💰 Grifter StoneToss (allegedly, formerly Red Panels)
- Iniciador del tema Pointless Pedant
- Fecha de inicio
-
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack).
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 19 de Ene, 2021
Looks to me like the microphones are the fake objects here.
- Registrado
- 2 de Ene, 2017
Someone in the comment of the video pointed out that he does actually interact with the green mic. It brushes against one of his hands despite looking similarly weird to the white one. The whole thing still looks bizarre though, I wish someone with more photography knowledge would make a video or something replicating the shot and explaining how it can be achieved.
Absolutetense
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 21 de Ene, 2021
It looks bizarre because the guard of the microfone is fluffy. If you add to this digital compression you will have weird effects like this. His hand brushes against the mic. Watched it again and again, it's real.
- Registrado
- 26 de Nov, 2016
The mic was on a boom stand. Unless you think the camera crew were midgets with long arms, enough to "socially distance".
His paws went over the mic and got between the mic and the camera.
That's exactly what happened, his hands phased over the foreground object, and it's now between the mic and the camera.
They look fake because they are out of focus and closer to the camera thus appearing larger. They aren't.
This is going to sound autistic, but yeah it's an optical illusion. People need to stop hating on "factcheck" websites, just because the right puts out more retarded "news" pieces they have to address doesn't mean they have a horse in this race. They usually do an alright job, though I'm still going to maintain the position that such website's existence and premise paints a pathetic picture of western journalism. There's so many dumb people unwilling to do their own research and too lazy to learn basic bitch shit, thus providing a market for these shitty grifty sites.
Stock photos I found.
U.S. President Joe Biden stops briefly to talk to the press as he... …
archived 19 Mar 2021 07:49:57 UTC
You can see it's a moderately wide angle shot. The mics are bigger than creepy uncle's head. My guess is some kind of 24-70mm zoom lens.
Red = plane of focus, green = out of focus. (background isn't in focus either obviously)
The creepy uncle's hand goes over the mic, his hand is now situated between the camera and the mic:
The jagged edges here is due to the Mexican's shitty enlargement codec trying to interpolate the colours, nothing else.
Green: Foreground, out of focus
Blue: Background, out of focus
Red: Plane of focus
Notice how the mic looks blurry? It's also bigger than Joe's head because it's closer to the camera. This is called perspective distortion where stuff closer appears larger.
It's like this, but inverted. (Imagine the bird being blurry while something mid-frame, maybe a person being in focus)
No, the pigeon isn't larger than a Ferris wheel.
So basically what happened is this:
1. Mic was very close to the cameraman/videographer
2. The mics were out of focus for obvious reasons. The camera person was focusing on the grabby uncle
3. Joe's trademark "loli grab" pose went above, over the mic. His paws are now between the mic and the camera, and it's slightly out of focus.
4. Beanology's incompetent Mexican video processing skills generated excessive aliasing.
Conclusion: Not a fucking greenscreen.
These videos and still shots actually prove the exact opposite. The weather lines up, the depth of field is in the middle causing both foreground and background objects being blurry. A typical greenscreen will have both the background and foreground in focus. A better one will obviously apply some kind of blur to make it convincing but it's still obvious.
Unless people actually thinks there's some autistic Hollywood levels of editing with still photos from multiple people being fake, complete silence from everyone down to the guard involved in the interview... the required evidence to prove this is a greenscreen is stacking up, whereas all the weirdness can be explained with some simple physics stuff.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 17 de Ago, 2020
It's pretty sad no one talks about the Arab slave trade. I mean c'mon! it was so diverse! You had blacks AND whites getting shackled!. In the millions too!
- Registrado
- 17 de Ago, 2018
- Registrado
- 26 de Nov, 2016
The obvious explanation is Uncle Joe was seeing things, he's a paranoid schizophrenic, and saw lolis standing there. He tried to grab them but got a whiff of the ether and some smelly mic shoved into him.
Seriously though, the original footage I've found was like 480P-572P (how's that a thing?). It was shit enough, Beanology blew it to 1080P and made it even larger when he plastered "brah" as Biden was attempting to grab the airloli, exacerbating the weird levitating mics.
Someone might then ask how are the mics so chaotic while the frame is very stable? This is simple, the cameraman was probably using a gimbal, or the camera offers "in-body image stabilisation" which physically moves the sensor to compensate with movements (or in many cases both). All these factors combined makes for an eerie video.
- Registrado
- 26 de Nov, 2018
Then how does he manage to get his hand over/through the mic, especially when he's still moving?Here's another pic that absolutely triggers /pol/tards whenever someone posts it.
Ver archivo adjunto 2010126
- Registrado
- 23 de Feb, 2020
Clearly there's no other logical explanation besides someone CGI-ing a fucking mic behind his hand lmao. Do I really have to spoon feed you?
- Registrado
- 24 de Abr, 2016
Regardless of the veracity of the video, its a weak comic that doesnt add more than watching the clip yourself. The "no malarkey" takes away from it even. Put "i have no plan," Instead.
