Acosta has pass revoked

[BlindBoo]

the first article is from FOX on it, don't you believe it?

and Marketwatch.com is not a partisan site.

besides, just watch the 2 different videos, one real, one doctored.... no other way to describe it... honestly...

Sanders may not have created the doctored video herself, but she did use a doctored video.

i edit videos for a hobby. a good friend does it for a living. the videos are not edited - at least any i've seen in these articles yet.

if you speed up the frame rate and that is all you do, EVERYTHING moves faster, which is not happening in any video i've seen yet. if you speed up his arm you get a ghosting / predator / halo effect on video like this - and again, not there.

people need to quit making shit up to be mad at all around. for all the mocking you do of the right when they say something outlandish you turn around and do the same thing by diving into things like this.

She used an INFOWARS video that was Doctored.

your choice, pick your own site as a source!

was video of acosta doctored - Google Search

I don't know if the Fox supposition is correct or the one on marketwatch which claims frames were added...

adding frames now? i guess when the first technical explanation goes splat on the wall you change it to keep the conspiracy alive.

adding in frames is going to require copying existing frames and dubbing them in which would increase the time differences between the 2 videos, of which isn't happening.

next up - they hired actors and re-enacted the event completely and released that video.

From one of them google links

"But according to an 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.

Ms Sanders' tweet came exactly two hours after the same video was shared by Paul Joseph Watson, editor-at-large of InfoWars, a far-right conspiracy theory website fronted by Trump-supporter Alex Jones."

Funny too the doctored video shows clearly who invaded who's space and was aggressively trying to rip the mic away from his hand. He blocked her with the other. BFD.

Not at all surprising of the L'yin bastards Administration. It's just what they do!

speed up the arm...
adding in frames
now... freezing 3 frames.

so, which is it? youll believe anything. its just what you do.

Don't care. She reached across and grabbed his hand and the mic. He blocked her. BFD.

But to say he assaulted her is just a typical deflecting lie we've become use to this so-called Administration. Obviously it gins up the base much better than Jim was banned because he rudely added Donnie aggressive questions.

But hey Jim got the dreaded finger wag. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get PTSD from that.

 

[my2¢]

If he had just grabbed her by the p*ssy, he'd have been fine.

 

[iceberg]

this sounds just as bad as saying acosta backhanded her.

both sides are looking for about anything at this point except reality.

the first article is from FOX on it, don't you believe it?

and Marketwatch.com is not a partisan site.

besides, just watch the 2 different videos, one real, one doctored.... no other way to describe it... honestly...

Sanders may not have created the doctored video herself, but she did use a doctored video.

i edit videos for a hobby. a good friend does it for a living. the videos are not edited - at least any i've seen in these articles yet.

if you speed up the frame rate and that is all you do, EVERYTHING moves faster, which is not happening in any video i've seen yet. if you speed up his arm you get a ghosting / predator / halo effect on video like this - and again, not there.

people need to quit making shit up to be mad at all around. for all the mocking you do of the right when they say something outlandish you turn around and do the same thing by diving into things like this.

She used an INFOWARS video that was Doctored.

your choice, pick your own site as a source!

was video of acosta doctored - Google Search

I don't know if the Fox supposition is correct or the one on marketwatch which claims frames were added...

i'm picking no site at all. i've seen the videos and i know for a fact you can't simply speed up the frame rate to get what you think you're getting.

you laugh at others for falling for a conspiracy theory then you run out and do it yourself. the video editing has already been debunked several times. but if you are hellbent on believing it, you will. much like those who think acosta "backhanded" her, you're going to die believing the video was edited.

you tell me - if you speed up the frame rate, how come the people in the background are not going "keystone cop" on us also?

It's not a conspiracy theory Iceberg, it ACTUALLY HAPPENED....

you can see they are different.... I'll wait for your apology!


View attachment 227620








By Drew Harwell
November 8 at 1:14 PM

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Wednesday night shared a video of CNN reporter Jim Acosta that appeared to have been altered to make his actions at a news conference look more aggressive toward a White House intern.

The edited video looks authentic: Acosta appeared to swiftly chop down on the arm of an aide as he held onto a microphone while questioning President Trump. But in the original video, Acosta’s arm appears to move only as a response to a tussle for the microphone. His statement, “Pardon me, ma’am,” is not included in the video Sanders shared.

