Support NeoGAF

[NewFresh]

The video shows on camera Democratic operatives admitting it, after the video surfaced, Robert Creamer stepped down and Scott Foval was fired. If it were any other election I'd be pissed but trying to dismiss video evidence as conspiracy is a little ridiculous.

Let me put it this way. If the are so confident about their accusations, why would they refuse to simply put out the unedited footage and transcripts? Something they have readily and easily available.

Keeping this and his previous exploits in mind only further corroborate peoples dismissal. People getting fired over this only proves that he made them look bad without providing concrete evidence, which is in it self upsetting.

 

[Glix]

The video shows on camera Democratic operatives admitting it, after the video surfaced, Robert Creamer stepped down and Scott Foval was fired. If it were any other election I'd be pissed but trying to dismiss video evidence as conspiracy is a little ridiculous.

So release the raw footage and we are all good. Right? He should have nothing to hide.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

He has refused to release the unedited footage. Thats how they got burnt in the past.

He is claiming the unedited footage will let democrats 'paint their own picture'. Some hardcore projection, just like the candidate he supports and is funded by.

That is a good point. If (as before) the video is edited to remove context of someone being quoted, speaking of a hypothetical, or speaking of a hyperbolic situation which was suggested by the undercover reporter themselves...obviously it would be worthless.

 

[shoplifter]

Let me put it this way. If the are so confident about their accusations, why would they refuse to simply put out the unedited footage and transcripts? Something they have readily and easily available.

Keeping this and his previous exploits in mind only further corroborate peoples dismissal. People getting fired over this only proves that he made them look bad without providing concrete evidence, which is in it self upsetting.

My guess is because he has further videos coming. Perhaps he'll release the unedited footage following that? He stated in an AMA that they were invited to the White House but didn't go because they'd be entering under false pretenses illegally. I'm willing to wait to see where this goes before passing judgement, but O'Keefe's history makes me skeptical from the start. He absolutely *should* release the footage once the series is released in full, at least if what's in the later videos isn't clear and undeniable.

Let's keep in mind that Bob Creamer is already a convicted felon, who for some reason has visited the White House 300+ times over the past several years. That doesn't make the claims against him automatically true, but why the White House would even allow someone with that background in the door is puzzling enough.

 

[Henkka]

If you spent even just 5 mins researching O'keefe, you would realize its 100% bullshit.

So many posters adamant on not doing any research, not even reading the entire thread and all the responses before posting.

O'keefe's previous videos shows ACORN and other groups 'doing shady stuff', why was all of it shown to be bullshit and he even settled a defemation lawsuit to someone he defamed and got fired?

I can be aware of O'Keefe's past and still think the new videos are pretty damning. You can't fake someone saying they pay people to start shit at Trump rallies by deceptive editing.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I can be aware of O'Keefe's past and still think the new videos are pretty damning. You can't fake someone saying they pay people to start shit at Trump rallies by deceptive editing.

Cute cartoon but bad application

 

[Armaros]

I can be aware of O'Keefe's past and still think the new videos are pretty damning. You can't fake someone saying they pay people to start shit at Trump rallies by deceptive editing.

So you have literally ignored anything anyone said regarding O'keefe?

How is this video any different then the ACORN video, which was proven 100% bullshit? Explain that? And why should be beleive O"keefe this time when he wont even release the unedited tapes?

Or are you 'just asking questions'?

Also you failed your logical fallacy fallback, im attacking the person's credibility as a unbiased commentator, who has proven himself to be a fraudster in the exact regard in which you are taking his bullshit at face value. Unless you beleive we should take alex jones also by face value?

Your laughable defense of O'keefe has shown you haven't even done the 5 mins of research on him that i recommended you do.

 

[silentspork]

Funny thing is I went to school with him, have met him (I doubt he would remember be though), and I can confirm everything he does is bullshit.

 

[BSsBrolly]

I can be aware of O'Keefe's past and still think the new videos are pretty damning. You can't fake someone saying they pay people to start shit at Trump rallies by deceptive editing.

If you can tape people at Planned Parenthood and make it sound like they are selling aborted fetuses for large profits, you bet your ass you can.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I can be aware of O'Keefe's past and still think the new videos are pretty damning. You can't fake someone saying they pay people to start shit at Trump rallies by deceptive editing.

