Green screen disinfo.

Why don't all news cameras shake like this when zoomed in.

They are not all CNN.

Quote from: tappet on March 09, 2014, 04:10:37 PM

Why don't all news cameras shake like this when zoomed in.

They are not all CNN.

Fair call.

Why don't all news cameras shake like this when zoomed in.

Shaky images can be corrected with software such as Adobe's "Warp Stabilizer" that corrects the image across all axes automatically.  It analyses what should be stable in the image (by which I mean moving smoothly  as would be produced by a dolly or steady-cam) say in this case the prow of the destroyer, and then crops, rotates and shifts the rest of the image to suit.

Although in practice, the software will probably pick a couple hundred potentially stable points to speed up the image processing.  Dunno exactly; never used it.
 

oh. my. god.

who cares?

Look at the angles of the views.  They are completely different.  The top image is more straight on, the bottom image is more from a higher angle.  Could be a guy on an upper deck next to the camera?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 10, 2014, 01:33:27 PM

Look at the angles of the views.  They are completely different.  The top image is more straight on, the bottom image is more from a higher angle.  Could be a guy on an upper deck next to the camera?

I can hear it now. "Use your logic and don't be silly. You people should know that you can't have more than three people and one camera on a boat otherwise the boat would sink under the air pressure.  Never mind that the viewing angles and the railings are different, you're just completely indoctrinated. Did you know that I along with Dong and Wang invented that ship."

Let's assume this news report was green-screened. Even so, what does this prove other than the broadcasters were too lazy/cheap to send their reporter to the site of the story?

Let's assume this news report was green-screened. Even so, what does this prove other than the broadcasters were too lazy/cheap to send their reporter to the site of the story?

Actually that's correct. It's the whole point of the situation. It tells anyone who's willing to use their common sense that you cannot get LIVE  feeds by BULLCRAP satellites at the drop of a hat. It has to be greeen screened from earlier footage to be added into the SUPPOSED live script.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 10, 2014, 03:42:35 PM

Let's assume this news report was green-screened. Even so, what does this prove other than the broadcasters were too lazy/cheap to send their reporter to the site of the story?

Actually that's correct. It's the whole point of the situation. It tells anyone who's willing to use their common sense that you cannot get LIVE  feeds by BULLCRAP satellites at the drop of a hat. It has to be greeen screened from earlier footage to be added into the SUPPOSED live script.

I thought you guys said you can get live feed from a worldwide network of secret ground transmitters? Now your argument is live tv = satellites?

In what ways are you claiming it is disinfo?

If the guy is not actually there, it is a little cheeky of them. but other than that, not much disinfo going on.

The news is bullshit anyway.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 10, 2014, 04:31:17 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 10, 2014, 03:42:35 PM

Let's assume this news report was green-screened. Even so, what does this prove other than the broadcasters were too lazy/cheap to send their reporter to the site of the story?

Actually that's correct. It's the whole point of the situation. It tells anyone who's willing to use their common sense that you cannot get LIVE  feeds by BULLCRAP satellites at the drop of a hat. It has to be greeen screened from earlier footage to be added into the SUPPOSED live script.

I thought you guys said you can get live feed from a worldwide network of secret ground transmitters? Now your argument is live tv = satellites?

I resent being lumped in with "you guys".

Quote from: glokta on March 10, 2014, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 10, 2014, 04:31:17 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 10, 2014, 03:42:35 PM

Let's assume this news report was green-screened. Even so, what does this prove other than the broadcasters were too lazy/cheap to send their reporter to the site of the story?

Actually that's correct. It's the whole point of the situation. It tells anyone who's willing to use their common sense that you cannot get LIVE  feeds by BULLCRAP satellites at the drop of a hat. It has to be greeen screened from earlier footage to be added into the SUPPOSED live script.

I thought you guys said you can get live feed from a worldwide network of secret ground transmitters? Now your argument is live tv = satellites?

I resent being lumped in with "you guys".

That is a very pertinent point and very well put.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 10, 2014, 04:47:12 PM

Quote from: glokta on March 10, 2014, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 10, 2014, 04:31:17 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 10, 2014, 03:42:35 PM

Let's assume this news report was green-screened. Even so, what does this prove other than the broadcasters were too lazy/cheap to send their reporter to the site of the story?

Actually that's correct. It's the whole point of the situation. It tells anyone who's willing to use their common sense that you cannot get LIVE  feeds by BULLCRAP satellites at the drop of a hat. It has to be greeen screened from earlier footage to be added into the SUPPOSED live script.