- Registrado
- 17 de Ago, 2018
R; poor video compression and artificing.
- Registrado
- 25 de Dic, 2017
There is also the simple explanation that the mic wind cover is like a plushy, so of course it looks like things go through it.
- Registrado
- 26 de Nov, 2018
And the footage just happens to be sub 720p eh? While they can get crystal clear recordings of flies around Pence and whatever flub of the week Trump had on the campaign trail. There's just a lot of weird shit that shouldn't really be happening with modern media recording, which we never saw with the many Trump public appearances.
- Registrado
- 27 de Abr, 2015
Even if the video is real and is a result of artifacting or weird angles, it looks fake as hell. The media's trying to paint people who think it's a green screen as insane alt right q conspiracy theorist white supremacists, but it's completely reasonable to come to the conclusion that it's a green screen after watching the video because it looks like one to any normal person.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 25 de Dic, 2017
Fixed for ya.
- Registrado
- 17 de Ago, 2018
Take it up with Memology then.
- Registrado
- 26 de Nov, 2016
Let me break this down even further.
His hand does go over the mic.
The mic is on a boom stand, because social distancing and other obvious reasons (ummm, assassinations?).
The mic is closer to the camera, so it's an out of focus fluffy blob. There's blurry halos because the mic is... well, fluffy.
Due to perspective distortion, the mic appears rather large, larger than Joe's head. If you go to the extremes, larger than the buildings behind. Your hand is probably smaller than your monitor, now put your hand close to your eyes, it will cover the monitor.
The mics are shaky because the operators are. The frame is still because of stabilisation. This creates a very odd effect.
Joe then puts his hand behind the mic, or in front from the perspective of the people holding it.
His hands are now between the mic (rendered as blur) and the camera, appears larger because of above.
His hands never went through the mic, it only ever went above and over, which the operator responded to by nudging the thing.
The distance seems drastic because of the "parallax effect", the somewhat wide angle lens exacerbates this movement. If you move your head side to side, you'll see your monitor move, now look at something further away, like a tree. Do the same, and the tree barely moves.
Jagged outline? Blurring? Mosaic? Mexican video editing skills. If you upscale a shitty 480P potato clip, you'll get a shitty 1080P potato clip.
Look, it's not that easy to understand if you want the nitty gritty, but this is getting into nanny territories. The surface stuff is very simple. It's just an optical illusion combined with shitty Mexican video editing skills.
And this is why "fact checking" websites seem to disproportionally target "right wing" content. These morons can't help the grift.
Alex Jones ran some piece on Hillary in 2016, claiming she's a hologram or had a staged rally, because they can't find her here, neither can they find her in these shitty smartphones:
Yet here she is on TV:
Now let's forget pesky details such as other angles showing her clearly on the stage. We are right wing grifters and we need to grift.
So why can't we see her in the first frame and on their smartphones? Simple, the smartphone cameras are wide angle, it stretches the scene making everything small. The videographer shots were from a longer telephoto lens, pulling the witch closer, she fills the frame.
The shitty smartphone cameras are wider, capturing a larger field. The flag at the back will appear smaller and more distant due to perspective distortion.
The video guy and his $100,000 camera can zoom all the way in. Not only compressing the field and filling the frame with Hillary's demonic presence, the flag at the back is also "pulled" forward, less distant because long focal length means less perspective distortion.
Hologram? It's just simple physics, but not simple enough for retarded grifty right wingers I guess.
Yet here she is on TV:
Now let's forget pesky details such as other angles showing her clearly on the stage. We are right wing grifters and we need to grift.
So why can't we see her in the first frame and on their smartphones? Simple, the smartphone cameras are wide angle, it stretches the scene making everything small. The videographer shots were from a longer telephoto lens, pulling the witch closer, she fills the frame.
The shitty smartphone cameras are wider, capturing a larger field. The flag at the back will appear smaller and more distant due to perspective distortion.
The video guy and his $100,000 camera can zoom all the way in. Not only compressing the field and filling the frame with Hillary's demonic presence, the flag at the back is also "pulled" forward, less distant because long focal length means less perspective distortion.
Hologram? It's just simple physics, but not simple enough for retarded grifty right wingers I guess.
If you ignore all the higher resolution stock photos I included, sure. Way to miss everything though, shitty Mexican codecs was just one of the many problems that can be explained very easily.
There's no dilemma here. The media are faggots if they can't just explain stuff and resort to labelling (to be honest, I'm pretty sure 99% of MSM pundits can't explain this stuff either, they don't even know how numbers work), and people who think this is some green screen lack education. Ideally the MSM can go back to the older days and have qualified people to explain this interesting phenomenon, but modern journalism is about division and clickbait.
Many things look fake.
So how can something this bright and something this dark be captured at once, where's atmospheric haze and other issues? Why is the moon brighter than one might expect? CGI reeeeeeee.
Answer is pretty simple, this is a composite of many real shots blended together so it looks nicer (and more useful).
You can read the techniques used here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth
Última edición:
round robin
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 27 de Jun, 2020
Huh, I guess I was wrong. Still looks weird, tho.