Topic: Showing select clips from a long video is no longer allowed.
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #87,399
It is now considered “doctoring” the video and when you post the “doctored video” online, that constitutes a “hoax”.
? ?
? ?
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #1,000,194
But people and news outlets sometimes do edit videos to remove context.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,195
@previous (B)
All of those times were fine, it is only a problem now that it has happened to Nancy Pelosi.
? ?
All of those times were fine, it is only a problem now that it has happened to Nancy Pelosi.
? ?
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,198
@previous (A)
It really isn't. This is a longstanding problem where celebrities and other public figures have embarassing footage leaked, sometimes without context to make them look bad and/or make someone some money.
All of that aside, I looked into this briefly, and even goddman Fox News says that the video was clearly doctored:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fake-pelosi-videos-trump-doctored
So yes, what this person did was clearly wrong.
It really isn't. This is a longstanding problem where celebrities and other public figures have embarassing footage leaked, sometimes without context to make them look bad and/or make someone some money.
All of that aside, I looked into this briefly, and even goddman Fox News says that the video was clearly doctored:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fake-pelosi-videos-trump-doctored
So yes, what this person did was clearly wrong.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,207
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 48 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,225
@1,000,198 (B)
"doctored" in this case meaning they used specific moments of a video. There was no professional CGI work or anything of the sort done, which is what is being implied by the mainstream media. All that was done, was specific moments were highlighted in a short social media clip... nothing that would seem out of the ordinary in professional settings for the past 50 years... but since it was a tweet it gets extra scrutiny.
There was no important context removed... it was a highlight reel showing moments that a lady appeared unfocused during a long speech. The cuts were not particularly hidden or anything!
"doctored" in this case meaning they used specific moments of a video. There was no professional CGI work or anything of the sort done, which is what is being implied by the mainstream media. All that was done, was specific moments were highlighted in a short social media clip... nothing that would seem out of the ordinary in professional settings for the past 50 years... but since it was a tweet it gets extra scrutiny.
There was no important context removed... it was a highlight reel showing moments that a lady appeared unfocused during a long speech. The cuts were not particularly hidden or anything!
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,227
@previous (A)
And the video slowed down with the pitch maintained, to give her the appearance of being drunk. Doctored.
And the video slowed down with the pitch maintained, to give her the appearance of being drunk. Doctored.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,230
@previous (D)
She looked drunk in the original footage too. Sorry that a meme video on twitter is the end of the world now.
? ?
She looked drunk in the original footage too. Sorry that a meme video on twitter is the end of the world now.
? ?
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,231
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,235
@1,000,225 (A)
No, not in this case. Please refer to the Fox article I linked:
If it was plausible that she was drunk, then Fox News would've jumped on that. But it wasn't, so they didn't.
OP, where are you getting this news from? You saying "mainstream" media makes me suspect that it's not somewhere credible. Sometimes, there's a good reason why outlets aren't mainstream, and it isn't because they're too honest.
No, not in this case. Please refer to the Fox article I linked:
Numerous doctored video clips of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, are spreading on social media, deceptively portraying her as if she were intoxicated.
According to a report from The Washington Post, experts believed the original video was slowed down to 75 percent from the original speed and that her pitch was also manipulated in order to present her under the influence.
Computer science and digital forensics expert Berkeley Hany Farid said there was "no question" the video had been tampered with.
Computer science and digital forensics expert Berkeley Hany Farid said there was "no question" the video had been tampered with.
If it was plausible that she was drunk, then Fox News would've jumped on that. But it wasn't, so they didn't.
OP, where are you getting this news from? You saying "mainstream" media makes me suspect that it's not somewhere credible. Sometimes, there's a good reason why outlets aren't mainstream, and it isn't because they're too honest.
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,236
@1,000,231 (D)> people who uh don't agree with me are like uh totally uneducated and uh gullible yeah
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,238
@previous (C)
You're an enormous retard whose entire personality is spamming the same images ad nauseam. So, yeah - this seems accurate!
You're an enormous retard whose entire personality is spamming the same images ad nauseam. So, yeah - this seems accurate!
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,239
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,242
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,245
@1,000,230 (A)
It's not the end of the world but it's clearly edited to show her as behaving a way that she wasn't. That's doctoring a video even if you don't add lens flare and a filter or whatever your weird definition of doctoring is.
It's not the end of the world but it's clearly edited to show her as behaving a way that she wasn't. That's doctoring a video even if you don't add lens flare and a filter or whatever your weird definition of doctoring is.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,246
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,247
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,250
@1,000,246 (A)
7/10, but you could've shopped AOC onto Ron Paul. Or Syntax!
7/10, but you could've shopped AOC onto Ron Paul. Or Syntax!
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,252
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 7 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,253
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,256
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,267
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,272
@1,000,250 (D)Does this improve the score any? Let me know if you would like me to doctor it any further!
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 31 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,273
mordor joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 16 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,274
New bulletin
Bulletins are short bits of news or updates about the site posted by the management, but regulars can post them too (The bulletins first have to be accepted by the Administrators or Moderators) (512 characters left).
