(09-17-2016 03:38 PM)Enigma Wrote:  I think that video is a hoax. I couldn't find another angle before, but here's one with the full rally. Looks normal.





She also gave a short "press conference" after the rally. Notice that one of the reporters is the same chick that freaked out during her infamous seizure video -- and later lied about it. I'm sure they grilled her hard.

After enough analysis of all the videos related to this, it saddens me to say that nothing fishy is going on here, its just a combination of lens focal lengths and poor resolution that play a trick on you.

Most phones default to a wide angle lens setting when the camera is in use, that's why what your seeing on the phones looks like a mess, because it is, they are capturing everything from the backs of peoples heads all the way up to the rafters, its a wide scene, everyone (Hillary) and everything (the standing flags) relatively speaking will appear small in the shot.

Then there's the fact that your viewing a moving image on a cell phone screen recorded by another camera, this leads to poor resolution. If you look close enough you can see the standing flags very faint and blurry.

Then also consider that the camera man is using a telephoto lens, causes things on your screen (through his camera) like Hillary and the flags to appear larger, the opposite of what the cell phones are capturing. It also messes with what angles people appear to be facing or pointing.

Nothing to see here.

Hillary looks really tired in her response to the NYC bombing

http://www.facebook.com/cnn/videos/10155322237256509/

(09-17-2016 11:38 PM)Clemmo Wrote:  Hillary looks really tired in her response to the NYC bombing

http://www.facebook.com/cnn/videos/10155322237256509/

"Hillary we need you to make a press conference"

#ZombieHillary is a thing on Twitter.

"Previously, on The Walking Dead..."

Very 'low energy' here. Bad PR :

(09-18-2016 03:07 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  

Which one is more likely to get Crowder killed; this, or the 'Paint Mohamed' one?

I'm probably late to the party on this one, but it occurred to me that the biggest blunder of the whole "basket of deplorables" moment was the fact that it was so generic and unspecific. Thinking about it, who among Trump's supporters would listen to that and think "oh, she's not talking about me, so I'll still keep her in mind when I go to the polls".

Not a single one.

There's no such thing as going after half of a mob. You go after half and by default you've gone after all of them. Nobody was listening to that thinking "oh, I'm not in that half."

(09-18-2016 07:41 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I'm probably late to the party on this one, but it occurred to me that the biggest blunder of the whole "basket of deplorables" moment was the fact that it was so generic and unspecific. Thinking about it, who among Trump's supporters would listen to that and think "oh, she's not talking about me, so I'll still keep her in mind when I go to the polls".

Not a single one.

There's no such thing as going after half of a mob. You go after half and by default you've gone after all of them. Nobody was listening to that thinking "oh, I'm not in that half."

The way she said it couldn't have been more unappealing either. She sounded like a hypocritical scornful nag talking down to the American public which is exactly what she is.

She has problems hiding her true character for any long engagement with the public. That's why she's gone into hiding and only comes out for 15 minute soundbite events with a fawning establishment press covering with pre screened questions.

Any more exposure than that to Hillary repulses any reasonable normal human being.

Now just imagine her in the president's seat dictating policy at all levels and doing whatever she wants. Just imagine that nightmare.

(09-18-2016 07:41 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I'm probably late to the party on this one, but it occurred to me that the biggest blunder of the whole "basket of deplorables" moment was the fact that it was so generic and unspecific. Thinking about it, who among Trump's supporters would listen to that and think "oh, she's not talking about me, so I'll still keep her in mind when I go to the polls".
Not a single one.
There's no such thing as going after half of a mob. You go after half and by default you've gone after all of them. Nobody was listening to that thinking "oh, I'm not in that half."

Not to mention, the actual wording is completely daft.
I'm not aware of anyone in any sphere who actively uses the word deplorable all that much & definitely not in a context to describe a group of people.
You may describe behaviour as deplorable, but not the person all that much.
Then there's the whole baskets thing...

No one says 'baskets of racists' or 'baskets of sexists'. So how an even more obscure reference such as 'baskets of deplorables' was supposed to garner much enthusiasm is beyond me.
(Hell, in typing this - deplorables becomes highlighted as a spelling mistake).

Also, the fact that the intent behind 'BoD' completely misses the mark.
The AltRight don't care if they're called racist or sexist & have made fun of the whole thing.
Plus, as political correctness wanes, it's an increasingly neutered political attack.

(09-18-2016 07:57 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Then there's the whole baskets thing...

No one says 'baskets of racists' or 'baskets of sexists'.

It's the kind of thing people in marketing or data analysis say. Hillary's wonks would be analysing different types of voters and putting them in "segments", "buckets" or "baskets". But it's not used in general conversation. Hillary just combined that with the kind of arrogant witticism ("deplorables") which you might say at a cocktail party, but shouldn't say in public.

^I wonder then what caliber of speechwriters she has. Something tells me that the mistake doesn't come from there. There's someone, maybe her cuck campaign manager who influences this at the last minute which doesn't provide enough time to give it a second or third look from someone more professional.

It's like being at a party and not being able to help feeling like you have to say something in the conversation among people you have nothing in common with; and you force something stupid out just to try to "relate."

Things just got weird again. There may be something to the Hillary fake rally after all. Check this out.

https://sli.mg/a/7adXyM

https://sli.mg/a/eJ0cYh

Someone broke the video down frame by frame and noticed some very interesting things.











The full explanation and images are way too long to post here. You can find the album in the two links above.

The glitching starts in the video (official ABC feed) at 19:55

Here's my question though. The background image is static. The moving Hillary is not. When things distort like that, the way digital video works, wouldn't it be just the moving image that distorts and not the static background in any case of this?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but obviously not from a technically knowledgeable place.

