Did Obama really go to Harvard?

[Anders Lindman]

One last time for the oh-so-desperately-hard-of understanding:

Making a video cut doesn't mean you cannot overlap audio - it is a piece of cake to do it.

Now had you bothered watching that video I put up explaining how seamless editing is performed by using that exact process.........



Where you put the word CUT, only the audio is pasted over the cut!


Answer this, because it should smack your "oh yeah" button in your brain:

Go on, put a word in where that cut occurs and make that sentence make sense. A chunk has been cut out. Even if you just examine the sentence "how did this one man do all this?" - please summarise as to what he means. ie. Do all what? He hasn't listed anything!

You mean that the inaudible word is the cut in the audio, and it's inaudible because it's actually not a single word, but the beginning of one word, directly followed by the end of another word later on in the speech? So what sounds like a single word may in actuality contain a gap of several seconds and even minutes.

 

[332nd]

When your posts have so much crap in them so that they need to be cut.

So you put yourself on ignore? That's why you don't seem to have any idea of what you're talking about!

 

[JayUtah]

When you have managed to lower the signal-to-noise ratio of your posts below a certain level.

Only a troll would consider it "noise" to ask how one knows what he is talking about.

So how about it, Anders? Had any adjudicated experience in photography, photographic interpretation, image analysis, film production, film editing? Oh no, of course not. You're just an "ordinary guy." So you don't know whether you're any good at any of that stuff.

 

[R.A.F.]

When your posts have so much crap in them so that they need to be cut.

See, that's the thing...the only crap around here is coming from you...the rest of us are just trying to get you to prove yourself correct...something you seem incapable of doing.

 

[Erock]

You mean that the inaudible word is the cut in the audio, and it's inaudible because it's actually not a single word, but the beginning of one word, directly followed by the end of another word later on in the speech? So what sounds like a single word may in actuality contain a gap of several seconds and even minutes.

Could be, or just an inaudible word.

The thing is, the bit you keep ignoring....

Make sense of that sentence by placing in any word. Then account for his list having nothing in it!

"how did this one man do all this?" - please summarise as to what he means. ie. Do all what? He hasn't listed anything!"

Why not wait for the full transcript and video to appear? This is the president, so will eventually end up being fully reported.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Could be, or just an inaudible word.

The thing is, the bit you keep ignoring....

Make sense of that sentence by placing in any word. Then account for his list having nothing in it!

"how did this one man do all this?" - please summarise as to what he means. ie. Do all what? He hasn't listed anything!"

Why not wait for the full transcript and video to appear? This is the president, so will eventually end up being fully reported.

If it's just an inaudible word, then I still don't find where the cut in the audio is. Because for the third time: That word stretches OVER the cut. So if it's just one word, then there is NO cut in the audio at that point. Only if the inaudible word is a result of a start of one word and the ending of another word is there a cut.

Obama's lips are synched with the audio before the cut and after the cut, so the inaudible word itself must be where the cut is, if there is a cut, given that the audio is a clean and linear recording of Obama's speech and not some wildly manipulated stuff.

 

[jaydeehess]

You mean that the inaudible word is the cut in the audio, and it's inaudible because it's actually not a single word, but the beginning of one word, directly followed by the end of another word later on in the speech? So what sounds like a single word may in actuality contain a gap of several seconds and even minutes.

Are you actually unaware that NLE editors easily allow manipulating each audio track separatly and separatly from the video?

In fact this was quite possible and easy before NLEs.

it is quite astounding how ignorant you are of all technical matters,and how blisfully ignorant you are of your ignorance.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I get it now. If there are manipulated images and videos etc the manipulation is done so that claims of fakery can easily be debunked. I'm not wasting more time on this now.

B.t.w. I have now removed JayUtah from my ignore list.