Critics said that video — which sped up the movement of Acosta’s arms in a way that dramatically changed the journalist’s response — was deceptively edited to score political points. That edited video was first shared by Paul Joseph Watson, known for his conspiracy-theory videos on the far-right website Infowars.

Watson said he did not change the speed of the video and that claims he had altered it were a “brazen lie.” Watson, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment, told BuzzFeed he created the video by downloading an animated image from conservative news site Daily Wire, zooming in and saving it as a video — a conversion he says could have made it “look a tiny bit different.”

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.

The video has quickly become a flashpoint in the battle over viral misinformation, turning a live interaction watched by thousands in real time into just another ideological tug-of-war. But it has also highlighted how video content — long seen as an unassailable verification tool for truth and confirmation — has become as vulnerable to political distortion as anything else.

White House shares doctored video to support punishment of journalist Jim Acosta

have a nice long wait.

btw, which of the now 4 editing techniques was used? have we decided on one or are we still grasping at straws?

 

[Oddball]

 

[iceberg]

i edit videos for a hobby. a good friend does it for a living. the videos are not edited - at least any i've seen in these articles yet.

if you speed up the frame rate and that is all you do, EVERYTHING moves faster, which is not happening in any video i've seen yet. if you speed up his arm you get a ghosting / predator / halo effect on video like this - and again, not there.

people need to quit making shit up to be mad at all around. for all the mocking you do of the right when they say something outlandish you turn around and do the same thing by diving into things like this.

She used an INFOWARS video that was Doctored.

your choice, pick your own site as a source!

was video of acosta doctored - Google Search

I don't know if the Fox supposition is correct or the one on marketwatch which claims frames were added...

adding frames now? i guess when the first technical explanation goes splat on the wall you change it to keep the conspiracy alive.

adding in frames is going to require copying existing frames and dubbing them in which would increase the time differences between the 2 videos, of which isn't happening.

next up - they hired actors and re-enacted the event completely and released that video.

From one of them google links

"But according to an 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.

Ms Sanders' tweet came exactly two hours after the same video was shared by Paul Joseph Watson, editor-at-large of InfoWars, a far-right conspiracy theory website fronted by Trump-supporter Alex Jones."

Funny too the doctored video shows clearly who invaded who's space and was aggressively trying to rip the mic away from his hand. He blocked her with the other. BFD.

Not at all surprising of the L'yin bastards Administration. It's just what they do!

speed up the arm...
adding in frames
now... freezing 3 frames.

so, which is it? youll believe anything. its just what you do.

Don't care. She reached across and grabbed his hand and the mic. He blocked her. BFD.

But to say he assaulted her is just a typical deflecting lie we've become use to this so-called Administration. Obviously it gins up the base much better than Jim was banned because he rudely added Donnie aggressive questions.

But hey Jim got the dreaded finger wag. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get PTSD from that.

i never said he assaulted anyone. he simply pushed her hand back. a bit rude but he apologized to her right after. this is ALL BEYOND STUPID.

 

[g5000]

We must assault and banish reporters who dare question Der Fuhrer. Sieg Heil!

 

[g5000]

Trump should stop pretending and just allow only Sean Hannity into the White House.

Sieg Heil!

"Just how big is your penis, mein Fuhrer?"

 

[g5000]

Maybe allow Steve Douchey, too.

"Thank you for rising the sun this morning, Emperor!"

 

[kiwiman127]

We must assault and banish reporters who dare question Der Fuhrer. Sieg Heil!

According to Trump and his Little Trumpsters, Trump has every right to not honor the oath Trump took, when he was sworn in as president.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[Oddball]

We must assault and banish reporters who dare question Der Fuhrer. Sieg Heil!

 

[g5000]

REPORTER: Mr. President, you said you were going to divert the incoming comet by waving your arms to and fro. How are you-

TRUMP: Swarm! Swarm!

 

[busybee01]

Jim Acosta no longer has access to the White House.

CNN's Jim Acosta has press pass suspended by White House, Sarah Sanders announces

Was he rude enough to deserve this? Share.

