The Biden Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scopedog said:
I disagree. People on the internet discuss and argue over mundane optical illusions all the time. In fact, I mentioned one that was extensively discussed on this forum. Please examine your biases and your and others apparent predisposition to find fault with my comments.
Click to expand...

Ah, everyone else is biased but you are the very soul of objectivity while you attempt to find some dastardly video evidence of....something? Yeah, tell me again how you aren't a conspiracy theorist?

People may argue over optical illusions, but solely because of the illusion. This one is a "controversy" because of who it involves, not because of the illusion. As proof, I offer you the incontrovertible evidence that you aren't discussing it in the television section, or in some optical illusion discussion board. You're discussing it here, in the politics section.

Scopedog said:
Are you proposing that there are examples of that in this thread or are you referring to the internet in general?
Click to expand...

Yes, your "just asking questions" schtick is very convincing.
 
wareyin said:
Ah, everyone else is biased but you are the very soul of objectivity ...
Click to expand...

Do I present myself this way? I certainly try not to. I'll try harder in the future. It occurs to me that the reality may be somewhere in between the extremes you've proposed. Perhaps even somewhere else entirely.

wareyin said:
... while you attempt to find some dastardly video evidence of....something?
Click to expand...

Is there an example of that in this thread?

wareyin said:
As proof, I offer you the incontrovertible evidence that you aren't discussing it in the television section, or in some optical illusion discussion board. You're discussing it here, in the politics section.
Click to expand...

Proof is a strong word but this is a fair point. It didn't occur to me that it might be more appropriate in a different section (I primarily read the politics section).
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Apparently Biden is dead and that's why he hasn't had a 'proper' press conference yet.
'They' are using 'CGI' to keep the illusion going that he is in charge.
Click to expand...

That does seem to be the general tenor of the discussion. :rolleyes:

I guess there's nothing so ridiculous that conspiracy theorists aren't prepared to believe it.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Apparently Biden is dead and that's why he hasn't had a 'proper' press conference yet.
'They' are using 'CGI' to keep the illusion going that he is in charge.
Click to expand...



Typical Millennials! Whatever happened to CTs about good old-fashioned body doubles? "Oh, la-di-dah, I'm going to use CGI!"


Wankers.
 
wareyin said:
Yes. Your posts.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've overwhelmed this thread (or the broader forum in general) with comments. It doesn't seem like it would be too strenuous a task for you to present an example or two. If I'm not worth the effort, I'll accept that.
 
Scopedog said:
I don't think I've overwhelmed this thread (or the broader forum in general) with comments. It doesn't seem like it would be too strenuous a task for you to present an example or two. If I'm not worth the effort, I'll accept that.
Click to expand...

Posts 2417, 2447, and 2449.
 
I mean, there were a few 'Trump is using a green screen' conspiracies out there during his tenure. I see this trying to be painted as something mainstream but still seems to be relegated to reddit and twitter users posting about it. Why that is some measure of mainstream belief is a mystery to me.
 
wareyin said:
Posts 2417, 2447, and 2449.
Click to expand...

In post 2417 and 2447 I proposed logical and reasonable explanations (from my non-experienced, non-expert perspective) for the odd occurrences in the video or audio clip. Post 2449 was a follow up to other posts about the audio. There is no suggestion of "looking for conspiracies or nefarious explanations for mundane events" or an "attempt to find some dastardly video evidence of....something". You seem pre-disposed to find fault with my comments and simply chosen to impugn my motives, which is fine and doesn't offend me (I think some or all of what you're criticizing and arguing against with me is in your imagination). If this isn't the appropriate thread or section for technical discussions of odd (to me) video and audio involving President Biden then feel free to report my posts.
 
Last edited:
Scopedog said:
In post 2417 and 2447 I proposed logical and reasonable explanations (from my non-experienced, non-expert perspective) for the odd occurrences in the video or audio clip. Post 2449 was a follow up to other posts about the audio. There is no suggestion of "looking for conspiracies or nefarious explanations for mundane events" or an "attempt to find some dastardly video evidence of....something". You seem pre-disposed to find fault with my comments and simply chosen to impugn my motives, which is fine and doesn't offend me (I think some or all of what you're criticizing and arguing against with me is in your imagination). If this isn't the appropriate thread or section for technical discussions of odd (to me) video and audio involving President Biden then feel free to report my posts.
Click to expand...

In Post 2417 and 2447 you introduced mundane occurrences as odd things that needed examinations and explanations. Post 2449 was furthering Post 2447's attempt to assume something normal was odd and needed an explanation.

All three conspiracy theory posts were about Biden, so likely on-topic. I feel no need to report on-topic posts even if one is trying to create some sort of controversy out of a mundane video glitch.
 
wareyin said:
In Post 2417 and 2447 you introduced mundane occurrences as odd things that needed examinations and explanations. Post 2449 was furthering Post 2447's attempt to assume something normal was odd and needed an explanation.

All three conspiracy theory posts were about Biden, so likely on-topic. I feel no need to report on-topic posts even if one is trying to create some sort of controversy out of a mundane video glitch.
Click to expand...

I accept that you perceive my comments this way and I appreciate your elaboration.
 
Scopedog said:
What microphone or equipment picked it up? Was it the White House camera and the cameraman's phone? You can't hear a cellphone call unless you're very close to the phone (Chris Cuomo demonstrated this: https://twitter.com/i/status/1197557633059885056). Did the cameraman briefly put his phone on speaker mode? Alternatively, is it possible, perhaps, for cellphone or Bluetooth signals to interfere with White House equipment and, if so, which equipment?
Click to expand...