 

[jaydeehess]

I get it now. If there are manipulated images and videos etc the manipulation is done so that claims of fakery can easily be debunked. I'm not wasting more time on this now.

yep, confusing ignorant people is done for sport

B.t.w. I have now removed JayUtah from my ignore list

good for you

 

[JayUtah]

Because for the third time: That word stretches OVER the cut.

And for the third time: that doesn't matter. Modern digital editing techniques provide options for "seamless" edits where the audio and video tracks are blended separately over the space of a few frames, and not at exactly the same time. Audio and video are in synch on either side of the edit, but not necessarily so during the edit. The software finds the optimal place in the video stream and the optimal place in the audio stream (which may not be the same point) around which to center the edit of each elementary stream, within a certain broader tolerance, according to the criteria of what changes the least across the potential editing boundary. That makes edits less jarring from both and audio and video perspective.

Obama's lips are synched with the audio before the cut and after the cut, so the inaudible word itself must be where the cut is...

No. You're trying to impose limits derived from your layman's simplistic understanding of what an edit "must" be. This is why expertise is required to determine authenticity, not just an "ordinary guy's" uninformed intuition.

...not some wildly manipulated stuff.

Your unfamiliarity with the standard tools and techniques does not make it "wildly manipulated." Your whole argument is, "I don't understand what's happening here, so I'm just going to say it's fake."

 

[JayUtah]

I get it now. If there are manipulated images and videos etc the manipulation is done so that claims of fakery can easily be debunked. I'm not wasting more time on this now.

Translation: I've been debunked thoroughly, but I'm not going to admit it.

B.t.w. I have now removed JayUtah from my ignore list.

Translation: It's against my fundamental rules as a troll to ignore attention.

Will I see answers to my questions? No, of course not. Uncomfortable questions are "noise" to you.

 

[JayUtah]

In fact this was quite possible and easy before NLEs.

Indeed, we did audio lead-ins all the time on tape-based systems.

it is quite astounding how ignorant you are of all technical matters,and how blisfully ignorant you are of your ignorance.

Anders is a troll, so analyzing his approach is something of a waste; he isn't serious. But he exhibits one of the Dunning-Kruger behaviors, intentionally or otherwise. He assumes that his layman's understanding is sufficient. This sometimes works on the positive side of the equation, where a layman can say, "Yes, I've seen that done before." But on the negative side it falls flat: "I can't imagine how that was done, so it must be impossible."

The difference is that in one case, complete knowledge is not required. In the other case it is. Reasonable completeness of knowledge is a trait of an expert, but not of a layman.

 

[SpitfireIX]

<delete>

 

[jaydeehess]

Anders should see if his local community college offers courses in Final Cut.

That is what he 'should' do. What he will do is continue to assert that his ignorance of how editing is done is good enough.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I make those claims as an ordinary person, not as someone who needs credentials to examine things.

Would you like to perform surgery as an ordinary person, too?

 

[Mudcat]

Someone help me out here, I'm having trouble understanding something because I'm just an amateur Gimp user who likes to manipulate static images for kicks and giggles so maybe I'm missing something:

How is a a good or bad (but other wise typical) edit of an interview constitute as being anywhere near suspicious?

This question seeks for an answer. Let's see question and answer united at long last.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Fixed.

It must tickle Anders to see a number of us pleading with the rest of you to ignore the obvious troll and be repeatedly ignored. It's like all those truther claims about why Silverstein admitted to complicity in the destruction of WTC7—because he could and there's nothing anyone could do about it.

How do you tell the real idiots from the pretend though?

 

[JohnG]

One could argue that consciously pretending to be an idiot so consistently and for such a long time simply for the attention is itself idiotic and more than a little sad.

 

[Garrison]

When you have managed to lower the signal-to-noise ratio of your posts below a certain level.

No, you mean when someone keeps asking questions you can't answer. And it's an odd statement for someone like yourself Anders whose signal to noise ratio is effectively zero.

 

[Craig4]

One could argue that consciously pretending to be an idiot so consistently and for such a long time simply for the attention is itself idiotic and more than a little sad.

Desperate really.