Archived Acosta clip was not doctored. Full technical video analysis. (youtube.com)
submitted ago by Poot_McGarvey
Posted by: Poot_McGarvey
Posting time: 2 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/20/2019 10:00:00 AM
Views: 48
SCP: 2
2 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived Acosta clip was not doctored. Full technical video analysis. (youtube.com)
submitted ago by Poot_McGarvey
view the rest of the comments →
[–] aekotra ago (edited ago)
Not only there is no evidence of such a conversion taking place, it's very unlikely anyone would upload a .gif in the first place. Gif simply isn't used on the web very often anymore ever since the introduction of html5 video. If the "gif" originally appeared on Twitter, it's far more likely that the clip was simply cut from the original video source and uploaded, then Twitter's servers compressed it to their specs. There is no reason or incentive for the uploader to convert to the gif format at any time.
[–] Poot_McGarvey [S] ago (edited ago)
https://www.wired.com/story/infowars-video-white-house-cnn-jim-acosta-tweet/
Dude, you're wrong. All of the evidence is consistent with it being converted to and from a gif. We can see what Watson did and how he did it and verify that it is consistent.
[–] aekotra ago (edited ago)
A "gif" is a colloquial term in the current day meaning "looping animation without sound". The term originated from the image format which used to be the only animated format available on the web. Every reference to "gif" in that article is the colloquial definition, NOT the image format. I GUARANTEE you, if anyone finds the "original gif" it will simply be an mp4.
Check markup of the embedded tweets yourself. You will find ZERO gif images. Wired calls them "gifs" because that's what everybody calls them, not because they are literally encoded in the GIF image format which is what the OP suggests.