Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos Were Altered, Analysis Finds

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/u...od-videos.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Uh oh.... Seems more things are coming to light. That these videos that so many Right Wingers are whining about are pretty well cooked.

What I want to know is, when these are completely debunked will the people who attacked this group have the integrity to apologize? I doubt it, but one would hope that a group of people who are invested in getting to the truth would also have the guts to admit when they were wrong.

 

There's nothing new in this. Planned Parenthood says the videos are edited, and hired someone to prove it.

As if a court has already decided in their favor, without seeing their evidence of manipulation, nor hearing from the other side.

 

This should come as no surprise. That's a standard right wing smear tactic now.

 

It's like that creationist movie where Ben Stiller? interviews atheist scientists and they all reveal they believe in God and hate science?

 

So, there are now eight or 10 videos. The full length videos have been posted on the website of the organization that made them. PP has claimed (as the lefties who are exposed usually do) that the videos were heavily edited.

How exactly was the video edited wherein the woman talked about wanting a Lamborghini for her profit in selling baby body parts? Did she actually say she wanted to..."help poor people"? And what about the crunch above, crunch below comments to preserve organs to sell? What editing was done there? The article said there may have been some 30 minute gaps. What could have been contained in the gaps that would have mitigated the raw footage of the ghouls at PP discussing how to best dismember babies to preserve their organs for sale?

 

They were edited to reduce their run time. NOTHING was "altered" to change what they showed. Nice, desperate attempt to hide from the Truth.

 

Edited, as in cutting down on the length does not have any bearing on the content contained. Sorry to PP, and this "analysis"...everyone knew they were "edited" when they saw 2 versions of each released, only one being the full length.

The content contained in the videos was not added in by ILM or Spielberg.

 

Even the fake group that made these videos has admitted that they are heavily edited.

PP simply was able to fairly easily prove taht the "full lenght" ones were just as heavily edited.

This is the O'Keefe school of right wing dirty tricks at work.

The sad thing about this sort of slime is that that intended audience soaks it up, no matter how obviously bogus it is.

- - - Updated - - -

You have no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. You made it up.

 

You have nothing that proves otherwise. I have seen enough to know that editing or not this is wrong.

 

So what would the edits be to make the woman claim she wanted a Lamborghini for her profit in selling baby parts?

What would the edits be to distort the "crunch above, crunch below" comment by the ghoul who was talking about the best way to "harvest" saleable baby organs?

Interesting that when lefties are caught in their own words, their defense wasn't that they don't do what the videos show, but that the videos were "edited".

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky". Benghazi was about a video. Multiple ACORN offices were shown helping someone supposedly engaged in child prostitution. But....."edited".

 

From your own link.

It seems PP and their cohorts are trying to pretend that missing segments are the reason these are fabricated? Notice they are not disputing what we clearly see on the films, rather just the missing segments....as if they want to pretend there would be some kind of context contained that would change what we all saw.

It wouldn't. Those people and their conversations were as presented.

 

lmao, Lefties saying that editing a video for time constraints is the same as editing the content. Why do you Lefties have to lie like rugs?

 

No, all you've done is taken an obviously manipulated video created by a group with a political agenda at face value.

The group that made this video tried to hide who they really were by creating a front name to make it appear as though they were a medical research group and not a bunch of anti abortion activists with a history of this kind of cheap tactics.

 

What is, exposing these kinds of organizations for what they really are?


Oh how ghastly and terrible.

 

can you share with us how you obtained this information? Or is this just your "belief" in the content?

 

Oh? I guess there are some people that cannot grasp that time editing can readily be used to eliminate the context of a particular comment, thereby changing the meaning and intent of such comment.

But of course such anti-abortionists would never do such an underhanded thing to a video they obtained under completely false circumstances and without permission.

 

You mean like how abortion clinics call themselves Planned Parenthood?

 

He made it up.

 

I find it to be hilarious that someone comes out and says "videos were edited" and you guys fall in line like pigs at feeding time and immediately begin your parroting. Edited or not, they said what they said and there's no denying that. Of course, y'all think Hillary did nothing wrong either because she said so.

 

Weren't you just on here yesterday, pouting because you thought someone was putting words in your mouth? Now look, you're doing it too. Hypocrite much?

 

The news does it every day. So are we to believe that everything we see on the news is fabricated? BTW, did you even read the article where it said the people investigating this watched both the edited and unedited videos side by side and they can't tell if content was changed?

 

Yes, news stories are edited. It is not the editing function itself, it is the intent of the editing function and the integrity of the editors.

Editing does not change the content per se. It can change the meaning and intent of comments tho. Its a contextual thing that many around here seem to have trouble understanding.

 

So, basically the PP defenders are complaining about missing footage but still can't defend what was actually said and done. There is no longer any need for that racist organization anymore and government funding should immediately be stripped away.

 

The only one having any trouble is you understanding what you read if you even read it. They watched BOTH videos and couldn't determine if any context was changed. That means it wasn't.

 

I was the first person to challenge him to document his claim. He ran away. No hypocricy here. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. Merely pointing out that a poster made a claim that he can't back up (again)