1
11

[–] Estafusis 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

This is a good article that actually does go into what they edited out based on the eyewitness reports, but I can't say I'm particularly surprised by all this. The video the FBI released was titled "unedited video of Oregon militants' arrest" or something similar, but they admitted in the video that they cut out about 5 minutes of video because it was "uneventful" in the middle of an 8-10 minute block of completely uneventful video showing the bundy van sitting still in the middle of the road and a group of police and FBI agents posturing and pointing automatic weapons at their vehicle.

0
6

[–] Lag-wagon 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It was actually called... Edited video of lavoy shooting...

0
2

[–] FringeSociety 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yup. That's what I remember as well.

0
0

[–] Estafusis 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You may be right and I was just drunk 2/3 times I watched that video, but I distinctly remember the first time it was titled "unedited", the second time "edited", and the third time "unedited". So I had concluded that it read "unedited" the whole time. Was I the only one that remembers it this way? Or did they change the name of the YouTube video at various times and for various people? I have no doubt that Google practices this to a certain degree with searches and I've even heard of specific Google Earth searches that bring different results for different people.

0
3

[–] onegin 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

But what is the actual reason for doing the editing? They don't know how to upload a large video file? Let us (the people, the media) do the editing. Not only is it more transparent that way, its actually less work for the agency.

0
7

[–] Black_Phillip 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I don't know why you're even asking? Why are we getting a drone cam with no audio in the first place?

How about Shauna Cox saying she had her phone camera rolling the whole time (which the FBI took from her)? Where is that video? Why is the only video we have equivalent of a shitty UFO sighting and still contradicts what the FBI says?

Because it's a fucking sham, that's why.

0
10

[–] bubbleki 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

I thought it was all a bullshit psyop until I saw the video. They straight up assassinated the dude.

0
0

[–] ShineShooter 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

0
8

[–] Pawn 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

nobody rose up when these guys rose up. LaVoy is a true patriot in the land of dollar cucks. There they were, rising up against Tyranny and nobody else rose up with them.

0
7

[–] Drenki 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Probably at least removed all frames with muzzle flashes of shots hitting LaVoy.

1
7

[–] Amadameus 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

I'm frankly quite surprised that the culture of videographers we've raised (by putting cell phones in their hands at age 10 or under) hasn't raised more of a stink about this.

If some SJW somewhere edits a video to make herself look good, everyone loses their minds. FBI does it to murder someone? Meh.

0
6

[–] EngelbertHumperdinck 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

The witnesses say that the FBI fired hundreds of rounds at the truck. Have any photos been released showing the condition of the vehicle after the shooting?

10
-9

8
1

[–] Shagoosty 8 points 1 points (+9|-8) ago 

Eye witness accounts are the worst type of evidence, and should hardly even be called evidence.

0
10

[–] ot_to_know 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

1 eye witness maybe, multiple saying the same thing from different perspectives I tend to disagree.

3
2

[–] Shagoosty 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

It's been shown time and time again people's memories get skewed. They talk to each other and then their stories start to match more and more. Multiple eye witnesses will see one thing, and video proof will show the opposite.

0
4

[–] arrggg 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

What a fucking stupid thing to say. Someone who saw something happen is obviously a better witness than someone who did not even see it.

2
1

[–] TheDude2 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

0
0

[–] Shagoosty 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Nice strawman.

5
0

[–] Possible 5 points 0 points (+5|-5) ago 

Eyewitness accounts are unreliable reports. Title could simply say "Numerous unreliable reports prove FBI..."

Maybe they did, but eyewitnesses are not reliable. It's the least reliable form of evidence one can find.

0
9

[–] arrggg 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

What a fucking stupid thing to say. Someone who saw something is obviously a better witness than someone who did not.

That sounds like something a cop on trial would say.

0
0

[–] Possible 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

OR it sounds like someone who knows eyewitness testimony is unreliable. The problem you're having is you think they're right, and so you can't imagine why someone would be so "fucking stupid" as to question whether they are. Well it turns out I question whether everyone is right. Not just the people I think are wrong.

0
1

[–] madmalloy [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Maybe in identifying someone but saying they were shot at over a hundred times and someone they knew was killed at that point?

Not so much.