As much as I want to get all about the video stream disappearing Clinton, I'd really like to know someone familiar with broadcast television technology first.

Because the background is a very simple pattern, and at least in the past video technology was based on horizontal line scans, a lot of this looks like the top region of pixels being repeated over and over when signal quality was low. This is apparent when the top of her head appears, repeated, for several instances down the screen. It's like the CCD recorded the top portion of the screen, and whatever software was remaining just patched up missing data with that information over and over again in lieu of anything else.

You can also see some other compression artifacts in those links. Some codecs use keyframes at certain points, and only transmit the differences from the previous image. This is readily recognizable in film using digital tech.

Key thing about the frames where Hillary disappears is how regular the stripes are. They look totally vertical. On the other frames where she is there, there's some irregularity. This makes me think that it's just the top portion of the image, repeated, making the lines nearly perfect.

So, before I get all I'd like to see how this couldn't possibly be due to digital glitching with the way television signals are transmitted. Because I've convinced myself that it's a glitch explainable due to the very regular striped background. You normally would get more obvious glitching where the background wasn't so regular.

   

The images and explanation are from Reddit. The link is in the album, but here's the direct link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comm...me_in_the/

Top comment:

Quote:Disclaimer: I'm not asserting anything, I'm not a video or encoding tech. I have no idea what might cause this or if it even indicates anything. To my knowledge there's no artifacting or encoding error that could cause Hillary AND HER PODIUM to disappear for a frame. Shit's fuckin weird is all I know.

It's not just Hillary that glitches, but Hillary and her stationary podium.

Look at this picture:



The camera caught the top part of the stripes then the portion of her head, then looks like it lost signal. For some reason, the encoding software could just repeat the last chunk of data over and over again, which is the top of her head and the portion of the background it saw. It does this all down the frame.

When she disappears in some cases, there's still artifacts of some image of her body repeated down the screen. See the left of this image:



The case where she disappears seems to be a case where no actual data was collected for that frame that contained a portion of her body. And, because of the regular striped background, it looks like she went "poof":



I sincerely think this is a bad signal/encoding/decoding issue.

Issues like this where she's kept center frame and the background is changing rapidly is an example of a good keyframe with a lossy signal trying to keep up with the changing background. She looks very clear because there was a good batch of data that showed her and her rug outfit in detail. But, the people are moving in the background quite a bit, and changes in the color of each pixel are just plain lost. Hence you see blocks and junk in the background.



See

It's another psy op. They put the glitches in there on purpose so we'd all watch them to try to figure out what the glitches are all about.

It's kind of like hanging a pork chop around an ugly kid's neck so the dog will play with her.

The flag in the background glitches at 20:10, again at 20.49, its subtle, and its because its not moving, unlike Hillary who is moving in the frame, Cobra pointed out that it would make sense that the moving object exhibits the glitching, that is correct.

It also appears that the guy filming is periodically messing with his camera during that whole glitching sequence. At one point you see that the camera shakes, you notice that the flag in the background, the podium and Hillary all move in the frame in conjunction.

Also note that the audio is glitching as well and most heavily around the same time as the video glitch, this means its the stream thats causing it.

I can say with 100% confidence that nothing out of the ordinary is going on here. I have 6+ years experience in video production.

^That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification aeroektar. It's hard to believe myself without knowing enough when people believe their own theories that much and spend that much time making videos about it. Before posting shit all over the Internet, I would hope our colleagyes in this movement would take a couple minutes and corroborate their theories with somebody that knows better (eg aeroektar).

Otherwise what we get is not only a complete waste of everyone's time but also erosion of the message, not to mention our credibility. In this sense, I agree with Ghost Tiger; but man that pork chop analogy is rough.

   

(09-18-2016 11:43 AM)Cobra Wrote:  ^That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification aeroektar. It's hard to believe myself without knowing enough when people believe their own theories that much and spend that much time making videos about it. Before posting shit all over the Internet, I would hope our colleagyes in this movement would take a couple minutes and corroborate their theories with somebody that knows better (eg aeroektar).

Otherwise what we get is not only a complete waste of everyone's time but also erosion of the message, not to mention our credibility. In this sense, I agree with Ghost Tiger; but man that pork chop analogy is rough.

You never know if these people are disinfo shills, conspiracý theory retards or just opportunists, but they definitely hurt the movement, which is why Alex Jones and his rabble about 'globalists' hurt the movement when he refuses to mention who those globalists actually are. Same with Breitbart and Milo.

(09-18-2016 11:43 AM)Cobra Wrote:  I agree with Ghost Tiger; but man that pork chop analogy is rough.

This election is no time for kid gloves and half-measures!

Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

Glitching video not interesting to me. Even if I couldn't immediately think of several boring explanations, it just isn't something worth pursuing without a lot more evidence.

Hillary is sick. She's will be forced into the public spotlight frequently between now and November. Every time she does, she damages her image. Case in point: the NYC Bombing interview. That interview on the plane, contrasted with Trump's normal high-energy responsiveness is FAR more damaging than a tedious analysis of video glitches defects in a single video.

Supposing it was true that Hillary staged a fake rally, so what? If it was a one-off, no one is really going to care. It's not going to change people's minds. Politicians stage plenty of events already. If she is faking ALL of her rallies, that would be a story, but if in that case more evidence is bound to appear. You'll see corroborating evidence from a variety of sources. You'd find glaring inconsistencies between published schedule and reports from the ground. You'll see reports from confused Hillary supporters who try to attend non-existent rallies, etc. We're not seeing any of that. So I would say analyzing glitches is a distraction and waste of time. (edit: not to disparage anyone with technical expertise who does chime in with solid explanations)