ACORN workers caught on tape apparently advising on child prostitution

[Frank]

@Evil_One

For those who think the tapes have somehow been “doctored”, I offer the following information.

OK, given your information, can you suggest why O’Keefe is not willing to release the full original and unedited tapes?

[MOIDALIZE]

@Frank

OK, given your information, can you suggest why O’Keefe is not willing to release the full original and unedited tapes?

Actually, I think he should suggest why we should all care about this first.

[Evil_One]

@Frank

OK, given your information, can you suggest why O’Keefe is not willing to release the full original and unedited tapes?

I haven’t heard whether he has been asked. Has that request been made?

If I were in his shoes, I would be reluctant to give away the original tapes to anyone either. How could I be assured I would get them back? Who would I give them to? How could I be assured that the person or entity I gave them to is unbiased? How would they analyze them?

In this hyperpolitical atmosphere, anything he does is going to be questioned. Just like Bush or Obama, there is nothing he can do that will satisfy a certain percentage of people.

[Evil_One]

@Frylock

I don’t know of any evidence that the tapes were doctored. But regarding the point quoted above, couldn’t they just paste on a timecode after the editing?

The only purpose for a visible time code on the tape in the first place is to counter editing accusations. And no, there really is no way to paste another timecode over the original panel. It’s not like photoshop on a .jpg. The timecode is embedded in the video control track. I suppose you could have a video of a running timecode that looked exactly the same and run through an after-affects program to shrink it to the exact size of the original timecode display. If you take that and mix it together with the original tape onto another tape, it might work.

But if you have the original tape to prove the events were shot as you say they were, you wouldn’t need to bother.

@Frylock

I think the idea is supposed to be that they just added in sound. You can’t see Giles and O’Keefe’s mouths for most of the clip, so it wouldn’t be hard to just dub in dialogue for them, would it?

If you dub in dialogue, you would have to somehow manufacture the exact ambient noise picked up inside the ACORN office as background noise. An analysis of that tape would then reveal two separate audio tracks on the control track.

[Evil_One]

@MOIDALIZE

Actually, I think he should suggest why we should all care about this first.

You’d be singing a different tune if someone with leftward ideology had a similar tape shot in a gun show or NRA meeting and they were talking about buying illegal guns.

Or an anti-abortion group talking about burning down a clinic.

The ACORN people were condoning crime and seemed quite happy to do it.

[MOIDALIZE]

@Evil_One

You’d be singing a different tune if someone with leftward ideology had a similar tape shot in a gun show or NRA meeting and they were talking about buying illegal guns.

Or an anti-abortion group talking about burning down a clinic.

The ACORN people were condoning crime and seemed quite happy to do it.

I would? That’s news to me.

I’m sure I’d try to tie their actions to Bush as well, wouldn’t I?

At some point, you’re going to have to drop this “opposing teams” concept of politics and government and start to decide on what truly matters and what doesn’t.

[Frylock]

@Evil_One

The only purpose for a visible time code on the tape in the first place is to counter editing accusations. And no, there really is no way to paste another timecode over the original panel. It’s not like photoshop on a .jpg. The timecode is embedded in the video control track. I suppose you could have a video of a running timecode that looked exactly the same and run through an after-affects program to shrink it to the exact size of the original timecode display. If you take that and mix it together with the original tape onto another tape, it might work.

Yes, that sounds like it might work.

But if you have the original tape to prove the events were shot as you say they were, you wouldn’t need to bother.

True enough. But of course the people who are saying it’s dubbed wouldn’t agree that the pair have an original tape like the one you describ.

If you dub in dialogue, you would have to somehow manufacture the exact ambient noise picked up inside the ACORN office as background noise. An analysis of that tape would then reveal two separate audio tracks on the control track.

I don’t understand this, probably because I don’t know anything about audio recording. Why couldn’t you just record manufactured dialogue, and fairly literally add it to the tape, adding it in over the ambient noise and so on?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Frylock

Yes, that sounds like it might work.

True enough. But of course the people who are saying it’s dubbed wouldn’t agree that the pair have an original tape like the one you describ.

I don’t understand this, probably because I don’t know anything about audio recording. Why couldn’t you just record manufactured dialogue, and fairly literally add it to the tape, adding it in over the ambient noise and so on?

It wouldn’t sound the same without lots and lots of processing, and the processing would be obvious to anyone who knows how to do it. Hollywood studios pay tens of thousands of dollars to people who do this for a living when dialogue has to be re-recorded in post and then dubbed into the scene. It takes a lot of equipment, a lot of technical & artistic expertise, and even then is fairly obvious to people who know audio.

[elucidator]

I think Sen Vitter (R-NookieMonster) is just the man to head up an investigation into this prostitution angle, can’t think of anybody better qualified…

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@elucidator

I think Sen Vitter (R-NookieMonster) is just the man to head up an investigation into this prostitution angle, can’t think of anybody better qualified…

Depends…

[elucidator]

On that issue, it would have to be Sen McCain…(fudda-bump ting!)…thank you, thank you, here all week, try your waitress, tip the veal…

[cosmosdan]

@MOIDALIZE

I would? That’s news to me.

I’m sure I’d try to tie their actions to Bush as well, wouldn’t I?

At some point, you’re going to have to drop this “opposing teams” concept of politics and government and start to decide on what truly matters and what doesn’t.