Imagine if they banned all rude people, Trump would be kicked out. Funny how there's one rule for one lot of people, and another for others.

Also funny that asking questions of presidential policy is deemed rude.

any man had every right to PUNCH that jackass for putting his hand on a female

The aide assaulted Acosta by trying to grab the mike. If anyone should be punched out, it was Trump. He was obnoxious and offensive.

 

[Care4all]

the first article is from FOX on it, don't you believe it?

and Marketwatch.com is not a partisan site.

besides, just watch the 2 different videos, one real, one doctored.... no other way to describe it... honestly...

Sanders may not have created the doctored video herself, but she did use a doctored video.

i edit videos for a hobby. a good friend does it for a living. the videos are not edited - at least any i've seen in these articles yet.

if you speed up the frame rate and that is all you do, EVERYTHING moves faster, which is not happening in any video i've seen yet. if you speed up his arm you get a ghosting / predator / halo effect on video like this - and again, not there.

people need to quit making shit up to be mad at all around. for all the mocking you do of the right when they say something outlandish you turn around and do the same thing by diving into things like this.

She used an INFOWARS video that was Doctored.

your choice, pick your own site as a source!

was video of acosta doctored - Google Search

I don't know if the Fox supposition is correct or the one on marketwatch which claims frames were added...

i'm picking no site at all. i've seen the videos and i know for a fact you can't simply speed up the frame rate to get what you think you're getting.

you laugh at others for falling for a conspiracy theory then you run out and do it yourself. the video editing has already been debunked several times. but if you are hellbent on believing it, you will. much like those who think acosta "backhanded" her, you're going to die believing the video was edited.

you tell me - if you speed up the frame rate, how come the people in the background are not going "keystone cop" on us also?

It's not a conspiracy theory Iceberg, it ACTUALLY HAPPENED....

you can see they are different.... I'll wait for your apology!


View attachment 227620








By Drew Harwell
November 8 at 1:14 PM

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Wednesday night shared a video of CNN reporter Jim Acosta that appeared to have been altered to make his actions at a news conference look more aggressive toward a White House intern.

The edited video looks authentic: Acosta appeared to swiftly chop down on the arm of an aide as he held onto a microphone while questioning President Trump. But in the original video, Acosta’s arm appears to move only as a response to a tussle for the microphone. His statement, “Pardon me, ma’am,” is not included in the video Sanders shared.

Critics said that video — which sped up the movement of Acosta’s arms in a way that dramatically changed the journalist’s response — was deceptively edited to score political points. That edited video was first shared by Paul Joseph Watson, known for his conspiracy-theory videos on the far-right website Infowars.

Watson said he did not change the speed of the video and that claims he had altered it were a “brazen lie.” Watson, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment, told BuzzFeed he created the video by downloading an animated image from conservative news site Daily Wire, zooming in and saving it as a video — a conversion he says could have made it “look a tiny bit different.”

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.

The video has quickly become a flashpoint in the battle over viral misinformation, turning a live interaction watched by thousands in real time into just another ideological tug-of-war. But it has also highlighted how video content — long seen as an unassailable verification tool for truth and confirmation — has become as vulnerable to political distortion as anything else.

White House shares doctored video to support punishment of journalist Jim Acosta

have a nice long wait.

btw, which of the now 4 editing techniques was used? have we decided on one or are we still grasping at straws?

i don't know, I just can SEE they are different?

 

[iceberg]

i edit videos for a hobby. a good friend does it for a living. the videos are not edited - at least any i've seen in these articles yet.

if you speed up the frame rate and that is all you do, EVERYTHING moves faster, which is not happening in any video i've seen yet. if you speed up his arm you get a ghosting / predator / halo effect on video like this - and again, not there.

people need to quit making shit up to be mad at all around. for all the mocking you do of the right when they say something outlandish you turn around and do the same thing by diving into things like this.

She used an INFOWARS video that was Doctored.

your choice, pick your own site as a source!

was video of acosta doctored - Google Search

I don't know if the Fox supposition is correct or the one on marketwatch which claims frames were added...

i'm picking no site at all. i've seen the videos and i know for a fact you can't simply speed up the frame rate to get what you think you're getting.

you laugh at others for falling for a conspiracy theory then you run out and do it yourself. the video editing has already been debunked several times. but if you are hellbent on believing it, you will. much like those who think acosta "backhanded" her, you're going to die believing the video was edited.

you tell me - if you speed up the frame rate, how come the people in the background are not going "keystone cop" on us also?

