

Your second problem is that no sports video editing ever uses micro-pausing — let alone overwriting the following frames with such pauses.

In short — your explanation is what we Brits would characterize as being utter b******s — but I’m pretty sure I’ve already mentioned that.

 

13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You don't dispute what he did, you just don't like the way they nailed him for it. Tough.

Not sure which part of me repeatedly saying that I don’t care about the incident itself you’ve been unable to grasp yet.

[+Hammerclaw]

10 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

 

If you prefer the longhand version — your first problem is that the man who made the video — Paul Joseph Watson, editor-at-large for InfoWars — is claiming he didn’t manipulate it, at all.

Your second problem is that no sports video editing ever uses micro-pausing — let alone overwriting the following frames with such pauses.

In short — your explanation is what we Brits would characterize as being utter b******s — but I’m pretty sure I’ve already mentioned that.

 

Not sure which part of me repeatedly saying that I don’t care about the incident itself you’ve been unable to grasp yet.

Same technique combined with real-time footage and you've made it perfectly clear, time and again, what you really care about. Brits? I thought that term was offensive.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

 you've made it perfectly clear, time and again, what you really care about. 

The official spokesperson for the President of the United States using a doctored video lifted from a white supremacist conspiracy website as a propaganda tool. As far as I can tell, that's what he really cares about.

Strangely enough, very few conservatives on here seem to care.

[+Hammerclaw]

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The official spokesperson for the President of the United States using a doctored video lifted from a white supremacist conspiracy website as a propaganda tool. As far as I can tell, that's what he really cares about.

Strangely enough, very few conservatives on here seem to care.

No more than you guys cared When Obama used the FBI against a journalist, raiding and seizing his parents home and property searching for sources of leaks.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/16819-obama-war-on-journalism-feds-raid-reporter-seize-notes

Edited November 9, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[ExpandMyMind]

15 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No more than you guys cared When Obama used the FBI against a journalist, raiding and seizing his parents home and property searching for sources of leaks.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/16819-obama-war-on-journalism-feds-raid-reporter-seize-notes

Not a fan of Obama and don't know or care about this latest attempt at deflection. 

[Tiggs]

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Same technique combined with real-time footage.

Sports editing will slow-motion the action. Sometimes, they’ll pause on a frame, for a long period of time.

What they don’t do is insert a micro-pause subtle enough that some people apparently still can’t tell the difference, even when they’ve been told it’s there (see above) — and try to pass it off as real-time, because that would be utterly pointless — not to mention extremely technically challenging to do in a real-time environment, which generally just scrubs back through the existing timeline.

Either way — perhaps you’d now like to address the first issue I’ve raised.

Should be fascinating.

 

7 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

you've made it perfectly clear, time and again, what you really care about.

Yes, I have — the propagation of tampered video evidence by the White House.

 

7 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

 Brits? I thought that term was offensive.

Depends if it’s used in a disparaging manner. I self-describe as one, so I’m pretty okay with it.

[Tiggs]

39 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No more than you guys cared When Obama used the FBI against a journalist, raiding and seizing his parents home and property searching for sources of leaks.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/16819-obama-war-on-journalism-feds-raid-reporter-seize-notes

Perhaps you missed the mainstream media, that week.

Either way — that doesn’t seem to be an example of the Obama admin propagating tampered video evidence.

 

[Agent0range]

7 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

It wasn’t edited at all. They just zoomed in on the assault. It wasn’t sped up or slowed down or edited in anyway but the zoom function. 

LOL, God you're such a shill.  In the original video Acosta says '"pardon me Ma'am."  Why is that not included in the infowars video, if in fact, it wasn't edited?

[aztek]

who cares what he said, we see what he did.