ACORN Philadelphia Prostitution Investigation Part I

[booley]

Run time: 08:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9DDayHwbg   Posted on YouTube: October 21, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 28, 2009 By DU Member: booley Views on DU: 572

 
Yeah I know, this from the guy who dressed as a pimp and did a "sting" of ACORN offices.

But listen to the audio. Listen really closely. Not just at what they say but how the audio itself sounds.

There are several audio drop outs. LOTS of them.

The "Pimp" can be heard clearly but the ACORN people are often not audible. Even at parts where the guy says that you can hear the ACORN person speaking.

This happened so often I couldn't be sure what the ACORN lady was saying in response. Instead I only had the narrator's exposition to know what is supposed to have occurred.

Also weirdly, the narration provides exposition for what the he asked at the ACORN office instead of playing the audio of what he asked that ACORN manager was responding too. (even though the audio seems to have had less problems with the pimp's voice then with ACORN)

And finally there is this weird statement at 4:24 where the narrator says "It was at this point that our video tape ran out just a few minutes before we left. We mentioned the underage girls."

.... some video of the ACORN manager defending herself, saying she didn't help them and then the narrator says "She actually said was that it was ok"

Again along pause and then what I assume is Katherine the acorn lady asking if there were 12 girls living in the house short term, if that would be ok. But there's no previous context to indicate she's talking about 13 year old prostitutes.

So this brings up even more problems. Like, how is that the only possibly damning bit cuts out so much that we cant' be sure what ACORN is saying?

Why is the audio so selective about who it hears from one moment to the next?

Not to mention HOW THE HELL DO YOU RECORD AUDIO IF YOUR TAPE RAN OUT?

Now I work with video. I edit a lot of video. Have for years now. They clearly used a video camera here. All video works basically the same. Video records on the tape. Which means when you run out of tape, you can't continue recoding sound. If he had a separate audio source, the narrator never says. Nor explains why the audio is (again) selectively bad at what it picks up.

And this isn't even going into how dumb would you have to be to not use a fresh tape. Even a short tapes will last an hour. (much longer if you do a lower speed) Nor how the time stamp magically disappears when they left (or I guess arrived since they said they had run out of tape but when they show the video they say they were leaving) Did they fiddle with the camera WHILE they were secretly video taping people?

So I am sure you figured out what I am asking. Listen closely. Especially any of you who have worked with video. Does this sound edited to you? I have no proof. But it sure does to me. I want to make sure I am not the only one.

This whole thing just seems a series of implausible mechanical errors.

[uberblonde]

1. The guy has a history of doing this.

His ex-partner quit working with him because, she said, he was editing things to make it look like "things that never happened" happened.

[booley]

2. is there a source for that?

Any other examples? Has anything been proven to be edited?

[booley]

3. It was the wire tapping?

Ok so a bit of an update.

I have been told this is because of the wire tapping charge brought against O'Keefe in Maryland.

Ok. Except then why post any of the video at all? Wouldn't that act as proof that yes, O'keefe broke the law? And there is at least a portion of the audio on Acorn's part that is used. (surely a wire tapping charge can't be avoided by only taping some of what the other person said) And why also cut out what O'keefe posing as a pimp said so we have an idea of what questions he was asking?

I am not a lawyer and so maybe that's why this doesn't make sense to me. And all I can find are right wing screeds about how this is a partisan attack. So can anyone help explain this to me?

[Junkdrawer]

4. Yes - it was a selective editing smear job. But it worked GREAT...

Even Jon Stewart joined in the ACORN bashing. And, once the truth is revealed, it will be Pg. 23 stuff.

And, given the legal talent that will represent O'Keefe, I'd be real surprised if anything but MAYBE probation will come his way.

Future Republican superstar.

[booley]

5. It's hard to argue with you

I still get people claiming that Acorn did voter fraud, that they were trained by Obama and that ACORN was responsable for the collapse fo the housing market.

All refuted debunked and proven factually incorrect.

And so many on the right still believe these as proven fact.