In Cuomo's case the phone is very close to his mic, that isn't the case with Biden.

There is someone managing the broadcast sound, probably a shared broadcast rather than individual ones for each broadcast company.



Wiki Mult box
A whole set of etiquette and mores has developed amongst journalists governing the use of mult boxes. Because it is often difficult to get a good sound recording from a digital recorder for later broadcast or transcription for newspaper reporting, journalists have developed informal rules for their use.[5] For example, the media should treat the sound engineer well, because while reporters can be selfish and competitive with each other, and the equipment can go wrong in many ways, the engineer allows all of them to get a good signal.[2]...
Click to expand...


Another option might be the things you mentioned like a wi-fi breaking through, maybe a walkie talkie of one of the SS. Less likely because of what was heard and because it cut off shortly into the voice being heard suggesting the person saw their mistake. My neighbor's phone came through on my baby monitor. I could only hear one side of the conversations.

I still think it was someone managing the sound who accidentally had their mic on. I was on a call listening to an inservice. You call in and get connected to the broadcast sound. A couple of idiots who were managing the phones didn't know they had to turn off their mic (or they were unaware they were being picked up) and they talked during the whole conference. Really annoying.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Nice try, but if this had been a video of a totally random person there would have been no controversy. We wouldn't have had people looking for conspiracies or nefarious explanations for mundane events.
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly following you here but, there is nothing that indicates this was something like Hunter Biden on Biden's cell phone except people think that's his voice. It's absurd.

It is a 'random person' sound feed but probably someone involved in the broadcast.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
In Cuomo's case the phone is very close to his mic, that isn't the case with Biden.

There is someone managing the broadcast sound, probably a shared broadcast rather than individual ones for each broadcast company.



Wiki Mult box



Another option might be the things you mentioned like a wi-fi breaking through, maybe a walkie talkie of one of the SS. Less likely because of what was heard and because it cut off shortly into the voice being heard suggesting the person saw their mistake. My neighbor's phone came through on my baby monitor. I could only hear one side of the conversations.

I still think it was someone managing the sound who accidentally had their mic on. I was on a call listening to an inservice. You call in and get connected to the broadcast sound. A couple of idiots who were managing the phones didn't know they had to turn off their mic (or they were unaware they were being picked up) and they talked during the whole conference. Really annoying.
Click to expand...

Thank you, this is very helpful. I would have researched it more myself but I wasn't sure how to go about it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm not exactly following you here but, there is nothing that indicates this was something like Hunter Biden on Biden's cell phone except people think that's his voice. It's absurd.

It is a 'random person' sound feed but probably someone involved in the broadcast.
Click to expand...

I do think it sounds like Hunter. I'm not wedded to the idea and I don't want or need for it to be Hunter but that's my opinion. It's not a totally unknowable mystery, though. In the fullness of time, if the federal investigation into his business dealings results in a plea deal, then the audio may have been him. If the investigation results in exoneration or no plea deal then it isn't him. The audio was January 21st- how long does it normally take to finalize federal plea deals? If it's been too long then it's probably not him.
 
Scopedog said:
I think the hand-over-microphone videos were at least as worthy of discussion as the picture of the dress that some people thought was white and others thought was blue. Not knowing anything about video production, I thought the microphones looked added in post-production somehow and a lot of people, partisan or otherwise, perceived other shenanigans in the exact same footage. All the proposed shenanigans would require a conspiracy between at least Associated Press and Washington Post. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories so I wanted an alternative non-conspiratorial view and I found it myself (optical illusion, very apparent when both angles are compared in slow motion). I corrected myself quickly and publicly and have done so repeatedly in this thread regarding these videos.

An alternative possibility to Einsteins and village idiots believing wierd things (I've read the book for what it's worth) is that, to you, the subject (President Biden) of this (small) controversy is one that's an uncomfortable target for scrutiny based on your own biases. If it were a video of a totally random person I'll bet you'd be more inclined to at least examine it from the perspective of people who initially found it strange. I wonder if you have the capacity for introspection and self-reflection to consider this. I'm certainly capable of and have experienced the errors in thinking that Michael Shermer wrote about.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this idea that we're seeing a green screen of a mundane activity of the President. As I said, earlier. The whole White House press corp would have to be involved. Whatever you think you're seeing there is certainly a more benign and mundane explanation.
 
Scopedog said:
Also, this is kind of old, but was the "plea sentence" audio at 1:16:35 that sounds somewhat like Hunter (he has a fairly distinctive voice) ever discussed here?

https://youtu.be/Ec3mkoSWf0A

Even if it's not Hunter I'm curious about theories of how that audio would end up there and if there are any other less potentially controversial examples. Is this a known and understood glitch in light of the sort of equipment the White House uses?
Click to expand...

It sounds like the voice says, "so just so you know my life, as we're waiting to do this, I just agreed to a plea sentence for a guy..." That sounds like something a lawyer or possibly a judge would say.

It appears to be the voice of Xavier Becerra, the California Attorney General who was nominated (and just confirmed) as Secretary of Health and Human Services. It sounds like him. It is the type of thing an attorney general might say. Biden was just saying the people joining him and VP Harris, which included Becerra.

In the video of the same event below from CNBC you can see that where the voice comes in in the White House video, this video pans out and shows some people on a screen for something like a zoom meeting. The person in the lower right is Becerra. You can see that he was talking at the time the voice kicks in on the other video.

 
Last edited:
What we have is the entire Right side of the political spectrum and about.... 10-15% of the the still butthurt parts of the Left that don't understand that a President being boring is a good thing.

The President not being in the news everything isn't a bug to be fixed. We all get that right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom