Was Hillary actually in Greensboro earlier for her speech? (CGI News[?])

originally posted by: coffeetalk

originally posted by: boncho
Here's the full video...

Via full interview video posted in OP by OP. Watch from 19:30 on.

If OP utilized due diligence when analyzing the full video they posted at the start (from ABC15 Arizona), about a minute after digital issues begin there are are two feeds along side one another with ABC's feed experiencing issues and the other not (at about 21:30).

This thread should have never been started by the OP.

Is anyone going to address the above post at all? Clearly the glitching was in ONE video chain but not the other. That implies that the source of the glitching wasn't something AT THE SOURCE, but somewhere downstream after the split. At that point, it is a single full-frame video feed, even if it started out as a composite image.

Erego, the glitching is not related in any way to being a composite image.

Erego, these are digital compression/transmission artifacts.

EDIT: For some reason the video didn't copy, so I'm adding it here:

a reply to: Greggers

they werent murdered.
they were turned into yummy candy

a reply to: Greggers

Something else to ponder: Why in the world would a production crew go through the trouble of digitally overlaying an American Flag with a moving video of Hillary, when they could just put a REAL FLAG behind Hillary, wherever she is actually purported to have been. It's not like American flags are hard to obtain. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It does when you consider all of her supporters standing behind her (and limited seating/space in that gym) , who wouldn't be able to see her if a real flag was behind her...

I am thinking about starting a pool at work.
The winner picks the day that she has her next 'stumble'.

Photo of Hillary's supporters standing behind her for Greggers

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


How do you green screen this?

Full size:

heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Greggers

It does when you consider all of her supporters standing behind her (and limited seating/space in that gym) , who wouldn't be able to see her if a real flag was behind her...

But in the auditorium, where she was standing, there is a real flag behind her. It's visible in the full shot. It's all the way on the back wall, between the two sets of seating risers. I didn't realize that at first but another member posted the full picture of the auditorium interior.

So, the idea that the flag is a digital addition only makes sense if she's NOT in the auditorium. In which case, my point is that there's no reason to add a digital flag when they could just hang one on a rear wall of the motel six or wherever else she is rumored to have been.

Here's the shot of the full auditorium showing the flag behind her on the rear wall between the risers: heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com...

a reply to: boncho

I scanned the crowd photos and I don't see the big, bald, black man that helps Hillary out when she suffers one of her 'spells'.
Doe she have a new SS team now?

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: boncho

LOL. Now *that* looks goofy as hell.

What I'd like to know is how this is legal.

There was a case I recall from years back wherein a radio station was fined for running a teaser for an upcoming news cast that said, "Here are the stories we're working on now," and then went on to list a number of stories that were already pre-recorded. The FCC found that it was dishonest to claim the story was breaking or "being worked on" when it was already in the can.

So if a network can get docked for something like that, how is it acceptable for them to pretend they are actually physically located at the scene?

originally posted by: butcherguy
I scanned the crowd photos and I don't see the big, bald, black man that helps Hillary out when she suffers one of her 'spells'.
Doe she have a new SS team now?

I'm sure he's there somewhere lurking backstage. They just want to push the optics that she's healthy and needs no medical professionals around. But if she had some kind of medical episode, you can believe he'd be out there within three seconds.

Should be easy enough to figure out. Was George Lucas there?

originally posted by: intrepid
Should be easy enough to figure out. Was George Lucas there?

No, he was still back in Hollyweird. He was one of the leftist elites yukking it up at the Barbara Streisand fundraiser for Hillary when she made her 'deplorable' remark.

a reply to: Greggers

Case in point.

That's not normal behaviour as much as you lie to yourself. Just look at the faces of the people around her, they are perplexed, but smiling about it because its their worshipful leader.

Social cues would tell someone to stop (from the bizarre reactions she was getting from others) but she continued, because it was involuntary.

Stimuli from multiple angles or directions can cause seizures in people who are at risk for them.

When she finally did collapse where it couldn't be covered up, she again lied, saying they went to Chelsea's "apartment". Problem being that the floor her apartment is on, used to be a medical facility (and likely bought out and is a personal hospital now).

Her actions here violate Secret Service protocol. That is absurd.

Secret Service protocol called for the Democratic presidential nominee to be rushed to a state-designated Level I Trauma Center in the wake of her Sunday-morning health crisis, sources said. In Manhattan, that would be Bellevue Hospital.
But a campaign operative, in a move that might have risked the candidate’s health, decided to change course to avoid having Clinton seen by doctors, nurses and other medical workers who could leak details to reporters, according to a source.

townhall.com...


Presidential candidates & president's should not have the right to seal, hide or obfuscate any of their records. We are talking about the highest office in the land, with the largest military power in its control.

Checks and balances should be coming from independent civilian agencies, not hidden doctors in buildings ho remain unacknowledged. An official agency for medical care of presidents and nominees, or at least some kind of outside governing powers to have an alternative eye on the leaders in office.

It won't be long before (if not already) plastic surgery and other augmentation systems can mimic a person entirely. For that matter, ETs could be cloning and inserting their operatives in our government and we'd be none the wiser (with the system as it stands, with the current lies, deceit and misdirection being acceptable.)

Why the past of any candidate should be shrouded in mystery....well, it shouldn't. Simple as that. This isn't the first time this has come up recently either...

Fox News contacted some 400 of his classmates and found no one who remembered him (Obama). He had transferred from Occidental College in California after his sophomore year

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: Greggers

Case in point.