Of course it's pretty damning. Every one of his videos is damning, that's not in dispute. It's that he's proven to be full of shit, and his previous two videos were debunked.

 

[Henkka]

So you have literally ignored anything anyone said?

How is this video any different then the ACORN video? Explain that?

I guess because it's not that extensively edited. Or rather, I have a hard time imagining what is cut out that would make these conversations totally innocuous.

Like this bit: https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY?t=7m19s

Like, what do you think is deceptively cut out of that conversation? I guess there could be something, I just can't think what it could be. It seems pretty clear that this Foval guy is talking about instigating fights at Trump rallies. Unless he literally said "Of course we would never do this, but...", and it was cut, it is pretty damning imo.

 

[Armaros]

I guess because it's not that extensively edited. Or rather, I have a hard time imagining what is cut out that would make these conversations totally innocuous.

Like this bit: https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY?t=7m19s

Like, what do you think is deceptively cut out of that conversation? I guess there could be something, I just can't think what it could be. It seems pretty clear that this Foval guy is talking about instigating fights at Trump rallies. Unless he literally said "Of course we would never do this, but...", and it was cut, it is pretty damning imo.

Look. Up. ACORN., NPR, Shierly Sherrod, Planned Parenthood. Was he also right about those? He did the exact same thing in those videos as well and on face value just as damning without context. He hasen't changed how he operates, so if you believe this newest video, I guess you believe those ones as well?


So you are an O'keefe' truther?

 

[HStallion]

No guys a ton of his other videos were bull shit in the past and he was even convicted of it but THIS time, no this time its legit. Just ignore his checkered past and all the other evidence on the fact this guy is a notorious bull shit artist and trust me, this is the video that is gonna show you what's really going on.!

 

[Mark L]

Cute cartoon but bad application

Would you mind explaining why?

 

[HK-47]

Never try to use logical fallacies again, Henkka.

 

[Henkka]

I do agree that he should release unedited footage, and until that time, it's right to be suspicious. But due to the nature of the videos, I don't think you should totally dismiss them either. O'Keefe is a bullshit artist, true, but it's not impossible that he actually stumbled on something here. He has utterly ruined his reputation though, so the only place where these videos get discussed is Fox.

 

[Poltergust]

Would you mind explaining why?

Because the guy is a known fraudster who has faked videos like this in the past.

Seriously, why should we give this guy any of our attention?

 

[joebruin]

feelings > facts

 

[Wallach]

guys i know those joey salad fake videos look bad and are hella racist, but this one's real and totally not fake

 

[Mark L]

Because the guy is a known fraudster who has faked videos like this in the past.

Seriously, why should we give this guy any of our attention?

I understand what you're saying, it sounds like a Boy Who Cried Wolf scenario. There is good reason to ignore the boy. Let me ask you, though, if he released the unedited tape, and they appeared to have no material differences, would that change your opinion?

 

[BSsBrolly]

I do agree that he should release unedited footage, and until that time, it's right to be suspicious. But due to the nature of the videos, I don't think you should totally dismiss them either. O'Keefe is a bullshit artist, true, but it's not impossible that he actually stumbled on something here. He has utterly ruined his reputation though, so the only place where these videos get discussed is Fox.

It's not impossible that he's presenting the videos as fact but due to his past he doesn't deserve the benefit of doubt. He is literally known for doctoring "sting" videos. Until he proves otherwise, nobody should be paying attention to anything he says.

He is the boy who cried wolf from our childhood stories.

 

[HStallion]

I do agree that he should release unedited footage, and until that time, it's right to be suspicious. But due to the nature of the videos, I don't think you should totally dismiss them either. O'Keefe is a bullshit artist, true, but it's not impossible that he actually stumbled on something here. He has utterly ruined his reputation though, so the only place where these videos get discussed is Fox.

No really, this time he isn't full of shit guys!

 

[BSsBrolly]

I understand what you're saying, it sounds like a Boy Who Cried Wolf scenario. There is good reason to ignore the boy. Let me ask you, though, if he released the unedited tape, and they appeared to have no material differences, would that change your opinion?

Not to answer for the poster but personally, if he realeased unedited footage and it actually showed what he's presenting, yes. However, every single time the unedited footage was available in the past, it's been the opposite.

