CNN losing credibility as each day passes... Its pure propaganda at this point

[Bray Wyatt]

7 minutes ago, peace out said:

 

I knew you could come up with a new one!!

[Buddy Hix]

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The WTC was a controlled demolition, too.  It's obvious on the undoctored video.

 

God, you people are such ***** morons.  Amateur dipshits thinking they can do photo-analysis on online videos on consumer-grade electronics.  You CAN'T.  Stop pretending you can.  

 

And even if you can...just go back and look at the original.  ***** dumbasses. 

You sure like straw men. Constantly defending arguments that haven’t been made.

 

And the link I provided spells out which frames were added.

 

Why did the WH share that Infowars vid instead of letting the videos already circulating speak for themselves?

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

This stuff is insane. I keep thinking they can't get possibly get more insane, then every day I'm proven wrong. Multiple people in my office believe that he never even touched her. That the whole thing was doctored. Not just slowed down, but totally fabricated. 

 

People doubt things like MK Ultra and Mockingbird. 

 

Then events like this happen where they manage to manipulate people into believing a complete falsehood. 

 

Things are only going to get stranger as we head towards January.

[Buddy Hix]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Compression artifacts aren't added frames. 

 

You're wrong, and pushing a lie. 

 

But that's okay, because if you believe in something enough the truth doesn't matter. 

So the argument shifts to semantics?

 

Was the video altered to paint Costa in a bad light?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Buddy Hix said:

So the argument shifts to semantics?

 

Was the video altered to paint Costa in a bad light?

 

You said frames were added. Your words. 

 

Those are lies. 

 

Are you going to admit you were wrong? Or are you going to double down on the narrative you're being programmed to believe?

[Buddy Hix]

13 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

You ***** retard.  The article itself says the frame format is different.  CSpan uses progressive, where the White House provided a video with interleaved frames.

 

Those aren't "added" frames, they're differences in systems of framing. 

Tell half the story...it suits you.

 

The video was posted using interlaced frames, rather than C-SPAN’s progressive frames, so cannot be made to match up exactly with the original footage. However, when compared side-by-side, there is a clear moment (Frames 13, 14, 15 in our first clip, where the C-SPAN version is on the left) when the Sanders video halts and the C-SPAN footage does not. The two clips, which were roughly in sync before that moment, are out of sync thereafter.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, Buddy Hix said:

I think the situation was unfortunate and all involved handled it poorly. If the WH doesn’t ban JA the story dies.

 

The situation was created solely by Jim Acosta, who has apparently managed through his gross unprofessionalism, to normalize the complete disrespecting of the Office of President and the disregard of White House decorum to the point that you're assigning some sort of blame to the people he was acting out against, including physical aggression.

 

Jim Acosta handled it poorly.  Everyone else reacted in a beyond measured and controlled way.

 

The White House should have pulled his hard pass months ago.  That they waited until a point that it actually involved him being physically aggressive towards White House staff demonstrates an unfathomable amount of restraint by the President.

 

Quote

The issue coming out of this that concerns me is the WH disseminating doctored propaganda, and Trump lying about it.

 

 

 

But do explain to me how I’m stupid for viewing the situation that way.

 

 

They didn't "doctor the video" anymore than slow motion instant replays in sports do when they slow down the footage to determine if a receivers feet landed in bounds.  And no, they didn't "add frames" they used a different framing system.  The video isn't doctored.  It demonstrates clearly and exactly what happened.

 

You're being led around by people who are telling you not to believe your lying eyes, because your lying eyes would betray who they are.  They're doing it right to your face because they think you're stupid, and you're proving them right. 

Edited November 9, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Buddy Hix said:

Tell half the story...it suits you.

 

The video was posted using interlaced frames, rather than C-SPAN’s progressive frames, so cannot be made to match up exactly with the original footage. However, when compared side-by-side, there is a clear moment (Frames 13, 14, 15 in our first clip, where the C-SPAN version is on the left) when the Sanders video halts and the C-SPAN footage does not. The two clips, which were roughly in sync before that moment, are out of sync thereafter.

 

Compression artifacts are not adding frames. That's what they're describing. 

 

Which are not added frames. 

 

You're wrong. And pushing a lie that people want you to push because they think you're too stupid to think for yourself. Stop proving them correct.

[IDBillzFan]

15 minutes ago, peace out said:

 

Totally grateful for the free rent we keep in your head to the extent that you would stop what you're doing to create this graphic.

[Deranged Rhino]

From the source itself. 

 

[Buddy Hix]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You said frames were added. Your words. 

 

Those are lies. 

 

Are you going to admit you were wrong? Or are you going to double down on the narrative you're being programmed to believe?

I don’t need to get caught up in semantics, I’m not a technical expert on the subject matter. I may have used the wrong terms.

 

Do you think, as I do, that the WH shared an altered video in order to make Costa’s actions appear worse than they were?

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, Buddy Hix said:

I don’t need to get caught up in semantics, I’m not a technical expert on the subject matter. I may have used the wrong terms.

 

Do you think, as I do, that the WH shared an altered video in order to make Costa’s actions appear worse than they were?

 

Do you think the NFL is showing something that didn't happen when they do slow motion instant replays to determine if a receiver's feet land in bounds?

 

The White House demonstrated what happened, the video is not "doctored", and Jim Acosta's actions are exactly as bad as they appear.

 

Or do you think it's appropriate to be physically aggressive with people working in a professional environment?

 

If someone did what Acosta did in my workplace, they'd be walked out of the building.