That's not normal behaviour as much as you lie to yourself. Just look at the faces of the people around her, they are perplexed, but smiling about it because its their worshipful leader.

Social cues would tell someone to stop (from the bizarre reactions she was getting from others) but she continued, because it was involuntary.

Stimuli from multiple angles or directions can cause seizures in people who are at risk for them.

When she finally did collapse where it couldn't be covered up, she again lied, saying they went to Chelsea's "apartment". Problem being that the floor her apartment is on, used to be a medical facility (and likely bought out and is a personal hospital now).

Her actions here violate Secret Service protocol. That is absurd.

Secret Service protocol called for the Democratic presidential nominee to be rushed to a state-designated Level I Trauma Center in the wake of her Sunday-morning health crisis, sources said. In Manhattan, that would be Bellevue Hospital.
But a campaign operative, in a move that might have risked the candidate’s health, decided to change course to avoid having Clinton seen by doctors, nurses and other medical workers who could leak details to reporters, according to a source.

townhall.com...


Presidential candidates & president's should not have the right to seal, hide or obfuscate any of their records. We are talking about the highest office in the land, with the largest military power in its control.

Checks and balances should be coming from independent civilian agencies, not hidden doctors in buildings ho remain unacknowledged. An official agency for medical care of presidents and nominees, or at least some kind of outside governing powers to have an alternative eye on the leaders in office.

It won't be long before (if not already) plastic surgery and other augmentation systems can mimic a person entirely. For that matter, ETs could be cloning and inserting their operatives in our government and we'd be none the wiser (with the system as it stands, with the current lies, deceit and misdirection being acceptable.)

Why the past of any candidate should be shrouded in mystery....well, it shouldn't. Simple as that. This isn't the first time this has come up recently either...

Fox News contacted some 400 of his classmates and found no one who remembered him (Obama). He had transferred from Occidental College in California after his sophomore year

Again, these posts are why people mocked the "Hillary has health problems" posts. I would suggest you consider that perhaps the dissent isn't because people are "lying to themselves," but rather because the video evidence you've offered of a health problem is laughable. Specifically, I'm talking about that video where her head is bobbing and she goes on to talk about the coffee she's drinking.

It does not look like a health problem to me, nor to many other people. Your assumption that we're all lying to ourselves is a convenient way to dismiss our point of view.

I don't understand how you can look at that video and think it's a seizure, but I'm not going to attempt to psychoanalyze you over the internet in an attempt to figure it out.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: Shamrock6

Threads like these are why people make fun of election-season ATS.

If you think it's okay to mock conspiracy discussion you shouldn't be on ATS or any other site for that matter. And, I was guilty of it in the past too, but I was wrong. Mocking has only served as a tool to further cover ups, misdirections or complete fabrications. All topics should be worthy of discussion.

We are getting closer and closer to a time where just about anything can be achieved in terms of false stories.

I think just two weeks ago people were mocking those that questioned HRC's health...

This isn't a conspiracy discussion. This is molding evidence to fit a narrative, not following evidence to a conclusion. If you think that's how conspiracy theories are supposed to work, perhaps it is YOU who's on the wrong website. An investigator is supposed to follow information to whatever end it leads to; an investigator is not supposed to come up with an answer and then distort information to support that answer, while simultaneously ignoring other information that refutes it or coming up with ever more wild answers to support the initial assertion. And then turn around and attempt to bash those who disagree with his or her assertion as being in the wrong place. Discussion is discussion. ATS isn't an agreement board. It's a discussion board.

No need to question my enthusiasm for conspiracy theories. The difference between you and I lies in that one of us also has an enthusiasm for actual evidence, not manufactured "evidence."

And FYI - people are still mocking others for questioning hillarys health.

a reply to: Greggers

It does not look like a health problem to me, nor to many other people. Your assumption that we're all lying to ourselves is a convenient way to dismiss our point of view.

If you slow it down and watch her eyes in that video, they cross before she starts her head-bobbing routine.

If it isn't caused by a health problem, you must think that she did the eye-crossing and head bobbing intentionally.
I would like to see where Hillary has a history of doing goofy crap like that intentionally.
Like when she was the FLOTUS for 8 years...
Or while she was the Secretary of State for 4 years.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Greggers

It does not look like a health problem to me, nor to many other people. Your assumption that we're all lying to ourselves is a convenient way to dismiss our point of view.

If you slow it down and watch her eyes in that video, they cross before she starts her head-bobbing routine.

If it isn't caused by a health problem, you must think that she did the eye-crossing and head bobbing intentionally.
I would like to see where Hillary has a history of doing goofy crap like that intentionally.
Like when she was the FLOTUS for 8 years...
Or while she was the Secretary of State for 4 years.

If you slow down the video of any live action shot, you can find frames where people have totally ridiculous expressions. Plus, she has more video scrutiny on her now than at any point previous in her life.

It just doesn't look like a medical problem to me. Nor to many others. And no, I'm not lying to myself. Nor am I voting for Hillary, by the way.

a reply to: Greggers

I don't know the legality of it, but CNN has been caught numerous times with fake reports via green screen, especially Anderson Cooper. Notice how Anderson Cooper glitches like the Hillary glitch.

I didn't look at the second video yet, but the first one does not have the telltale signs of green screen. And again, the glitching will tend to happen more often on the moving parts of the image.