 

[Poltergust]

I understand what you're saying, it sounds like a Boy Who Cried Wolf scenario. There is good reason to ignore the boy. Let me ask you, though, if he released the unedited tape, and they appeared to have no material differences, would that change your opinion?

Yeah, but he's also refusing to release the unedited tape for whatever reason.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Limbaugh today was claiming Bob Creamer (or was it Foval? one of the two) is the actual leader of the Democratic party behind the curtain. Whenever Limbaugh starts telling a tall tale about what the Democratic party is really up to, you can be rest assured the story is complete nonsense.

 

[Mark L]

Not to answer for the poster but personally, if he realease unedited footage and it actually showed what he's presenting, yes. However, every single time he's done that in the past, it's been the opposite.

Fair enough. I wasn't familiar with the whole controversy till this thread, so it's all new to me.


Edit: this is apropos of nothing, but was The Boy Who Cried Wolf the first recorded incident of doing it for the lulz?

 

[Steel]

Would you mind explaining why?

Because he's released videos that sound as damning as this one that have been proven to be outright false despite people being fired. All of his big hit videos, very much like this one, have been proven to be edited to suit a narrative.

 

[hateradio]

feelings > facts

If this is a fact, then are facts feelings too?

 

[Henkka]

It's not impossible that he's presenting the videos as fact but due to his past he doesn't deserve the benefit of doubt. He is literally known for doctoring "sting" videos. Until he proves otherwise, nobody should be paying attention to anything he says.

He is the boy who cried wolf from our childhood stories.

Yeah I agree. I don't doubt the videos are edited to make them look worse than they are. But there's also bits I think would be extremely hard to fake, at least I don't see how... Here's one dialogue:

Foval: You remember the Iowa state fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude's hand and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera?

O'Keefe's guy: Yeah.

Foval: That was all us. The guy that got roughed up is my counterpart who works for Bob.

O'Keefe's guy: And that was like storyboarded? Him getting roughed up like that?

Foval: We scenarioed it.

It's not cut, it's not edited. Foval goes on to talk about planting multiple people in that area. I don't see how you can spin that discussion into "Oh it's just hypothetical, O'Keefe's guy asked some leading questions that were cut to make it look bad"

 

[Armaros]

Yeah I agree. I don't doubt the videos are edited to make them look worse than they are. But there's also bits I think would be extremely hard to fake, at least I don't see how... Here's one dialogue:



It's not cut, it's not edited. Foval goes on to talk about planting multiple people in that area. I don't see how you can spin that discussion into "Oh it's just hypothetical, O'Keefe's guy asked some leading questions that were cut to make it look bad"

So I was right. You really are a O'keefe Truther

 

[Steel]

Yeah I agree. I don't doubt the videos are edited to make them look worse than they are. But there's also bits I think would be extremely hard to fake, at least I don't see how... Here's one dialogue:



It's not cut, it's not edited. Foval goes on to talk about planting multiple people in that area. I don't see how you can spin that discussion into "Oh it's just hypothetical, O'Keefe's guy asked some leading questions that were cut to make it look bad"

Are you sure it's not? Cause he's edited in questions in the past to make the answer seem damning in the past.

 

[LucidMomentum]

Yeah, but he's also refusing to release the unedited tape for whatever reason.

Actually the reason he doesn't want to release the unedited footage is because the democrats would use it to paint a different picture, he says.

Which means the video isn't edited to get to the point more efficiently or concisely, IMO.

It sounds like the full unedited version of the video may not follow a similar narrative at all and that's why it's not getting released.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Yeah I agree. I don't doubt the videos are edited to make them look worse than they are. But there's also bits I think would be extremely hard to fake, at least I don't see how... Here's one dialogue:



It's not cut, it's not edited. Foval goes on to talk about planting multiple people in that area. I don't see how you can spin that discussion into "Oh it's just hypothetical, O'Keefe's guy asked some leading questions that were cut to make it look bad"

If O'Keefe cared about the truth and was investigating the truth, he wouldn't be who he is operating the way he does. There's no doubt that Foval has some explaining to do, but without actual reporting from a responsible investigator or reporter, it's useless.

 

[BSsBrolly]

Yeah I agree. I don't doubt the videos are edited to make them look worse than they are. But there's also bits I think would be extremely hard to fake, at least I don't see how... Here's one dialogue:



It's not cut, it's not edited. Foval goes on to talk about planting multiple people in that area. I don't see how you can spin that discussion into "Oh it's just hypothetical, O'Keefe's guy asked some leading questions that were cut to make it look bad"

Even if that conversation was recorded in context, how the hell does holding a sign incite violence?


You really should take a look at his past sting videos. He edited conversations to make it sound like ACORN was a child prostitution ring... also that Planned Parenthood was profiting off of aborted fetuses (already mentioned). Watch his edited videos and then watch the actual footage. You'll instantly understand why nobody believes James fucking O'Keefe (outside breitbart).

 

[Cap'n Cook]

If you spent even just 5 mins researching O'keefe, you would realize its 100% bullshit.

So many posters adamant on not doing any research, not even reading the entire thread and all the responses before posting.

O'keefe's previous videos shows ACORN and other groups 'doing shady stuff', why was all of it shown to be bullshit and he even settled a defemation lawsuit to someone he defamed and got fired?

You're right, I have absolutely no clue who O'Keefe is, my first impression when he popped up on camera was that he looked like a total douchebag. I seen the video trending on YouTube and I clicked it, in that video I watched a man (Scott Foval) on hidden camera admitting to inciting fights and violence at Republican campaign rallies, even going as far as naming specific events. That man was later fired after the video surfaced. Like I said if it were any other election id be pissed, Trump simply should not be allowed to be President and I also fully believe that the Republican campaign is doing shady stuff as well.

So release the raw footage and we are all good. Right? He should have nothing to hide.

Absolutely.

 

[geomon]

I cannot believe this is even an argument. The guy is a known liar. That isn't hyperbole, it's a fucking fact. Just look at all the shit Media Matters has on this clown.

We know for a fact that he is paid by Breitbart. We now know that he was paid by Donald Trump last year. But you'd rather focus on an edited tape? Come talk to me when he releases the unedited tape. Until then, there's nothing here.

 

[Henkka]

Are you sure it's not? Cause he's edited in questions in the past to make the answer seem damning in the past.

No, I'm not sure... I just don't see how that part could be fake.

"O'Keefe truther" is pushing it, imo. As an example, to get me back into your good graces, I'm fairly sure this video is bullshit. Why? Because it's edited so that you're never really sure that Foval is talking about Teter. He just refers to an anonymous "she". If they had footage that clearly implicated Teter, it would be included in the video. But it isn't, so it's BS.

 

[Lord Frieza]

People believing O'Keefe, fucking Jesus haha.

 

[shoplifter]

He filed an FEC complaint, so we shall see how far he chooses to go.

 

[Steel]

You're right, I have absolutely no clue who O'Keefe is, my first impression when he popped up on camera was that he looked like a total douchebag. I seen the video trending on YouTube and I clicked it, in that video I watched a man (Scott Foval) on hidden camera admitting to inciting fights and violence at Republican campaign rallies, even going as far as naming specific events. That man was later fired after the video surfaced. Like I said if it were any other election id be pissed, Trump simply should not be allowed to be President and I also fully believe that the Republican campaign is doing shady stuff as well.

As has been explained in the thread repeatedly Keefe's videos have gotten people fired in the past. Videos whose edited narrative have been proven entirely false. The victims of said videos later successfully sued O'Keefe.

People getting fired is a natural cover-your-ass reaction until hard evidence comes out that the video was falsified.

No, I'm not sure... I just don't see how that part could be fake.

"O'Keefe truther" is pushing it, imo. As an example, to get me back into your good graces, I'm fairly sure this video is bullshit. Why? Because it's edited so that you're never really sure that Foval is talking about Teter. He just refers to an anonymous "she". If they had footage that clearly implicated Teter, it would be included in the video. But it isn't, so it's BS.

The guy arranged and organized protests, fact. Now taking that fact and considering that O'Keefes side of the audio is quite possibly bullshit and edited in like it was in every other case before, what do you have?

 

[futnownarcade]

It's not impossible that he's presenting the videos as fact but due to his past he doesn't deserve the benefit of doubt. He is literally known for doctoring "sting" videos. Until he proves otherwise, nobody should be paying attention to anything he says.

