Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Tiggs

Sanders accused of sharing edited video

239 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
2 minutes ago, aztek said:

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

I believe a couple pages back I said he should be suspended.  That doesn't mean I'm going to support the sharing of edited videos by the White House.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

Remember when Melania Trump wore that jacket, and this forum was up in arms saying the photo was doctored, and not real?  We even had Michelle posting pictures of the actual jacket talking about how the colors weren't the same, so it must be a fake photo?  Eventually, the truth came out and the photo was real.  Why were people going crazy over that "edited" photo, but they are completely fine with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
30 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

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?

I am neither God, nor a shill, for the record. :P

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Agent0range said:

  Why were people going crazy over that "edited" photo, but they are completely fine with this?

good question, idk why you people were going crazy, there was nothing wrong with her jacket,  if anyone one else wore it, no one would notice, but since it is Melania, of course, jacket is bad, shoes are wrong, hat is offensive.... etc,

yes we are completely fine with that cuz we do not see anything edited to show something that was not there, or not to show what was

Edited by aztek
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 hour ago, aztek said:

good question, idk why you people were going crazy, there was nothing wrong with her jacket,  if anyone one else wore it, no one would notice, but since it is Melania, of course, jacket is bad, shoes are wrong, hat is offensive.... etc,

yes we are completely fine with that cuz we do not see anything edited to show something that was not there, or not to show what was

Like when the media edited a Trump speech, making it look like he was praising Robert E Lee, when it was Grant he was praising. The video edit just shows the truth more clearly. The only thing false I read here is sanctimonious piety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
23 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

The video edit just shows the truth more clearly.

...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
32 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Like when the media edited a Trump speech, making it look like he was praising Robert E Lee, when it was Grant he was praising. The video edit just shows the truth more clearly. The only thing false I read here is sanctimonious piety.

False.  The video wasn't edited.  He was praising Robert E. Lee in his buildup to Grant, the Grant stuff was just omitted by ending the video early, not editing.  And here you go again with the they did it too spiel.  It's mind blowing that with your huge disdain for the media, you are OK with the President and the White House acting (as you say) exactly like them.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
48 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

False.  The video wasn't edited.  He was praising Robert E. Lee in his buildup to Grant, the Grant stuff was just omitted by ending the video early, not editing.  And here you go again with the they did it too spiel.  It's mind blowing that with your huge disdain for the media, you are OK with the President and the White House acting (as you say) exactly like them.

Oh, yes and that wasn't done deliberately to mislead and wasn't in headline after headline of the liberal media. :rolleyes:Oh wait. Yes it was. You, sir, are quite a piece of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Oh, yes and that wasn't done deliberately to mislead and wasn't in headline after headline of the liberal media. :rolleyes:Oh wait. Yes it was. You, sir, are quite a piece of work.

See, here is the difference between you and I.  Go see if I supported that.  Go see if I made negative Trump comments in regards to that.  Go see if I went in that thread and said.."well Trump does it too."  Nope.  That's not me.  Partisanship and ESPECIALLY hypocrisy is not my style.  My 9 year old still says "but she did it"...thankfully my 12 year old has already grown out of it.  Maybe you will someday, too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 minute ago, Agent0range said:

See, here is the difference between you and I.  Go see if I supported that.  Go see if I made negative Trump comments in regards to that.  Go see if I went in that thread and said.."well Trump does it too."  Nope.  That's not me.  Partisanship and ESPECIALLY hypocrisy is not my style.  My 9 year old still says "but she did it"...thankfully my 12 year old has already grown out of it.  Maybe you will someday, too.

Of course it is, if you support deliberate deception as long as it furthers your politics, as you just blatantly did, defending that edit,  by omission, taking something out of context and misrepresenting the intent. Unlike you, I don't turn a blind eye to my own bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Of course it is, if you support deliberate deception as long as it furthers your politics, as you just blatantly did, defending that edit,  by omission, taking something out of context and misrepresenting the intent. Unlike you, I don't turn a blind eye to my own bias.

I blatantly supported deception?  Where in my quote did I show a shred of support for deception?  I told you what factually happened.  Do you even know the definition of blatant?  If you don't tell me, and I will be glad to post it for you.  You're an absolute loon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
53 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

I blatantly supported deception?  Where in my quote did I show a shred of support for deception?  I told you what factually happened.  Do you even know the definition of blatant?  If you don't tell me, and I will be glad to post it for you.  You're an absolute loon.