I thought you guys said you can get live feed from a worldwide network of secret ground transmitters? Now your argument is live tv = satellites?

I resent being lumped in with "you guys".

That is a very pertinent point and very well put.

Thank you. I spent about two hours typing that post up.

Quote from: burt on March 10, 2014, 04:49:36 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 10, 2014, 04:47:12 PM

Quote from: glokta on March 10, 2014, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 10, 2014, 04:31:17 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 10, 2014, 03:42:35 PM

Let's assume this news report was green-screened. Even so, what does this prove other than the broadcasters were too lazy/cheap to send their reporter to the site of the story?

Actually that's correct. It's the whole point of the situation. It tells anyone who's willing to use their common sense that you cannot get LIVE  feeds by BULLCRAP satellites at the drop of a hat. It has to be greeen screened from earlier footage to be added into the SUPPOSED live script.

I thought you guys said you can get live feed from a worldwide network of secret ground transmitters? Now your argument is live tv = satellites?

I resent being lumped in with "you guys".

That is a very pertinent point and very well put.

Thank you. I spent about two hours typing that post up.

 

No green screen, and more importantly, no "disinformation".

Wrong: neither of them are important.

666

Let's keep the low content posts to a minimum.  Thanks. 

oh. my. god.

who cares?

Exactly.  People here making such a big deal about a couple of minute's worth of news footage?  LOL.

What about the thrust of the report itself re Crimea, and the Russian naval base and the US sneaking in a destroyer under the guise of "a normal naval exercise"?

Doesn't matter in the least whether or not it's been green-screened; or orange with purple-polka dots screened.

This OP is just all too typical of sceptimatic's games of non-relevant comments which in actuality have very little to do with the flat earth versus round earth debate.  The guy is a master of misdirection.  Criss Angel would be impressed.
 

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 10, 2014, 04:47:12 PM

Quote from: glokta on March 10, 2014, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 10, 2014, 04:31:17 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 10, 2014, 03:42:35 PM

Let's assume this news report was green-screened. Even so, what does this prove other than the broadcasters were too lazy/cheap to send their reporter to the site of the story?

Actually that's correct. It's the whole point of the situation. It tells anyone who's willing to use their common sense that you cannot get LIVE  feeds by BULLCRAP satellites at the drop of a hat. It has to be greeen screened from earlier footage to be added into the SUPPOSED live script.

I thought you guys said you can get live feed from a worldwide network of secret ground transmitters? Now your argument is live tv = satellites?

I resent being lumped in with "you guys".

That is a very pertinent point and very well put.

Is there anything more cringe worthy than the puke inducing flat earth arse kissing any time a female posts anything...

OMG, that is hilarious. How often do you suppose that happens, glokta?

OMG, that is hilarious. How often do you suppose that happens, glokta?

 

Quote from: burt on March 10, 2014, 04:49:36 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 10, 2014, 04:47:12 PM

Quote from: glokta on March 10, 2014, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 10, 2014, 04:31:17 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 10, 2014, 03:42:35 PM

Let's assume this news report was green-screened. Even so, what does this prove other than the broadcasters were too lazy/cheap to send their reporter to the site of the story?

Actually that's correct. It's the whole point of the situation. It tells anyone who's willing to use their common sense that you cannot get LIVE  feeds by BULLCRAP satellites at the drop of a hat. It has to be greeen screened from earlier footage to be added into the SUPPOSED live script.

I thought you guys said you can get live feed from a worldwide network of secret ground transmitters? Now your argument is live tv = satellites?

I resent being lumped in with "you guys".

That is a very pertinent point and very well put.

Is there anything more cringe worthy than the puke inducing flat earth arse kissing any time a female posts anything...

You are my hero.

Green screen. Pretty obvious one.

Unbelieva-bull- bull shit!!!!

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Anderson Cooper GreenScreen Studio Bomb Studio Echo

The two videos above are excellent examples of what I'm talking about. This is the bullshit we get every single day in bits and every week or so in large doses at any one time.
It's amazing how people refuse to see this shit.

I have to admit, that last video is hilariously bad.
I mean, they duck.. one guy puts on a gas mask, the other a helmet.

Looks at this bullshit - these guys are pretending to be horse and it's an obvious fake.

Therefore horses don't exist, right?

The whole thing is a conspiracy by Big Stable.

Unbelieva-bull- bull shit!!!!

What do you see that's fake in it?