Acosta's white house pass removed ..

[oxmixmudd]

so last friday I was getting a lot of guff about the videos. I posted my results yesterday and nobody said a word. Not even Charles who was accusing me of not being honest.

Hi sparko,

Thanks for doing that and posting your side by side video. I just saw it, and had missed it yesterday. So, what I see is basically what was claimed. The effect is subtle, I agree. To hold Acosta's hand emphasises that part, but it's only a small amount of time. Was the audio removed in the altered version as was mentioned in the explanation I posted?

I would agree that it would be unlikely someone would know the video was altered without careful analysis.. I do believe the alteration would set up an unconscious preference for the altered form if one belived Acosta's actions were aggressive or improper. Or if one wanted to show he was out of line. Which would have been the intent of the alteration.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

I would expect Chuck to give me an apology for impugning my honesty.

It snowed this morning at my house, so... maybe?

[Sparko]

Hi sparko,

Thanks for doing that and posting your side by side video. I just saw it, and had missed it yesterday. So, what I see is basically what was claimed. The effect is subtle, I agree. To hold Acosta's hand emphasises that part, but it's only a small amount of time. Was the audio removed in the altered version as was mentioned in the explanation I posted?

I would agree that it would be unlikely someone would know the video was altered without careful analysis.. I do believe the alteration would set up an unconscious preference for the altered form if one belived Acosta's actions were aggressive or improper. Or if one wanted to show he was out of line. Which would have been the intent of the alteration.

Jim

The resultant video had so much blurriness and ghosting in it, that the whole point of contact with her arm is lost in fuzziness. That, and the 1/15th of a second that it is "frozen" makes it pretty much impossible to notice the difference, at least to me.

There was no audio on the infowars clip. But that could be because he was making the slomo closeups and the audio would just get in the way and sound horrible.

Also, I notice on the slow motion closeups following the initial showing at normal speed and distance, there is no frame duplication there. It shows exactly right. If the editor was trying to fool people then why do the closeup showing the normal frame motion without the frame duplicating? I am thinking the initial frame duplications were some sort of unintentional glitch. But like I said, I can't be sure. There is another slight glitch at the very beginning of the clip where a frame is duplicated which is before the action even starts. I had to trim it out of the clip I made in order to get the two clips to line up for the arm action.

The think that bothers me the most here is that they are using this video, altered or not, to accuse Huckabee of being dishonest. Whether you agree with Trump and her or not about the validity of their reasoning, I don't think it is fair to accuse her of being dishonest and using a doctored video on purpose. She wouldn't have a clue about it.

I dislike the media using any excuse to hammer on her. They have been doing it from the beginning. Even to making fun of her looks.

[EvoUK]

Do they make fun of her looks? There was that female comedian who made a joke about Sanders using lies to create the perfect smokey eye or something, but is there something else?

[Cow Poke]

And, here we go....

CNN sues President Trump and White House for banning reporter Jim Acosta

[Sparko]

And, here we go....

CNN sues President Trump and White House for banning reporter Jim Acosta

Won't go anywhere. You cannot sue the US Government or the President without permission. And the White House has the right to determine who they allow in the press pool, there are only so many seats available. And Obama already set a precedent by banning Fox.

I think this could end up with Trump banning CNN completely.

[Bill the Cat]

Won't go anywhere. You cannot sue the US Government or the President without permission. And the White House has the right to determine who they allow in the press pool, there are only so many seats available. And Obama already set a precedent by banning Fox.

I think this could end up with Trump banning CNN completely.

And their stories would STILL contain the same level of journalism...

[Roy]

Won't go anywhere. You cannot sue the US Government or the President without permission.

That surprised me when I learnt it. It's counterintuitive (but understandable) that a democratic republic that rebelled against a tyrannical monarchy has retained a law based on the archaic idea that kings have absolute power. Especially since the monarchy in question has largely abandoned the notion.

[Sparko]

That surprised me when I learnt it. It's counterintuitive (but understandable) that a democratic republic that rebelled against a tyrannical monarchy has retained a law based on the archaic idea that kings have absolute power. Especially since the monarchy in question has largely abandoned the notion.

If it weren't the case, the US Government would be in court 365 days a year. Someone is always pissed off no matter what the decision is.

[Littlejoe]

Then why did you say she was "hunkered down"?