It's not a conspiracy theory Iceberg, it ACTUALLY HAPPENED....

you can see they are different.... I'll wait for your apology!


View attachment 227620








By Drew Harwell
November 8 at 1:14 PM

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Wednesday night shared a video of CNN reporter Jim Acosta that appeared to have been altered to make his actions at a news conference look more aggressive toward a White House intern.

The edited video looks authentic: Acosta appeared to swiftly chop down on the arm of an aide as he held onto a microphone while questioning President Trump. But in the original video, Acosta’s arm appears to move only as a response to a tussle for the microphone. His statement, “Pardon me, ma’am,” is not included in the video Sanders shared.

Critics said that video — which sped up the movement of Acosta’s arms in a way that dramatically changed the journalist’s response — was deceptively edited to score political points. That edited video was first shared by Paul Joseph Watson, known for his conspiracy-theory videos on the far-right website Infowars.

Watson said he did not change the speed of the video and that claims he had altered it were a “brazen lie.” Watson, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment, told BuzzFeed he created the video by downloading an animated image from conservative news site Daily Wire, zooming in and saving it as a video — a conversion he says could have made it “look a tiny bit different.”

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.

The video has quickly become a flashpoint in the battle over viral misinformation, turning a live interaction watched by thousands in real time into just another ideological tug-of-war. But it has also highlighted how video content — long seen as an unassailable verification tool for truth and confirmation — has become as vulnerable to political distortion as anything else.

White House shares doctored video to support punishment of journalist Jim Acosta

have a nice long wait.

btw, which of the now 4 editing techniques was used? have we decided on one or are we still grasping at straws?

i don't know, I just can SEE they are different?

oooook

 

[HenryBHough]

Who in Hell does Acosta think he is? Groppy Joe Biden?

 

[busybee01]

Was he rude enough to deserve this? Share.

SERIOUSLY?

The entire Press conference was a circus, but Acosta was the head CLOWN.

Acosta acted like an entitled, spoiled, arrogant prick, having his question answered but demanding he be allowed ask a follow-up question, refusing to give up the microphone being shared by all the reporters, continuing to disrupt the Press conference, ignoring the President telling him 'That's Enough' at least 4 - 5 times, physically blocking a female intern's attempt to do her job - retrieving the microphone from Acosta....?

Acosta had the gall later to declare HE thought he had acted 'extremely professionally'.

No reporter would have treated Obama so shamelessly and never DID do so!

It was more than enough to ban his ass. He should not be the only one, though -

PBS 'reporter' Alcindor, when given the opportunity to ask a question really didn't ASK the President a question as much as actually calling the President a 'Racist' / 'White Supremacist Supporter'.

She acknowledged the President had called himself a 'Nationalist' and then continued by saying 'SOME SAY' that he is more of a racist / is emboldening white supremacists, despite the fact that he has denounced white supremacists numerous times. (The snowflakes / liberals claimed each time, however, that the President had not denounced them 'ENOUGH' or not in the way they demanded him do so.



The President was right to call her out for her racist and insulting question, which amounted to little more than a disrespectful racist attack on him during the Press Conference.

Other reporters stood up at times and shouted out remarks and questions, causing the President to call them out for their behavior, to sit down, wait for their turn, etc....

The reason is simple. Trump didn't answer the question so Acosta called him on it. He has not denounced white supremacists. He claimed not to know who David Duke was when that was clearly a lie. He refused to call out white supremacists in Charlottesville and the pained expression on Kelly's face when he was listening said it all.

There was nothing racist about the question. It was a tough question but it should have been asked. Trump was the obnoxious, offensive one. He should have been ejected.

 

[mudwhistle]

I refer to President Twitter in a less than deferential fashion because overall I don't approve of his behavior and given the fact that he works for me and not the other way around, I as a citizen am well within my rights to do so (well at least until he and his cohorts get around to working to intimidate private citizens for expressing views he doesn't like I suppose), he'll get more respect and less ridicule when he begins behaving in a fashion that merits it.