I think there;s something fishy about these tapes but, I loved Bowling for Columbine when I first saw it. Then I discovered how it had been edited to give false impressions and I was pissed. I haven’t seen or examined his later movies but Moore is the lefty guy who likes to use creative edits to spin what’s called a documentary into his own vision. IMHO.

[cosmosdan]

@Evil_One

For those who think the tapes have somehow been “doctored”, I offer the following information.

First, O’Keefe was smart enough to put a visible timecode at the top left of the tapes. That’s 30 frames per second visibly ticking by one frame at a time. If the individual portions shown on youtube and FOX were edited to somehow insert or remove individual shots within the video clips shown, it would appear in the timecode which would then be out of sequence. Since it runs from start to finish from the beginning of the clip to the end, no video editing has taken place.

Second, you can watch the lips of the people speaking and see that no audio overdubbing has taken place. With a non-linear editing system, it would be possible to eliminate all audio from the video and replace it…but you cannot edit ambient sound and the spoken words separately without recording them on separate audio channels to begin with. Since the audio from the ACORN workers is heard along with the ambient sound and the speaking voices of Giles and O’Keefe, that means one mic was used…the one attached to the hidden camera. If all the audio is recorded on one mic, it can’t be separated in post-production. It’s all mixed together at the recording source.

Some people have asserted that the ACORN workers were answering harmless questions and that the “child prostitution” language was somehow “dubbed in later”. With a visible time code and one audio source, the only way for this to happen would be to somehow record the ambient sound without anyone talking. Then they would have to lay it down as a base track (at exactly the same audio level as the original, with perfect timing about what was going on in the background so it would sound the same) and then carefully substitute in the alternate dialogue…making sure that the timing is correct as far as the number of seconds it would take to speak both the “real” and “fake” questions. The timing would have to be the same to avoid either too much silence at both ends of the edit or stepping on the original audio at the beginning or the end. Oh, and make sure the audio levels of both sets of dialogue is exactly the same.

This procedure would have to be repeated for each instance of “overdubbing”. Even the one and two word answers.

I’m thinking more along the lines that they knew he was playing and they were playing along. The missing parts could be the parts that indicate that so that what is chosen , taken out of context, looks much worse than it is.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@cosmosdan

I’m thinking more along the lines that they knew he was playing and they were playing along. The missing parts could be the parts that indicate that so that what is chosen , taken out of context, looks much worse than it is.

Which, if true, would mean he could be found guilty of slander, as well as having violated wiretap/illegal taping laws.

[Evil_One]

@cosmosdan

I’m thinking more along the lines that they knew he was playing and they were playing along.

The detailed amount of enthsiastic planning and advice that I saw is a bit more than “playing along”.

[elucidator]

Then you must have seen a much more extensive version that the rest of us did, seeing as how you saw “detailed” planning and advice. Either that, or you saw what you expected to see, and let it go at that. Not that that is wrong, or malicious, simply human. But one must be as vigilant about lying to oneself as others lying to you, don’t you think?

[Evil_One]

@elucidator

Then you must have seen a much more extensive version that the rest of us did, seeing as how you saw “detailed” planning and advice. Either that, or you saw what you expected to see, and let it go at that. Not that that is wrong, or malicious, simply human. But one must be as vigilant about lying to oneself as others lying to you, don’t you think?

Did you see the San Bernadino tape with the woman excitedly talking about “what you can do” and saying “Oh, ok” when they first bring up the child prostitutes?

This whole thing is pretty much indefensible from the ACORN point of view. I realize some of it may be reflexive, but it might be time to consider admitting that they are in the wrong.

[cosmosdan]

@Evil_One

The detailed amount of enthsiastic planning and advice that I saw is a bit more than “playing along”.

So playing along can’t be enthusiastic? I’m not sure how you reach that conclusion.

The fact is we don’t have enough information to know with any degree of certainty. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to find some corruption and stupidity in any large organization. That’s how humanity breaks down. The number of different offices that at least appear guilty does surprise me.
The fact that evidence indicates at least one lady knew it was a gag and played along makes me wonder about the rest. The fact that OKeefe has not released the tapes makes me very skeptical. He took them to a channel that is noted for editing video clips to suit their agenda and they have not released the full tapes either.

The media may love to inflate the controversy and knee jerk politicians may react for the sake of show but until we have more evidence I’m in the innocent until proven guilty camp. There’s plenty of reasonable doubt for me.

[cosmosdan]

@Evil_One

Did you see the San Bernadino tape with the woman excitedly talking about “what you can do” and saying “Oh, ok” when they first bring up the child prostitutes?

This whole thing is pretty much indefensible from the ACORN point of view. I realize some of it may be reflexive, but it might be time to consider admitting that they are in the wrong.

The individuals rather than organization as a whole, are in the wrong if the evidence is sufficient to prove they did what they are being accused of doing.

So far it isn’t.

[cosmosdan]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Which, if true, would mean he could be found guilty of slander, as well as having violated wiretap/illegal taping laws.

It’s certainly possible that some of many offices had people with incredibly bad judgment. I still find it very hard to believe that women would seriously offer advice to some pimp to help them prostitute under age girls. Of course the bizarre is possible given the numbers but I want the evidence. An edited tape doesn’t qualify.