Xin loi, Joe. I call'em the way I see'em. You waved off an obvious deception as nothing. Are unaware that clipping a film or video is editing, all the while all tore up about three frames being emphasized in the Acosta video. Yet it's all there, no additions and not a single frame deleted.

Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
26 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Xin loi, Joe. I call'em the way I see'em. You waved off an obvious deception as nothing. Are unaware that clipping a film or video is editing, all the while all tore up about three frames being emphasized in the Acosta video. Yet it's all there, no additions and not a single frame deleted.

The film was not clipped, it just didn't show the whole truth AS I POINTED OUT!  The Acosta film was clearly manipulated, and sped up to look like a karate chop.  Anyway, I said he should be suspended!  You're truly a tool.  You look for any excuse you can to defend you're guy.  That's a you problem.  I'm not going to defend anyone in the wrong.  Acosta, Trump, Obama, no one.  My morals and values will not be compromised over someone who doesn't care one bit about me.  You're too far gone though...there's no chance for you to ever see the world that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
41 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

The film was not clipped, it just didn't show the whole truth AS I POINTED OUT!  The Acosta film was clearly manipulated, and sped up to look like a karate chop.  Anyway, I said he should be suspended!  You're truly a tool.  You look for any excuse you can to defend you're guy.  That's a you problem.  I'm not going to defend anyone in the wrong.  Acosta, Trump, Obama, no one.  My morals and values will not be compromised over someone who doesn't care one bit about me.  You're too far gone though...there's no chance for you to ever see the world that way.

Just as well. The odor of sanctimony is getting a bit much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

I posted this in a different thread before I seen this thread. Since nobody has posted the video directly to this thread so that we all know everyone sees the same thing.

It looks like deliberate contact with a small yet inappropriate degree of force. The type of contact that would make most wives and girlfriends grit their teeth, point their finger in your face and scornfully say that you better not touch them again. It wasnt the worst thing but it wasn't right. It was certainly enough to ruin the career of someone who isn't properly politically aligned. 

I see no subliminal microframes jerking the video making it look unnatural but I'm just a peabrained Trumpster. He laid his hands on her plain as day. Give it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
3 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I posted this in a different thread before I seen this thread. Since nobody has posted the video directly to this thread so that we all know everyone sees the same thing.

It looks like deliberate contact with a small yet inappropriate degree of force. The type of contact that would make most wives and girlfriends grit their teeth, point their finger in your face and scornfully say that you better not touch them again. It wasnt the worst thing but it wasn't right. It was certainly enough to ruin the career of someone who isn't properly politically aligned. 

I see no subliminal microframes jerking the video making it look unnatural but I'm just a peabrained Trumpster. He laid his hands on her plain as day. Give it up.

Here's the problem.  There is not a single person in this thread trying to justify his actions..so you saying "give it up", who are you directing that at, specifically?  His actions don't defend the fact of the White House sharing a doctored video from infowars.  At this point, it is 2 separate issues.  But, only one of them is being faithfully defended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
9 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Here's the problem.  There is not a single person in this thread trying to justify his actions..so you saying "give it up", who are you directing that at, specifically?  His actions don't defend the fact of the White House sharing a doctored video from infowars.  At this point, it is 2 separate issues.  But, only one of them is being faithfully defended.

My point was about the video not looking to be doctored. That's what give it up was. Fast or slow, he laid his hands on her and to expect people to not post an opinion on that is ridiculous. So yea I'm defending Sanders here while some others dismiss the inappropriate actions of Jimbo and that, to me, is a problem though it's not surprising. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 11/8/2018 at 10:02 AM, aztek said:

it does not look like anyone here but OP think it is important. what she tweeted

It is important and so unnecessary to fake the video if that was done.    Dishonesty and deceit are important when they occur on that level.  That is a separate issue from Jim Acosta's behavior.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

It is important and so unnecessary to fake the video if that was done.   

agree, but it was not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stardrive
On 11/9/2018 at 2:14 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

Or he wanted specific answers about how protected the Special Counsel would be in the future - on the same day the President took over the Special Counsel. Which is the polar opposite of the meaning of trolling.

Remember, when Acosta was asking the question, Trump had already fired Sessions and taken control of the investigation set up to investigate himself and his campaign. Trump's reaction to necessary questions was the real disgrace.

I'm not sure which version you saw but the one I saw on national TV he asked the president if he thought the caravan was an invasion. The president said yes, which answered his question. Acosta then proceeded to try and draw the President into a debate saying " no they're not invaders", which is not a question, it's an opinion.

Sessions wasn't fired. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.