Well you're a better person than I. I don't approve of him because of his face. Just look at that face. Can you believe people (especially women) voted for a face like that? Hard to imagine a President with a face like that!

I don't dislike Donald Trump the person, heck as one that has followed his career since the 1980's I find certain things about him that are admirable, however his public behavior and his often egregious exaggerations of and complete disregard for the truth aren't among them.

IMHO If he'd just shut his mouth, close his twitter account and stick to his policy agenda he'd be doing a lot better from a public relations standpoint, as it stands now all he does is feed the hunger of his "base" for ever more outlandish demagoguery and deepen the divide that exists among the citizenry.

He's quickly becoming the modern day equivalent of Caligula.

You're just an example of communist brainwashing techniques.
You wouldn't feel the way you do about him if you didn't buy into the media's false narrative of him.
Everything he says is torn apart and editorialized in a negative manner.
You don't feel this way because Trump made you feel that way. You're simply reflecting the media's horrible feelings about losing in 2016. Most of what you hear about him is their opinions of him, not what he's said or done, and what they say about him is simply so much hyperbole.

 

[busybee01]

The NBC video shows Acosta's left arm reaching across the woman's body to touch her left arm, preventing her from grabbing the mike. So, are we to believe that NBC is using a doctored video? To me, it wasn't all that egregious, BUT when the President tells you to sit down and shut up and give up the mike then that's what he should have done IMHO. It's called deference to the President of the United States, you don't keep talking and interrupting the proceedings. Jim Acosta is IMHO a jerk; you don't have to like the man who is the POTUS but you damn well have to respect the office he holds and the building you're in, and Acosta didn't do that.

https://nbcnews.to/2JLREsq

Acosta was assaulted by the aide. He had every right to do what he did. Your job as a press member is to get Trump to answer the question. You don't defer when he does not answer your question. You are the jerk. When Trump does not respect the office, why should anyone else. Acosta did the right thing.

 

[task0778]

Look at the way Acosta baits the President, look at the way he argues with him, look at the way he won't shut up, sit down, and stay down. This is what passes for journalism these days? Trump is no choir boy either, but one of them is the President of the United States, and it ain't Acosta. When the POTUS tells you to sit down, shut up, and give up the mike in the White House, then you should do it. What Acosta did was disrespectful and unprofessional IMHO, and he deserves what he got.

 

[busybee01]

I refer to President Twitter in a less than deferential fashion because overall I don't approve of his behavior and given the fact that he works for me and not the other way around, I as a citizen am well within my rights to do so (well at least until he and his cohorts get around to working to intimidate private citizens for expressing views he doesn't like I suppose), he'll get more respect and less ridicule when he begins behaving in a fashion that merits it.

Well you're a better person than I. I don't approve of him because of his face. Just look at that face. Can you believe people (especially women) voted for a face like that? Hard to imagine a President with a face like that!

I don't dislike Donald Trump the person, heck as one that has followed his career since the 1980's I find certain things about him that are admirable, however his public behavior and his often egregious exaggerations of and complete disregard for the truth aren't among them.

IMHO If he'd just shut his mouth, close his twitter account and stick to his policy agenda he'd be doing a lot better from a public relations standpoint, as it stands now all he does is feed the hunger of his "base" for ever more outlandish demagoguery and deepen the divide that exists among the citizenry.

He's quickly becoming the modern day equivalent of Caligula.

You're just an example of communist brainwashing techniques.
You wouldn't feel the way you do about him if you didn't buy into the media's false narrative of him.
Everything he says is torn apart and editorialized in a negative manner.
You don't feel this way because Trump made you feel that way. You're simply reflecting the media's horrible feelings about losing in 2016. Most of what you hear about him is their opinions of him, not what he's said or done, and what they say about him is simply so much hyperbole.

You are a example of a cult member. A person completely brainwashed by the cult of Trump. You are aware of the fact that the Commie Russians are very unhappy about Democrats taking over the House.

The fact is that many Republicans in the suburbs listened to Trump and rejected it despite the fact he doubled down on hatred. The fact is that Americans oppose what Trump is trying to do, We are listening to what Trump says and does.