He is the boy who cried wolf from our childhood stories.

I really think he was right in that this is a classic example of the genetic fallacy.

You say he is the boy who cried wolf, eventually the boy was right and there really was a wolf, so O'Keefe could be telling the truth this time. You need to discredit the video some other way.

 

[HStallion]

No, I'm not sure... I just don't see how that part could be fake.

"O'Keefe truther" is pushing it, imo. As an example, to get me back into your good graces, I'm fairly sure this video is bullshit. Why? Because it's edited so that you're never really sure that Foval is talking about Teter. He just refers to an anonymous "she". If they had footage that clearly implicated Teter, it would be included in the video. But it isn't, so it's BS.

Again you don't really do a good job about why this video is suddenly all the more believable because it isn't. He's got a history, a long sordid one. If you went to buy a car at a used car dealership and each time the car you bought was a piece of shit but suddenly the very same dealer is claiming that he has an incredible deal on a car that is most certainly not a piece of shit are you really going to trust him? No you're not if you have any intelligence.

 

[Armaros]

I really think he was right in that this is a classic example of the genetic fallacy.

You say he is the boy who cried wolf, eventually the boy was right and there really was a wolf, so O'Keefe could be telling the truth this time. You need to discredit the video some other way.

The parable of the boy who cried wolf is to tell people not to constantly lie.

Not to believe a compulsive liar because they might be telling the truth.
Try again.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I really think he was right in that this is a classic example of the genetic fallacy.

You say he is the boy who cried wolf, eventually the boy was right and there really was a wolf, so O'Keefe could be telling the truth this time. You need to discredit the video some other way.

This is a simplistic argument.

Was the boy being paid thousands of dollars to cry wolf?

 

[HStallion]

I really think he was right in that this is a classic example of the genetic fallacy.

You say he is the boy who cried wolf, eventually the boy was right and there really was a wolf, so O'Keefe could be telling the truth this time. You need to discredit the video some other way.

I think you really misunderstood the moral of the Boy Who Cried Wolf story if that is how you interpret things.

 

[BSsBrolly]

The parable of the boy who cried wolf is to tell people not to constantly lie.

Not to believe a compulsive liar because they might be telling the truth.
Try again.

Bolded literally made me lol. Well done, couldn't have said it better myself. Anyone who believes O'Keefe, doesn't know who he is.

 

[futnownarcade]

The parable of the boy who cried wolf is to tell people not to constantly lie.

Not to believe a compulsive liar because they might be telling the truth.
Try again.

Fair enough, I get the parable is to teach people not to lie, but still logically isn't the genetic fallacy still valid here? I'm sure he is full of shit but I just enjoy the logical fallacies.

 

[HStallion]

Fair enough, I get the parable is to teach people not to lie, but still logically isn't the genetic fallacy still valid here? I'm sure he is full of shit but I just enjoy the logical fallacies.

The boy who cried wolf was never a good way to describe this either as it assumes that this latest video is real and negates a lot of things like the fact O'Keefe is a paid shill. The boy who cried wolf was just a snot nosed kid trying to rile up the towns people, this is an adult man who has a long history of this BS and makes money from it.

 

[Steel]

Fair enough, I get the parable is to teach people not to lie, but still logically isn't the genetic fallacy still valid here? I'm sure he is full of shit but I just enjoy the logical fallacies.

Genetic fallacy only comes up when you ignore meaning and context to reach a conclusion. When the context and meaning is the same as every other time the source has put something out, it's not a genetic fallacy. In this case the context and meaning is in O'Keefe's MO: Release controversial edited video, refuse to produce unedited video because it'll suit the "democractic narrative" better(like that's what he literally said in this case), pass off video as pure truth. That's what he's done everytime before.

It would be genetic fallacy if he called 911 and screamed his house was on fire and the operator didn't believe him because of his videos.

 

[BSsBrolly]

The boy who cried wolf was never a good way to describe this either as it assumes that this latest video is real and negates a lot of things like the fact O'Keefe is a paid shill. The boy who cried wolf was just a snot nosed kid trying to rile up the towns people, this is an adult man who has a long history of this BS and makes money from it.

Right. If O'Keefe wasn't hiding something, he'd release the unedited footage along with his video. If he wanted to be believed, he'd release the unedited footage. It's that simple.