Sorry, I thought you were smart enough to realize I was admitting I was wrong and you were correct. However, go to this link: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post589594
and look at 1:33 in the video. She was indeed hunkered down. I thought she did this before the swat not after.

Bollocks. Aggression doesn't stop being aggression if you get paid for it. Bollocks. Invading some-one's space doesn't stop being invading some-one's space just because it's "part of the job".

right, bouncers and policemen NEVER use aggression.

Using your 'logic' hit-men aren't murderers because it's "part of the job".

big difference in one is a legally sanctioned job (intern) the other is highly Illegal. Ridiculous comparisons are just that....ridiculous.

[Charles]

so last friday I was getting a lot of guff about the videos. I posted my results yesterday and nobody said a word. Not even Charles who was accusing me of not being honest.

I never claimed you were dishonest. I just refused to take have to take what you said as the word of an expert since, among other things, you managed to contradict yourself.

Here is your first reply when I brought up the theme:

I watched the "doctored" video and the real one. I even brought both into a video editor. It was not doctored. They both show exactly the same thing. The one huckabee posted was just blurrier because it is zoomed in. It was not changed in any way. As a video editor I can't even think of a way to do something like that without making it very obvious or having a million dollar studio to create a 3D model to do it. [...]

And a few days later, you told us what we already knew:

OK I did the comparison.

It does appear to have a frame duplicated twice right when Acosta's hand touches the interns arm for the first time. I found no deleted frames. I found nothing speeded up. Acosta's hand seems to stay on her arm a bit too long.

I appreciate that you know confirm what we knew and I appreciate that you corrected your previous statement. I don't appreciate the statement that I called you dishonest since it is wrong.

[Sparko]

I never claimed you were dishonest. I just refused to take have to take what you said as the word of an expert since, among other things, you managed to contradict yourself.

Here is your first reply when I brought up the theme:



And a few days later, you told us what we already knew:



I appreciate that you know confirm what we knew and I appreciate that you corrected your previous statement. I don't appreciate the statement that I called you dishonest since it is wrong.

Now you are the one being dishonest, Charles. In that same post you quoted I mentioned the frame discrepancy. And I told you the first go round I was looking for actual tampering, not a frame glitch which happens a lot in video editing and converting.

I should have not expected you to have the integrity to apologize.

[Roy]

Sorry, I thought you were smart enough to realize I was admitting I was wrong and you were correct.

Oh, ok. I retract my complaint.

[Charles]

Now you are the one being dishonest, Charles. In that same post you quoted I mentioned the frame discrepancy. And I told you the first go round I was looking for actual tampering, not a frame glitch which happens a lot in video editing and converting.

I should have not expected you to have the integrity to apologize.

I never claimed you were dishonest so I can't apologize for having said you were.

Here is exactly what you said in the post i quoted:

I watched the "doctored" video and the real one. I even brought both into a video editor. It was not doctored. They both show exactly the same thing. The one huckabee posted was just blurrier because it is zoomed in. It was not changed in any way. As a video editor I can't even think of a way to do something like that without making it very obvious or having a million dollar studio to create a 3D model to do it. The side by side video that they are passing around is the doctored one. They simply shifted the video on the right by a couple of frames to show the contact at a different time. if you look at the actual frame at the point of contact, they are identical except one is blurrier. The only alternative facts is the one where they are claiming one of the videos is doctored.

Emphasis mine. I fail to see how this is in line with what you published after giving it a second look.

[Sparko]

I never claimed you were dishonest so I can't apologize for having said you were.

Here is exactly what you said in the post i quoted:



Emphasis mine. I fail to see how this is in line with what you published after giving it a second look.

Notice where I said "the shifted frames"? I said that it appeared that the frames were offset. I assumed at the time that the person making the side by side video did it but I said I would take another look at my comparison on Monday and see if that was the case since I didn't notice it. Which I did, which you kept questioning on Friday as if I would not tell the truth and in which kept leaving out the part about the shifted frames and claiming I said there was no difference, implying I was being dishonest. Heck you just did the very same thing in your post today, leaving out the parts of my post that didn't fit with your dishonest narrative. You have no integrity or honor Charles.

I am done arguing this with you Charles. You have shown your own dishonesty in this thread for all to see. There is nothing more to be said.