• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report for Planned Parenthood finds sting videos manipulated

Moot said:
It matters if there's a conflict of interests.


PP hired an independent company
Click to expand...
specializing in investigative journalism who hired three independent forensic video experts with no ties to PP. So forgive me if I believe them instead of a discredited anti-abortion activist affiliated with felon James O'Keefe, renown for making heavily edited videos to entrap innocent people.

You admitted that you think the videos are edited and PP is innocent...but you call other people who think the same, hypocrites. So what does that make you? If all you have is name calling and a false analogy to base your opinion on then you're no better than blind partisans you rail against.
Click to expand...

Independent of what?

Tell me, what do you think this means ...
"This analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation, but we did identify cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle," the report from Fusion GPS, the firm that Planned Parenthood hired, concludes.
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
Nobody cares but you. The subject of this thread isn't Wolf. If you want to know about him, do your own research. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
If you didn't care then why did you post it? The pro-lifers care or they wouldn't have gone all the trouble of trying to find dirt on FusionGPS that made the report which is the subject of this thread. So either you back up your claim with some credible evidence or you can admit you're wrong. Either one, works for me.
 
bubbabgone said:
Independent of what?

Tell me, what do you think this means ...
Click to expand...

I think it means the video was edited...."we did identify cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle," the report from Fusion GPS, the firm that Planned Parenthood hired, concludes."
 
Videos are frequently editted. News videos are editted. Newspapers are editted. Bills in Congress are editted.The question becomes: Does the editting change the content or intent of what was said or done? IOW, if somebody asked in the video if whole fetuses are being delivered and distributed intact, did the video contain the answer as it was given?

Because it seems to me we are ignoring the obvious. Just because it was editted does not mean the content is not correct. 5 videos, interviewing different people, review that fetal parts are being sold by PP. Is that in question? Evidence also suggests that there are cases of live birth. Is that true? Because if these and other questions have been correctly answered in the "editted" videos, the editting is not the issue, it is the distraction. Now, if the editting presents the issues as other than they actually are, that is a problem. But here is the thing: before the allegations of editting, some of those who are pro abortion made the point that it was discarded tissue and it doesn't matter. And some approved of the reported methods because it produced the intended outcome.


BTW, Hillary's emails were "editted" too. They were deleted, illegally. That would be an example of aggressive, intentionally harmful editting. And yes, that does make her a criminal regardless of what is recovered.
 
Moot said:
I think it means the video was edited...."we did identify cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle," the report from Fusion GPS, the firm that Planned Parenthood hired, concludes."
Click to expand...

"This analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation,..."

Changes in camera angle is significant to you? Do you think it was meant to draw attention to Nucatola's double chin or some such critical thing?

Some of these tapes were hours long.
Could you have sat still continuously for that long?
 
Moot said:
If you didn't care then why did you post it? The pro-lifers care or they wouldn't have gone all the trouble of trying to find dirt on FusionGPS that made the report which is the subject of this thread. So either you back up your claim with some credible evidence or you can admit you're wrong. Either one, works for me.
Click to expand...

I didn't post it to you. And I also didn't say anything about Fusion's credibility in the PP situation. I made a factual statement about someone on the staff of Fusion and also the founder. End of story. The only person obsessing over it is you. No pro-lifers on here cared about it.

You have to get evidence from the Wall Street Journal. It's their article, not mine.
 
tres borrachos said:
I didn't post it to you. And I also didn't say anything about Fusion's credibility in the PP situation. I made a factual statement about someone on the staff of Fusion and also the founder. End of story. The only person obsessing over it is you. No pro-lifers on here cared about it.

You have to get evidence from the Wall Street Journal. It's their article, not mine.
Click to expand...

You posted it for everyone to read....so if you didn't want anyone to comment on your little stink bomb, then you shouldn't have posted it. Still waiting for you to prove your statement was a fact ...but it looks like you've given up and resorted to "nuh uh, it's not mine". Can't say I blame you for trying to run away...that was a very stinky bomb you dropped.
 
bubbabgone said:
"This analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation,..."

Changes in camera angle is significant to you? Do you think it was meant to draw attention to Nucatola's double chin or some such critical thing?

Some of these tapes were hours long.
Could you have sat still continuously for that long?
Click to expand...

That was referring to the "full video footage analysis" where there wouldn't have had substantive video manipulation. But then, they didn't have the "original" videos to examine.

The short videos were what most people saw. The report analysis says they 'significantly distorted and misrepresented the conversations depicted in the full footage videos"....and..."they contained edited conversations where some words were eliminated or added out of context". It also says the short videos contained footage and audio not found in the full footage videos. How do you explain that Bubba?


From the report....

Fusion GPS analysts and Mr. Fredericks reviewed CMP’s short videos in conjunction with the “full footage” tapes and conclude that the short videos significantly distort and misrepresent the conversations depicted in the full footage videos. Mr. Fredericks notes that the short videos contain
“edited conversations where some spoken words are eliminated and some spoken words are added out of context.” The short videos of both the California 2014 and California 2015 interviews contain camera angles not visible in the corresponding “full footage” videos. The short video of the Texas
interview contains video and audio that do not appear in the Texas “full footage” video.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
You posted it for everyone to read....so if you didn't want anyone to comment on your little stink bomb, then you shouldn't have posted it. Still waiting for you to prove your statement was a fact ...but it looks like you've given up and resorted to "nuh uh, it's not mine". Can't say I blame you for trying to run away...that was a very stinky bomb you dropped.
Click to expand...

What's with your idiotic posts? I don't have to prove that a journalist's statement is right. I didn't say "What I think is...." or "Here's what I've deduced". In the future, try to remember that we are not journalists on this board. It will set your expectations appropriately.
 
tres borrachos said:
What's with your idiotic posts? I don't have to prove that a journalist's statement is right. I didn't say "What I think is...." or "Here's what I've deduced". In the future, try to remember that we are not journalists on this board. It will set your expectations appropriately.
Click to expand...

Your posts are predictable. First you make a claim and when you can't back it up or defend it with logic, reason or credible evidence...you get belligerent. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you back up anything you say....which might explain why your posts are always belligerent.
 
Moot said:
That was referring to the "full video footage analysis" where there wouldn't have had substantive video manipulation. But then, they didn't have the "original" videos to examine.

The short videos were what most people saw. The report analysis says they 'significantly distorted and misrepresented the conversations depicted in the full footage videos"....and..."they contained edited conversations where some words were eliminated or added out of context". It also says the short videos contained footage and audio not found in the full footage videos. How do you explain that Bubba?


From the report....
Click to expand...

No substantive video manipulation.
That means nothing of substance.
 
Moot said:
Your posts are predictable. First you make a claim and when you can't back it up or defend it with logic, reason or credible evidence...you get belligerent. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you back up anything you say....which might explain why your posts are always belligerent.
Click to expand...

Now I know you're being intentionally obtuse. It isn't my claim but is the claim of a Wall Street Journal journalist. I'm not going to back up the claim of a journalist.

Someone else will have to play footsie with you. I don't respond to obtuse, moronic posts.
 
tres borrachos said:
Now I know you're being intentionally obtuse. It isn't my claim but is the claim of a Wall Street Journal journalist. I'm not going to back up the claim of a journalist.

Someone else will have to play footsie with you. I don't respond to obtuse, moronic posts.
Click to expand...

You posted it...so you obviously agreed with it which makes it your claim. But don't worry about it...ad hom attacks are more your style anyway. So why should I care if you respond or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom