ADVERTISEMENT

Full Planned Parenthood videos found to be edited

Huey Grey

Huey Grey

HB King
Jan 15, 2013
62,202
111,489
113
"Fusion GPS analysts reviewed all four of the “full footage” videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, totaling more than 12 hours of tape. This analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation, but we did identify cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle. A forensic video expert, Grant Fredericks, reviewed segments of tape identified as suspicious during this preliminary review. This professional analysis revealed that the full footage videos contained numerous intentional post-production edits."

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08...arenthood-scandal-collapse-videos-edited.html
 
86Hawkeye said:
So, normal editing stuff. No substantial "manipulation".
Click to expand...
"Cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle." This isn't a movie we're talking about here. The full videos were presented as being full videos. Not edited versions of what really happened.
 
We already knew they were edited.

When Deborah Nucatola said, “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line”, that comment somehow didn't make it to the final edit.

Neither did her statement, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”

At another point she tells the scammers that affiliates wouldn’t make decisions about whether to work with a tissue research organization based on money. “To them [PP affiliates], this is not a service they should be making money from, it’s something they should be able to offer to their patients, in a way that doesn’t impact them.” That was absent from the edit

Multiple times they are told that the affiliates are offering a service and are not making money on it. Not one of those statements made it into the edit. Weird, huh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bladel, Gonzo3705, JWolf74 and 1 other person
icu81222 said:
Nice try. It's the liberal playbook. Hoping to cast doubt in any desparate way you can. Pathetic. As usual
Click to expand...

You can't prove someone did something through an edited video.

If CMP wanted videos to go out there to show how heartless and cruel PP and it's employee's are then that was accomplished. Unfortunately people are masters of being heartless and cruel simple killing is far easier solution. Most people would blow up 120 innocent children just to get a 50/50 shot at killing one terrorist, course it helps that the news media doesn't show the dead children or their grieving parents who just became terrorists on TV. So we should not be surprised when people will support the murder of a child when said murder is hidden in the womb. It's all just really easy. . . pay a Mengela disciple a few hundred dollars and the problem just goes away. And since the child had no person on earth who loved him/her in the first place it makes it even better.

However if CMP was trying to prove something illegal based on our current law happened they can't do that by only providing edited videos.

For me it doesn't really matter if PP followed the law or not. Bush and Obama both followed the law when they blew up innocent children in their effort to kill suspected terrorists. Mengela followed the law, Himmler followed the law and PP is just like them except with more victims.
 
Last edited:
tarheelbybirth said:
We already knew they were edited.

When Deborah Nucatola said, “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line”, that comment somehow didn't make it to the final edit.

Neither did her statement, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”

At another point she tells the scammers that affiliates wouldn’t make decisions about whether to work with a tissue research organization based on money. “To them [PP affiliates], this is not a service they should be making money from, it’s something they should be able to offer to their patients, in a way that doesn’t impact them.” That was absent from the edit

Multiple times they are told that the affiliates are offering a service and are not making money on it. Not one of those statements made it into the edit. Weird, huh?
Click to expand...

I doubt that we'll hear much more from ICU in this thread.
 
I thought the libs didn't care because these were just pieces of meat to them. Funny that they are now outraged over this former nonstory.
 
NoleandDawg said:
I thought the libs didn't care because these were just pieces of meat to them. Funny that they are now outraged over this former nonstory.
Click to expand...
If you want to complain about abortions, you're more than welcome to. But these videos have become useless towards proving that PP did anything illegal.
 
Huey Grey said:
"Cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle." This isn't a movie we're talking about here. The full videos were presented as being full videos. Not edited versions of what really happened.
Click to expand...
As long as words weren't spliced and people's full sentences remain intact, what's the point?
 
tarheelbybirth said:
We already knew they were edited.

When Deborah Nucatola said, “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line”, that comment somehow didn't make it to the final edit.

Neither did her statement, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”

At another point she tells the scammers that affiliates wouldn’t make decisions about whether to work with a tissue research organization based on money. “To them [PP affiliates], this is not a service they should be making money from, it’s something they should be able to offer to their patients, in a way that doesn’t impact them.” That was absent from the edit

Multiple times they are told that the affiliates are offering a service and are not making money on it. Not one of those statements made it into the edit. Weird, huh?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think those particular quotes must have made it to the final edit, because the final edit is all I ever saw and I remember the comments. In fact, I think we even referred to them in passing during a discussion here about what constituted "profit." Either they were in the original release or Fox News dug them out of the lengthier version and added them to their report.

More to the point, here we have the old, old story again: What's important isn't what's missing, which probably wasn't significant. What's important is that the group said the unedited interviews were online, and apparently they were not. They thus undermine their credibility and give defenders of the infanticides an argument they are desperate to have in order to avoid the real issues raised by the entrapments.

What could have been edited out that would have altered the basic thrust of the videos? That's a serious question.
 
Huey Grey said:
"Fusion GPS analysts reviewed all four of the “full footage” videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, totaling more than 12 hours of tape. This analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation, but we did identify cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle. A forensic video expert, Grant Fredericks, reviewed segments of tape identified as suspicious during this preliminary review. This professional analysis revealed that the full footage videos contained numerous intentional post-production edits."

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08...arenthood-scandal-collapse-videos-edited.html
Click to expand...


What do you care, you said the videos were harmless and didn't prove anything.

If anything, if they were edited wouldn't it only make the PP people look bad?
 
Nothing illegal yet.

Just guilty of being morally reprehensible in the court of public opinion.

That will have to do I guess.
 
swagsurfer02 said:
What do you care, you said the videos were harmless and didn't prove anything.

If anything, if they were edited wouldn't it only make the PP people look bad?
Click to expand...
This doesn't make much sense. Why would editing make PP look bad? If anything, it makes this Conservative group and the Republicans look bad for claiming illegal activity based on edited videos.
 
NoleandDawg said:
I thought the libs didn't care because these were just pieces of meat to them. Funny that they are now outraged over this former nonstory.
Click to expand...

Liberals obviously care about abortion but also realize that its the right of the person getting the abortion to make the best decision for them. I think the real outrage came because the Republicans saw these edited videos as a stepping stone to cut funding for PP. Unfortunately for them most people saw right through the videos for what they were. Propaganda that hoped to further some pro-life agenda. Most pro-life people jumped on the bandwagon (yourself included) hoping that the intelligent folks in the room would do the same. They didn't. Hope that helps shed some light onto your otherwise delusional post.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
fredjr82 said:
Liberals obviously care about abortion but also realize that its the right of the person getting the abortion to make the best decision for them. I think the real outrage came because the Republicans saw these edited videos as a stepping stone to cut funding for PP. Unfortunately for them most people saw right through the videos for what they were. Propaganda that hoped to further some pro-life agenda. Most pro-life people jumped on the bandwagon (yourself included) hoping that the intelligent folks in the room would do the same. Hope that helps shed some light onto your otherwise delusional post.
Click to expand...
It shows some serious flaws in the Republican way of thinking that they used videos with no legal merit as grounds to cut PP funding. They didn't even wait around for the results. They simply pulled the trigger and based their entire argument around propaganda videos.
 
22*43*51 said:
Just guilty of being morally reprehensible in the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...

The same "public" they've always been morally reprehensible to regardless of what videos came out. I doubt many pro-choice people saw the video and then supported cutting funding to PP. I think they're a great organization who have helped out many of people who probably had nowhere else to turn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
fredjr82 said:
Liberals obviously care about abortion but also realize that its the right of the person getting the abortion to make the best decision for them. I think the real outrage came because the Republicans saw these edited videos as a stepping stone to cut funding for PP. Unfortunately for them most people saw right through the videos for what they were. Propaganda that hoped to further some pro-life agenda. Most pro-life people jumped on the bandwagon (yourself included) hoping that the intelligent folks in the room would do the same. Hope that helps shed some light onto your otherwise delusional post.
Click to expand...

Actually, most people don't get to see these videos because the media has buried them. Don't believe me? Go to CNN's website. You can see a story about Taylor Swift sing a rendition of "Smelly Cat," but nothing about this issue.
 
NoleandDawg said:
Actually, most people don't get to see these videos because the media has buried them. Don't believe me? Go to CNN's website. You can see a story about Taylor Swift sing a rendition of "Smelly Cat," but nothing about this issue.
Click to expand...
Why would the media showcase propaganda videos with no legal merit?
 
NoleandDawg said:
Actually, most people don't get to see these videos because the media has buried them. Don't believe me? Go to CNN's website. You can see a story about Taylor Swift sing a rendition of "Smelly Cat," but nothing about this issue.
Click to expand...

Like most short-sighted people you have to realize that the internet as a whole is a very large place. You see if CNN isn't showing a video that you deem necessary for the public to see, you can go to a different website and look there. And to further on that point, if you can't find the video on the first couple websites you look on you can go to this magical little place called Google where you can type in "keywords" of what you're looking for. The very first site listed when a Google search is performed for the videos is right to CMP's website will all 5 videos. Those poor people who don't get to see the video are either lazy, dumb, or both. What is more likely is they probably (not unlike yourself) heard about the videos and made a knee-jerk decision whether they were authentic or fake.
 
Huey Grey said:
Why would the media showcase propaganda videos with no legal merit?
Click to expand...

And "Smelly Cat" does? But to answer your question as succinctly as possible, you are talking about the issue so it's obviously important to you. Why not show the videos so people can make up their own minds? Even if the videos document legal activity people have a right to know. If the people decide to change the laws well then that's democracy.
 
fredjr82 said:
Like most short-sighted people you have to realize that the internet as a whole is a very large place. You see if CNN isn't showing a video that you deem necessary for the public to see, you can go to a different website and look there. And to further on that point, if you can't find the video on the first couple websites you look on you can go to this magical little place called Google where you can type in "keywords" of what you're looking for. The very first site listed when a Google search is performed for the videos is right to CMP's website will all 5 videos. Those poor people who don't get to see the video are either lazy, dumb, or both. What is more likely is they probably (not unlike yourself) heard about the videos and made a knee-jerk decision whether they were authentic or fake.
Click to expand...

You're right. We should not expect news sites to report the news....
 
Huey Grey said:
Why would the media showcase propaganda videos with no legal merit?
Click to expand...

Fox has a poll on their website (not the videos which I find weird because if they were so "groundbreaking" Fox would have them in large print on the front page). NoleandDawg, Hoosier, Phantom, etc are still in the minority regarding PP and if they should be funded.

The latest Fox News poll asks about these issues, as well as the secretly-shot videos that show Planned Parenthood employees talking about dollar amounts associated with fetal tissue and organs from abortions.

Nearly half of voters have seen or heard about the videos (49 percent). More self-identified pro-life voters (54 percent) report having seen the videos than pro-choice voters (46 percent).

Among those familiar with the videos, 49 percent describe them as disturbing and would prefer to stop the use of fetal tissue from abortions in medical research. Forty-three percent agree the videos are disturbing, but say the research should continue.

The numbers are about the same when all voters are asked generally about using organs and tissue from aborted human fetuses for medical research on deadly diseases: 48 percent approve vs. 47 percent disapprove.

Majorities of Democrats (64 percent) and independents (56 percent) approve of fetal tissue research in general, while more than two-thirds of Republicans disapprove (69 percent).

By a 52-42 percent margin, voters think Planned Parenthood should receive federal funding.
 
NoleandDawg said:
And "Smelly Cat" does? But to answer your question as succinctly as possible, you are talking about the issue so it's obviously important to you. Why not show the videos so people can make up their own minds? Even if the videos document legal activity people have a right to know. If the people decide to change the laws well then that's democracy.
Click to expand...
Again, why would news sites highlight videos that are nothing more than propaganda pieces beyond pointing out this fact?
 
NoleandDawg said:
You're right. We should not expect news sites to report the news....
Click to expand...

So CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are the only "news sites" in your mind? It's a big world out there on the internet. Maybe do yourself a favor and branch out a little bit. You're arguments wouldn't be so comical.
 
Huey Grey said:
"Fusion GPS analysts reviewed all four of the “full footage” videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, totaling more than 12 hours of tape. This analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation, but we did identify cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle. A forensic video expert, Grant Fredericks, reviewed segments of tape identified as suspicious during this preliminary review. This professional analysis revealed that the full footage videos contained numerous intentional post-production edits."

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08...arenthood-scandal-collapse-videos-edited.html
Click to expand...
This took you much longer than anticipated talk about grasping at straws!!
 
NoleandDawg said:
Your CNN link goes to Fox News. Perhaps you are the internet challenged one.
Click to expand...

Actually I just trying to prove the point that the internet is made up of more than 4 websites. I've provided the actual link. Not that you're interested in reading it. Just want to continue your tired "victim card" mentality in regards to MSM.

Here's you're real link
 
Cool, you found a link to a CNN article stating the videos are manipulated. Where's the one from CNN which talks about what PP is doing? How about one which discusses cutting through the faces of fetuses to get their brains. Can we see that on CNN?

I patiently await your Google fu oh master of the internets.
 
I wonder something. . . there are tons of different organizations that provide the same non abortion services that PP does. Why can't we take PP's funding and give the money to those groups. That's actually in the bill that the Republicans put forward.

Why does specifically the group responsible for the world's largest modern genocide have to get that funding??
 
Huey Grey said:
This doesn't make much sense. Why would editing make PP look bad? If anything, it makes this Conservative group and the Republicans look bad for claiming illegal activity based on edited videos.
Click to expand...


You didn't think there was anything wrong with the videos in the first place.

What else could they edit out to make PP look better, if they did nothing wrong?
 
tarheelbybirth said:
We already knew they were edited.

When Deborah Nucatola said, “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line”, that comment somehow didn't make it to the final edit.

Neither did her statement, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”

At another point she tells the scammers that affiliates wouldn’t make decisions about whether to work with a tissue research organization based on money. “To them [PP affiliates], this is not a service they should be making money from, it’s something they should be able to offer to their patients, in a way that doesn’t impact them.” That was absent from the edit

Multiple times they are told that the affiliates are offering a service and are not making money on it. Not one of those statements made it into the edit. Weird, huh?
Click to expand...

Weird, indeed.

If Planned Parenthood were so evil, you'd think folks wouldn't have to lie to demonstrate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 and Out on D
Huey Grey said:
"Cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle." This isn't a movie we're talking about here. The full videos were presented as being full videos. Not edited versions of what really happened.
Click to expand...
That's called normal editing Huey.
 
bladel said:
Weird, indeed.

If Planned Parenthood were so evil, you'd think folks wouldn't have to lie to demonstrate it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps people just have a problem with reckless behavior leading to babies being scraped out and killed.
I've known women who have had abortions, just as everyone else has. The majority of them simply weren't careful.
You act as if caring about life in its most innocent and vulnerable form is a bad thing.
You're the one who most likely lacks humanity here, not the ones who don't like abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IMCC965

Forensic analysis determines PP videos NOT MANIPULATED.

Replies
122
Views
3K
Off Topic
Hawk in SEC Country
Hawk in SEC Country
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back