Analysis of CMP videos

At direction of counsel to Planned Parenthood, Fusion GPS analyzed a series of videos recently released
by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) purporting to represent undercover sting operations
against Planned Parenthood. Fusion GPS also commissioned experts to review the videos and
conducted preliminary research into the CMP organization and its personnel.

Between July 14th and August 4th, 2015, CMP released a series of videos depicting Planned Parenthood
staffers in conversation with CMP operatives posing as employees of a biomedical firm that procures
fetal tissue for sale to stem cell researchers. The videos attempt to show that Planned Parenthood
profits from the sale of fetal tissue, and, secondarily, that its doctors follow an abortion procedure that
violates the so-called “partial birth” abortion ban. A thorough review of these videos in consultation
with qualified experts found that they do not present a complete or accurate record of the eventsthey
purport to depict.

Each release by CMP contained a short edited video, between eight and fifteen minutes in length, that
intercuts clips from the undercover recordings with other content, and a “full footage” video that
claims to provide the raw, unedited footage of each interview. A video forensics expert, a television
producer, an independent transcription agency, and Fusion GPS staff reviewed this material. While
these analysts found no evidence that CMP inserted dialogue not spoken by Planned Parenthood staff,
their review did conclude that CMP edited content out of the alleged “full footage” videos, and heavily
edited the short videos so as to misrepresent statements made by Planned Parenthood representatives.
In addition, the CMP transcriptfor the “full footage” video shot at Planned Parenthood’s Gulf Coast
facility in Texas differs substantially from the content of the tape.

At this point, it isimpossible to characterize the extent to which CMP’s undisclosed edits and cuts
distort the meaning of the encountersthe videos purport to document. However, the manipulation of
the videos does mean they have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for
any official inquiries unless supplemented by CMP’s original material and forensic authentication that this
material issupplied in unaltered form. The videos also lack credibility as journalistic products.

Read more at https://istandwithpp.org/files/9414...r-Medical-Progress-Videos-Forensic-Report.pdf

=================================

This does not surprise me at all. I was pretty sure that the alleged unedited videos they released were, in fact, edited. CMP has zero, zip, zilch, nada credibility.

Wow, So all the talk about "unedited" was full of crap on CMPs part.

This is what I talk about all the time. There are differences of "perception" and outright lies and manipulation of information.

If sources consistently lie or manipulate the truth why would folks trust them as a source?

In terms of difference of perception - cant do much about that. These are in general philosophical differences that are pretty ingrained.

But there should be an absolute expectation of a source being truthful - including not manipulating information.

Interesting that there's been no replies by anti choicers......

Scrabaholic said:

Interesting that there's been no replies by anti choicers......

Click to expand...

Not really interesting at all. Pretty predicable.

Not really. Another board I frequent, they're going balls to the wall on defending the videos.

Ya, did they cut video out where one of them got up to go to the bathroom? Perhaps revealing personal information?

There are ways that video can be edited that does not alter content. Long enough segments without cuts to get that context is what it is...

In response to post 3; I never expected the pro-baby killers to change their perspectives either, and btw, I'm not anti-choice, I am pro-be real about what you are doing, and or take responsibility for actions.

BmanMcfly said:

Ya, did they cut video out where one of them got up to go to the bathroom? Perhaps revealing personal information?

There are ways that video can be edited that does not alter content. Long enough segments without cuts to get that context is what it is...

In response to post 3; I never expected the pro-baby killers to change their perspectives either, and btw, I'm not anti-choice, I am pro-be real about what you are doing, and or take responsibility for actions.

Click to expand...

Since those videos were edited, can you show they were not edited for content?? How would you know?

RAMOSS said:

Since those videos were edited, can you show they were not edited for content?? How would you know?

Click to expand...

Especially when it was shoved down our throats about how the video was unedited.

If they cannot be honest about an item that was totally shoved down out throats...what else are they lying about?

RAMOSS said:

Since those videos were edited, can you show they were not edited for content?? How would you know?

Click to expand...

Um... There are several minute segments with no cuts whatsoever, I don't care how good you are, you're not going to get completely clean cuts.

Long enough the context is undeniable, and so, really this just grasping.

What content could possibly be missing to make those videos acceptable?

year2late said:

Especially when it was shoved down our throats about how the video was unedited.

If they cannot be honest about an item that was totally shoved down out throats...what else are they lying about?

Click to expand...

Ya, they are talking for a while, could it be one or the other went to the washroom?

You could split each segment into a video of its own, and in each case there's enough context to make the point.

Dishonest just sums up the makers of these undercover exposing video's. They edit deceitfully, they claim things deceitfully, let's be honest, they are just crooks with a mission (a mission to distort and lie that is).

BmanMcfly said:

Ya, they are talking for a while, could it be one or the other went to the washroom?

You could split each segment into a video of its own, and in each case there's enough context to make the point.

Click to expand...

No, the point is that we were assured it was unedited - it was obvious the first videos were released were so heavily edited to change context of conversations - so when we are told these videos are emphatically unedited....and surprise.....they are edited. If there was some other editing or such it should have been divulged before hand (and explained) .So now, it looks like they are being just as dishonest as the first.

I have said this before....this "by all means necessary" way of fighting for a cause just backfires on multiple levels.

But of course,none of this has lead to any arrests (for the eternally hopeful, "yet").

Let's assume these were extremely heavily edited in whatever way is being claimed by PP.

