The NC Hillary CGI Image Conspiracy

[Book of Jeremiah]

I have never heard of CGI technology or Green Screens until today. After reading a thread on USMB today that questioned why Hillary Clinton's image failed to appear on the smart phones of audience members - I looked up some theories about what is going on and if it is true? Well, that is the question...is it true? And could CGI technology glitch explain what is seen on these images? For the record, I disagree with the author of this news story, if it is CGI Imagery - it doesn't necessarily mean that Hillary Clinton is either dead or in jail. She could be hospitalized, she could be home resting, there are other possibilities as to where she is but I did find it strange to find out that she has just canceled her fundraiser in NC. I would think there would be no way to pretend an appearance at a fundraiser where you are shaking hands with people and walking around. As for the appearance in NC, I do not know. The story of North Carolina is either a baseless conspiracy story or a possible (real) conspiracy against the American people. Time will tell.

| Hillary Did Not Appear In North Carolina

Hillary Did Not Appear In North Carolina
Posted on September 16, 2016 by Katie
Jim Stone Freelance

She is a CGI generated image, and the CGI glitched repeatedly. In the video these frames were pulled from, Hillary, (AND ONLY HILLARY) glitches repeatedly while the rest of the screen stays clear. In two frames out of the video the glitches are so bad she vanishes entirely in one, and almost completely vanishes in another. This can only happen if she is a CGI drop in. FACT: Hillary is DEAD or IN PRISON. Take a look at this:

Another news source wrote this:

Is Hillary Clinton Faking Speeches With A Green Screen? | We Are Change

SOLID EVIDENCE THAT HILLARY CLINTON WAS NOT AT GREENSBORO RALLY OR HAD VIDEO OF HERSELF TRANSPOSING HER LIVE APPEARANCE. PLEASE SHARE WIDELY!!!

I work in technology at a company that does tons of video. I have years of experience doing video transcoding professionally.

You can see from the following photo album, screencapped from still frames of ABC15’s video of Hillary Clinton’s Greensboro “rally,” that she DOES NOT appear on the cell phone screens of people filming, but those same screens DO capture flags and backdrop directly behind her. It’s not impossible to superimpose someone’s image on a background, or even in a crowd. It is implausible that anyone would intentionally neglect to superimpose the same image on a cell phone screen in the foreground, damaging consistency.

Hillary Clinton was using a video stream overlay of herself at Greensboro rally.

Hillary Clinton was not physically present at the rally – this was a chroma key overlay transcoded into a live broadcast in layers. Later, Clinton disappears entirely, and is replaced in the broadcast feed as “she” exits the stage.

Hillary was using a video stream overlay of herself at Greensboro rally.

Least paranoid theory: they are transposing a “good” video stream over one in an uncontrolled environment so they can make sure no one sees her having a coughing fit, or seizure, or freezing. The good stream overlays the real “Sick Hillary” stream. Since Google sucks at live linear streaming, it glitches a lot.

Most paranoid theory: she died of a pulmonary embolism on or after September 11 related to side effects from L-Dopa treatment for late stage Parkinson’s and aspiration pneumonia. A white hearse arrived from Montefiore Medical Center at her Chappaqua home (30 minutes away). Everything since has been staged.

__________
I do not even own a smart phone. This is all news to me. CGI's, Green Screens, (I have heard of holograms before)... The second news source also posted these videos:





As high tech as CGI's, Green Screens, holograms and body doubles may be - I don't believe a public appearance at a fund raiser with hundreds of people in attendance could be faked.

 

[Pete7469]

Everything about this woman is fake.

Except the evil. That is very real.

 

[BULLDOG]

You worked really hard for such a silly thread. Dumb but funny.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

You worked really hard for such a silly thread. Dumb but funny.

I'm not so sure about silly (or dumb). It is good to examine the evidence before dismissing something as silly. Did you examine all of the evidence before coming to the conclusion that it was a waste of time? I'm not saying this is what happened nor am I saying it couldn't have happened. I am merely asking, is it possible? And if it is possible then surely there are people who would resort to such deceptive strategies because we are living in an age of deception. Of that there can be no question.

Men and women are telling lies with a conviction that should be reserved for those who speak the truth and yet? They have appear to have no conscience to stop them. We know that all liars and all those who love a lie shall be cast into hell.

Perhaps it is a time when men should search their own hearts and ask themselves, "Is this really worth the price I am going to pay throughout eternity?"

It is written:

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 21:8

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not saying you are full of shit, and know as well as I do that some here will believe every word of your silly crap. I'm just asking if it's possible.

 

[Pogo]

You worked really hard for such a silly thread. Dumb but funny.

Yeah this about takes the cake for desperate stretch.

The video from a local TV report here shows her stepping up from stage left (the right as you view) at 0:49, and leaving stage right at 1:30. In both entrance and egress you can see audience BEHIND her. You can't do that with a green screen. Also a CGI image cannot hug a woman on stage who then walks back to the floor. Further, a CGI image wouldn't be able to interact with people on the side by pointing directly at them, since remotely she wouldn't know where they were or who they were. There are also audience behind her. Again, those would have to be CGI as well, and everybody would know there was nothing there.

Finally and most obviously, the audience there would not have been cheering a CGI image that wasn't there, because they would have seen absolutely nothing going on.

But it's good to see Hillary finally catching up with the fake hair and the fake orange skin....