You can not post bulletins at this time.
Bulletins are short bits of news or updates about the site posted by the management, but regulars can post them too (The bulletins first have to be accepted by the Administrators or Moderators) (512 characters left).
You can not post bulletins at this time.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,276
@previous (mordor)
Bulletins are a privilege not a right.
@1,000,273 (C)
Becky exercises terrible judgement and is high 24/7.
Bulletins are a privilege not a right.
@1,000,273 (C)
Becky exercises terrible judgement and is high 24/7.
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,279
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 16 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,280
@1,000,276 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)TTEH is always some combination of drunk or high, so he too isn't qualified hand out setimage.
What about FAke anon? Does he always moderate sober? If so, he might be the guy to handle this.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,285
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,294
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 30 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,332
Do you have the original video?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,338
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
The NewsMedia is trying to slowly introduce the public to the concept of "deepfakes" but this is totally hamfisted. She stammers and makes the wrong gestures in the original, all the memer did was slow it a few percent for emphasis!
Not a deepfake, more like a shallowreal.
The NewsMedia is trying to slowly introduce the public to the concept of "deepfakes" but this is totally hamfisted. She stammers and makes the wrong gestures in the original, all the memer did was slow it a few percent for emphasis!
Not a deepfake, more like a shallowreal.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,340
@1,000,332 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Also there are several versions of the meme, you know how memes are. I definitely saw a version that was just a tightly cut compilation of her goof ups with no slowdown before everyone latched onto this to push an agenda.
Also there are several versions of the meme, you know how memes are. I definitely saw a version that was just a tightly cut compilation of her goof ups with no slowdown before everyone latched onto this to push an agenda.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,348
@1,000,332 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Kook, this is what Trump tweeted: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1131728912835383300
You will find that it matches the full video, it was NOT doctored!
Kook, this is what Trump tweeted: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1131728912835383300
You will find that it matches the full video, it was NOT doctored!
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,349
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right.
Anonymous A (OP) quintuple-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,350
? ?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,352
A US President posted a doctored video to make his political opponent look drunk. That is absolutely outrageous, but his brainwashed cult members see nothing wrong with it.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,353
@1,000,198 (B)
But there have been multiple videos which show her uttering gibberish lol.
She is addled.
But there have been multiple videos which show her uttering gibberish lol.
She is addled.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,355
@1,000,352 (H)
Not doctored!
@1,000,332 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
kookerpie, here is the FULL and ORIGINAL video. Does the characterization that she seems drunk ring false to you?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?461025-1/speaker-pelosi-calls-president-trump-master-distraction
Not doctored!
@1,000,332 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
kookerpie, here is the FULL and ORIGINAL video. Does the characterization that she seems drunk ring false to you?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?461025-1/speaker-pelosi-calls-president-trump-master-distraction
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,358
@1,000,348 (A)
Ok I just saw the original and it doesn't appear to have been slowed down
Ok I just saw the original and it doesn't appear to have been slowed down
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 6 years ago, 25 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,359
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 26 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,361
Videos of her dementia fueled miscues have been appearing for months.
The truth is the truth.
TRUMP TRAIN 2020!
The truth is the truth.
TRUMP TRAIN 2020!
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,365
@1,000,338 (A)
Oh jesus. No, OP, they're not saying it's a "deepfake". It was a very simple edit made to make Pelosi look foolish. It got caught, and now you are doubling down instead of accepting it was a crude smear job.
There is no organised media conspiracy here. Unless you're saying that the left-wing media, Fox News, and independent academics are all working together to protect Pelosi.
@1,000,340 (A)
@1,000,348 (A)
You could take an extended speech from many politicians, and use precise editing to make them look foolish. Yes, it's still dishonest.
OP, you're as blindly distrustful of mainstream media as you accuse others of being blindly trusting of it. Sometimes they are correct, and sometimes an unfair smear really is an unfair smear.
Oh jesus. No, OP, they're not saying it's a "deepfake". It was a very simple edit made to make Pelosi look foolish. It got caught, and now you are doubling down instead of accepting it was a crude smear job.
There is no organised media conspiracy here. Unless you're saying that the left-wing media, Fox News, and independent academics are all working together to protect Pelosi.
@1,000,340 (A)
@1,000,348 (A)
You could take an extended speech from many politicians, and use precise editing to make them look foolish. Yes, it's still dishonest.
OP, you're as blindly distrustful of mainstream media as you accuse others of being blindly trusting of it. Sometimes they are correct, and sometimes an unfair smear really is an unfair smear.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,367
@previous (B)
She seems totally wasted for almost 100% of the length of the ORIGINAL video. Unless you think C-SPAN is in the business of doctoring official government speeches, the evidence is right here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?461025-1/speaker-pelosi-calls-president-trump-master-distraction
Press play and commence weeping.
She seems totally wasted for almost 100% of the length of the ORIGINAL video. Unless you think C-SPAN is in the business of doctoring official government speeches, the evidence is right here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?461025-1/speaker-pelosi-calls-president-trump-master-distraction
Press play and commence weeping.