I think what disturbed people about those videos wasn't created by any kind of editing.
I think what bothered people wasn't discussions or negotiations about money. It was the callous nature when referring to the "products", the Lamborghini joke, the salad munching, altering the procedure based on what "products" were needed, etc.
Even a hardcore pro-choicer should have been a little taken aback, I would have thought.
There's also the hypocrisy. I would like to hear the way the doctor talks to a client just prior to the abortion versus the way they spoke on the video.

I happen to be anti-abortion, but I'm not saying shut them down or anything like that. But these videos should have transcended politics, everyone should have been bothered.
My guess is that pro-choicers assumed a defensive posture about the videos which makes someone less likely to give their honest feelings.

year2late said:

No, the point is that we were assured it was unedited - it was obvious the first videos were released were so heavily edited to change context of conversations - so when we are told these videos are emphatically unedited....and surprise.....they are edited. If there was some other editing or such it should have been divulged before hand (and explained) .So now, it looks like they are being just as dishonest as the first.

I have said this before....this "by all means necessary" way of fighting for a cause just backfires on multiple levels.

But of course,none of this has lead to any arrests (for the eternally hopeful, "yet").

Click to expand...

Ya, that was the claim BEFORE the first video came out. PP said "there will be some highly edited videos coming out in the coming days and weeks".

Can you show a singular example of the context change that you describe? The video number and a time stamp should suffice, if you can show what the context was and changed to, that would be great.

It's easy to claim bad context, but usually, it's a claim without merit.

BmanMcfly said:

Ya, that was the claim BEFORE the first video came out. PP said "there will be some highly edited videos coming out in the coming days and weeks".

Can you show a singular example of the context change that you describe? The video number and a time stamp should suffice, if you can show what the context was and changed to, that would be great.

It's easy to claim bad context, but usually, it's a claim without merit.

Click to expand...

How can we know what was really there?

Seriously?:lamo

year2late said:

How can we know what was really there?
Seriously?:lamo

Click to expand...

Even with the versions that were supposedly edited for maximum offensiveness, ya' can't find a pro-choicer to criticize a minute of it.
Again, this has to be defensive posture mode, it's hard to believe NONE of this bothered any of them.

year2late said:

How can we know what was really there?

Seriously?:lamo

Click to expand...

Ok, I get it... empty claims

Brooks said:

Even with the versions that were supposedly edited for maximum offensiveness, ya' can't find a pro-choicer to criticize a minute of it.
Again, this has to be defensive posture mode, it's hard to believe NONE of this bothered any of them.

Click to expand...

When deception is the primary goal, why would we even want to address it as an honest piece of evidence.


As to being "bothered" I beg of you to sit in on an organ and tissue donation of an adult, child, or baby. Not for the squeamish. And cadaver labs? Yikes. But the emotion , thank goodness is left behind by those involved in harvesting.

BmanMcfly said:

Ok, I get it... empty claims

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree the claims against Planned Parenthood appear to be quite empty.

No sales, just reimbursement for handling costs.

year2late said:

Yes, I agree the claims against Planned Parenthood appear to be quite empty.

No sales, just reimbursement for handling costs.

Click to expand...

Lmao... For a profit, nice legalese term for sales.

Drug dealers around the world once this becomes legal precedent, they aren't "selling drugs" they are "reimbursed for the handling costs" for the drugs (for profit)... Lmao.

BmanMcfly said:

Lmao... For a profit, nice legalese term for sales.

Drug dealers around the world once this becomes legal precedent, they aren't "selling drugs" they are "reimbursed for the handling costs" for the drugs (for profit)... Lmao.

Click to expand...

Whatever money they get goes into cancer screenings, birth control (IE ABORTION PREVENTION), pre cancer treatment, STD screenings and treatment, prenatal care and such. You act like there is some evil stockholder wringing his hands because the few dollars extra they may get beyond what actually was needed for the handling charge for that particular case was buying him a new Rolex.

Seriously.

It is a nonprofit. They are begging for money to get the services they are giving and want to give paid for.

year2late said:

Whatever money they get goes into cancer screenings, birth control (IE ABORTION PREVENTION), pre cancer treatment, STD screenings and treatment, prenatal care and such. You act like there is some evil stockholder wringing his hands because the few dollars extra they may get beyond what actually was needed for the handling charge for that particular case was buying him a new Rolex.

Seriously.

It is a nonprofit. They are begging for money to get the services they are giving and want to give paid for.

Click to expand...

Lmao... That's why the head wants her Lamborghini... Cause there's no money in it.

The filmmakers are just dishonest, sleazy and are so symptomatic of the methods that zealots will go to.

beefheart said:

The filmmakers are just dishonest, sleazy and are so symptomatic of the methods that zealots will go to.

Click to expand...

A single demonstration of that dishonesty? So far we have the empty claims of context being edited, but not even a proposal that would put the context in a way that makes what was said acceptable.

I'll use an absurd example to illustrate the point... A person is caught on film saying they like to eat rotisserie babies. Then defenders come out claiming that it's not the right context, and here I am thinking "what possible context would make what was said acceptable?" That, for some reason always meets blank faces, as if to say "look, you're not supposed to call us on this stuff"

BmanMcfly said:

A single demonstration of that dishonesty? So far we have the empty claims of context being edited, but not even a proposal that would put the context in a way that makes what was said acceptable.

I'll use an absurd example to illustrate the point... A person is caught on film saying they like to eat rotisserie babies. Then defenders come out claiming that it's not the right context, and here I am thinking "what possible context would make what was said acceptable?" That, for some reason always meets blank faces, as if to say "look, you're not supposed to call us on this stuff"

Click to expand...

PP broke no laws. Every single investigation in every single state since these fraudulent videos came out has found that PP broke no laws.