(Green screens are what your local TV weatherman uses to show the weather map. He's not actually standing in front of a map, he's standing in front of a blank green or blue screen. That's why when he points to the storm coming in over East Jipip, he looks to the side---- he's actually looking at a TV monitor placed on the floor out of the frame so he can see where to point. Notice he NEVER looks directly at the map -- because there's nothing there where he's standing. That monitor has the mix of himself plus the superimposed image (the broadcast feed), which does not exist until it's mixed in.)

 

[Pogo]

Men and women are telling lies with a conviction that should be reserved for those who speak the truth and yet? They have appear to have no conscience to stop them. We know that all liars and all those who love a lie shall be cast into hell.

True that men and women are telling lies --- now take the next step.

--- Which is that men and women are telling lies ABOUT other men and women telling lies.

A perfect example is in the source of your own thread here. We've already seen direct evidence, from the local TV video, that the speaker was really there and that a CGI fake would have been impossible (they also reported Clinton holding a press conference afterward, which also cannot be faked).

So where do these come from?

Very simple to do. All you need is a shot of the stage with nobody on it, a shot of the stage with the speaker there, and then a combination of the two with the human profile partially pixelated. You insert the blank one and claim it was actually in the video feed. Then you load it up onto YouTube -- which literaly anyone can do, with no vetting --- and then make up a cockamamie story like the one here.

(Indeed the perpetrator of this hoax even makes reference to the Star Trek transporter process --- a visual effect that was on broadcast television fifty years ago.)

Such deceivers are counting on gullibility -- that the viewer will just accept the premise without asking questions or without actually examining other images from the same event that easily disprove it.

And that's why we need to bring an "I'm from Missouri" attitude to every assertion, because simply saying so, doesn't make it so. Especially when the essential critical eye can shoot the premise full of holes.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Men and women are telling lies with a conviction that should be reserved for those who speak the truth and yet? They have appear to have no conscience to stop them. We know that all liars and all those who love a lie shall be cast into hell.

True that men and women are telling lies --- now take the next step.

--- Which is that men and women are telling lies ABOUT other men and women telling lies.

A perfect example is in the source of your own thread here. We've already seen direct evidence, from the local TV video, that the speaker was really there and that a CGI fake would have been impossible (they also reported Clinton holding a press conference afterward, which also cannot be faked).

So where do these come from?

Very simple to do. All you need is a shot of the stage with nobody on it, a shot of the stage with the speaker there, and then a combination of the two with the human profile partially pixelated. You insert the blank one and claim it was actually in the video feed. Then you load it up onto YouTube -- which literaly anyone can do, with no vetting --- and then make up a cockamamie story like the one here.

(Indeed the perpetrator of this hoax even makes reference to the Star Trek transporter process --- a visual effect that was on broadcast television fifty years ago.)

Such deceivers are counting on gullibility -- that the viewer will just accept the premise without asking questions or without actually examining other images from the same event that easily disprove it.

And that's why we need to bring an "I'm from Missouri" attitude to every assertion, because simply saying so, doesn't make it so. Especially when the essential critical eye can shoot the premise full of holes.

It sounds to me like you understand far more about this technology than I do, Pogo. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain it. I appreciate it. I wasn't saying this an irrefutable fact - this is what happened - I am merely asking is it possible? If you will notice I disagreed with the author in his belief that it had to be one or the other concerning where Hillary is. I felt that his conclusion was quite limited and extreme (to say the least). Again, thank you.

 

[Pogo]

Men and women are telling lies with a conviction that should be reserved for those who speak the truth and yet? They have appear to have no conscience to stop them. We know that all liars and all those who love a lie shall be cast into hell.

True that men and women are telling lies --- now take the next step.

--- Which is that men and women are telling lies ABOUT other men and women telling lies.

A perfect example is in the source of your own thread here. We've already seen direct evidence, from the local TV video, that the speaker was really there and that a CGI fake would have been impossible (they also reported Clinton holding a press conference afterward, which also cannot be faked).

So where do these come from?

Very simple to do. All you need is a shot of the stage with nobody on it, a shot of the stage with the speaker there, and then a combination of the two with the human profile partially pixelated. You insert the blank one and claim it was actually in the video feed. Then you load it up onto YouTube -- which literaly anyone can do, with no vetting --- and then make up a cockamamie story like the one here.

(Indeed the perpetrator of this hoax even makes reference to the Star Trek transporter process --- a visual effect that was on broadcast television fifty years ago.)

Such deceivers are counting on gullibility -- that the viewer will just accept the premise without asking questions or without actually examining other images from the same event that easily disprove it.

And that's why we need to bring an "I'm from Missouri" attitude to every assertion, because simply saying so, doesn't make it so. Especially when the essential critical eye can shoot the premise full of holes.

It sounds to me like you understand far more about this technology than I do, Pogo. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain it. I appreciate it. I wasn't saying this an irrefutable fact - this is what happened - I am merely asking is it possible? If you will notice I disagreed with the author in his belief that it had to be one or the other concerning where Hillary is. I felt that his conclusion was quite limited and extreme (to say the least). Again, thank you.

Yes, my cousin worked at a TV station and showed me the whole arrangement -- really quite fascinating.

You'll also notice the weatherman never wears green (or blue if it's a blue screen). That's because the composite image -- the weatherperson standing in front of a plain green wall --- is sent to a video mixer which is told, "take everything green in this picture and cover it with this map" which is fed in. If the weatherperson is also wearing green he or she becomes part of the map --- it looks like this:

​

-- a few seconds in another camera gives a shot from the side and you can see what's really going on in the studio -- a plain green wall with nothing on it. A tool to create the illusion.

Anyway --- yes it's always essential to question stuff like this and look for reasons it might not be true, since there's so much of it going around. And personally I just like to find out how things really work.