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,371
Delicious liberal tears
are delicious.
are delicious.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 34 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,372
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 6 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,373
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 6 years ago, 24 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,374
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 42 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,375
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
She clearly popped a few too many xannys after getting owned by Trump in their meeting.
She clearly popped a few too many xannys after getting owned by Trump in their meeting.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,377
@1,000,373 (A)
Good rebuttal.
So, in conclusion, opposing media companies and academics are colluding to protect Nancy's reputation. Also, Nancy, a highly public figure, is hiding a crippling substance addiction, but the only sign of it is one speech.
OP = ??
Good rebuttal.
So, in conclusion, opposing media companies and academics are colluding to protect Nancy's reputation. Also, Nancy, a highly public figure, is hiding a crippling substance addiction, but the only sign of it is one speech.
OP = ??
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,381
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 9 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,382
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 58 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,383
@1,000,381 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I've noticed it a few times before, but nothing as severe as the speech on May 23rd!
I've noticed it a few times before, but nothing as severe as the speech on May 23rd!
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,384
Anonymous I double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,385
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,386
@1,000,377 (B)
FOX news retracted / corrected their reporting that Trump tweeted a doctored video.
They stated that the video he posted was not doctored. At least one media company has enough integrity to report the accurate facts, even if a bit late ?.
FOX news retracted / corrected their reporting that Trump tweeted a doctored video.
They stated that the video he posted was not doctored. At least one media company has enough integrity to report the accurate facts, even if a bit late ?.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 6 years ago, 30 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,408
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 53 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,409
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,413
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,418
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,428
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,505
@OP
> It is now considered “doctoring” the video and when you post the “doctored video” online, that constitutes a “hoax”.
>
> ? ?
why do you be a gigantic dipshit
> It is now considered “doctoring” the video and when you post the “doctored video” online, that constitutes a “hoax”.
>
> ? ?
why do you be a gigantic dipshit
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,511
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 8 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,645
I can't wait till deep fakes get to the point where no one can trust digital photo, audio, or video anymore. They'll have an app where you can just say "Hey Alexa make me a video of hookers peeing on Trump in the bed Obama slept in at the Russian hotel" and in 30 seconds you'll have a 100% real video of exactly that uploaded to YouTube. Same for audio and photos.
It'll bring us back to the pre-photography, pre-audio recording age. We'll have come full circle. It will no longer matter if you have shocking video of politician X doing Y because X's supporters have equally shocking video of your politician doing even worse. Maybe one, both, or neither are faked. It won't really matter. There will be no way to tell anymore.
So, knowing video is completely valueless and proves nothing, you get credible people to swear they personally saw politician X doing Y with their own eyes. But who's going to believe them? They have sworn statements from 11 people (not counting Joseph Smith) who personally saw the angel Moroni and the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Do you believe them?
Once video and audio can be faked to the point where anyone with an iPhone can make 4K video of Nancy Pelosi auctioning off child sex slaves in the basement of Comet Ping Pong, where do we go from there?
Of course we're already at that level with the written word. Anyone can set up a credible looking fake news website and write a story saying Nancy Pelosi is doing horrible things in the basement of a DC pizza restaurant. No one would believe it except the people who already believe it and they're too far gone for fact checking. But video I think would be different.
Of course you wouldn't want to go over the top with deep fakes. Something like the Trump watersports tape would be impossible to believe. You need to operate on the margins of credulity. You just need a deep fake of Trump saying something just a bit too racist. Nancy Pelosi being a just a bit too senile. Well of course Trump is always a bit too racist. Pelosi's always a bit too senile. But I mean just a bit more than usual. Just enough to push the envelope.
It'll bring us back to the pre-photography, pre-audio recording age. We'll have come full circle. It will no longer matter if you have shocking video of politician X doing Y because X's supporters have equally shocking video of your politician doing even worse. Maybe one, both, or neither are faked. It won't really matter. There will be no way to tell anymore.
So, knowing video is completely valueless and proves nothing, you get credible people to swear they personally saw politician X doing Y with their own eyes. But who's going to believe them? They have sworn statements from 11 people (not counting Joseph Smith) who personally saw the angel Moroni and the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Do you believe them?
Once video and audio can be faked to the point where anyone with an iPhone can make 4K video of Nancy Pelosi auctioning off child sex slaves in the basement of Comet Ping Pong, where do we go from there?
Of course we're already at that level with the written word. Anyone can set up a credible looking fake news website and write a story saying Nancy Pelosi is doing horrible things in the basement of a DC pizza restaurant. No one would believe it except the people who already believe it and they're too far gone for fact checking. But video I think would be different.
Of course you wouldn't want to go over the top with deep fakes. Something like the Trump watersports tape would be impossible to believe. You need to operate on the margins of credulity. You just need a deep fake of Trump saying something just a bit too racist. Nancy Pelosi being a just a bit too senile. Well of course Trump is always a bit too racist. Pelosi's always a bit too senile. But I mean just a bit more than usual. Just enough to push the envelope.
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,000,647
tl/dr