Edited November 9, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[boyst]

You know, I used to feel like I wasn't educated, smart enough, nor had the intelligence to post and belong on PPP.  Thanks to the additions of folks like @BeginnersMind and @Buddy Hix the inclusion of all people's, specifically the mentally insufficient has made it abundantly clear. PPP is for everyone! 

Edited November 9, 2018 by Boyst62

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Buddy Hix said:

I don’t need to get caught up in semantics, I’m not a technical expert on the subject matter. I may have used the wrong terms.

 

This isn't semantics. It's your statement. You said they added frames and laughed at those who said otherwise, called them conspiracy nuts. 

 

Can't you even be honest long enough to say, "I was wrong (not used the wrong terms)", or is your programming too strong?

 

2 minutes ago, Buddy Hix said:

Do you think, as I do, that the WH shared an altered video in order to make Costa’s actions appear worse than they were?

 

I didn't need a WH video to show me what happened as I have eyes and watched it live. And can see it literally happen exactly the same from about twelve other different video feeds of the event available for all to see. 

 

The video was zoomed and slowed. Nothing more. That's not manipulating the video. It doesn't change what happened. Nothing was added to make it seem worse. Acosta has no one to blame but himself. I said from the start it wasn't "assault", that claim is as false as your claim that the video was maliciously doctored.

[Warren Zevon]

Move over Jim - time for Abby Phillip to shine. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Buddy Hix]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

This isn't semantics. It's your statement. You said they added frames and laughed at those who said otherwise, called them conspiracy nuts. 

 

Can't you even be honest long enough to say, "I was wrong (not used the wrong terms)", or is your programming too strong?

 

 

I didn't need a WH video to show me what happened as I have eyes and watched it live. And can see it literally happen exactly the same from about twelve other different video feeds of the event available for all to see. 

 

The video was zoomed and slowed. Nothing more. That's not manipulating the video. It doesn't change what happened. Nothing was added to make it seem worse. Acosta has no one to blame but himself. I said from the start it wasn't "assault", that claim is as false as your claim that the video was maliciously doctored.

I was wrong to say added frames, the frames appear to be repeated.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/08/white-house-shares-doctored-video-support-punishment-journalist-jim-acosta/?utm_term=.d01f9b675e0c

 

Side-by-side comparisons support claims from fact-checkers and experts such as Jonathan Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, who argued that crucial parts of the video appear to have been altered so as to distort the action

 

A frame-by-frame breakdown by Storyful, a social-media intelligence firm that verifies media content, found that the edited video included repeated frames that did not appear in the original footage. The repeated frames were shown only at the moment of contact and made Acosta’s arm movement look more exaggerated, said Shane Raymond, a journalist at Storyful.

 

Can you admit the video was altered?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Buddy Hix said:

Can you admit the video was altered?

 

Now you want to play semantics  

 

The video was slowed and zoomed. That's NOT altering the video. But it does change how the video looks, because it's zoomed and slowed. 

 

The narrative you're pushing is a lie. You know it's a lie now as you've already admitted no frames were added (which is true, and am not bashing you for, it's good to admit when you're wrong - and I try to do the same when I am all the time). I'm trying to get you to see that the people in the MSM saying "doctored" saying "edited video" are lying to you for their own partisan purposes - and they think you're too stupid or partisan to think for yourself. Don't prove them correct. Be better than CNN or MSNBC or Fox. Be the best Buddy Hix you can be. 

[Buddy Hix]

7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

 

Now you want to play semantics  

 

The video was slowed and zoomed. That's NOT altering the video. But it does change how the video looks, because it's zoomed and slowed. 

 

The narrative you're pushing is a lie. You know it's a lie now as you've already admitted no frames were added (which is true, and am not bashing you for, it's good to admit when you're wrong - and I try to do the same when I am all the time). I'm trying to get you to see that the people in the MSM saying "doctored" saying "edited video" are lying to you for their own partisan purposes - and they think you're too stupid or partisan to think for yourself. Don't prove them correct. Be better than CNN or MSNBC or Fox. Be the best Buddy Hix you can be. 

So you don't want to address this quote from the Times article I included?

 

Side-by-side comparisons support claims from fact-checkers and experts such as Jonathan Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, who argued that crucial parts of the video appear to have been altered so as to distort the action.

A frame-by-frame breakdown by Storyful, a social-media intelligence firm that verifies media content, found that the edited video included repeated frames that did not appear in the original footage. The repeated frames were shown only at the moment of contact and made Acosta’s arm movement look more exaggerated, said Shane Raymond, a journalist at Storyful.

 

Which is the crux of the argument I was making.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Buddy Hix said:

So you don't want to address this quote from the Times article I included?

 

Side-by-side comparisons support claims from fact-checkers and experts such as Jonathan Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, who argued that crucial parts of the video appear to have been altered so as to distort the action.

A frame-by-frame breakdown by Storyful, a social-media intelligence firm that verifies media content, found that the edited video included repeated frames that did not appear in the original footage. The repeated frames were shown only at the moment of contact and made Acosta’s arm movement look more exaggerated, said Shane Raymond, a journalist at Storyful.

 

Which is the crux of the argument I was making.

 

I did address it, three times now. They're talking about compression artifacts which happen during the upload. They're not added frames. They're not edited frames. It's compression artifacts that occur when you render and upload from one source to the next. 

 

The crux of your argument is built on people lying to you through omission. Don't fall for it. Think for yourself, trust your own eyes and go watch any of the videos of the event for yourself and see.