When British Documentary Makers Lie about a Republican Congresswoman
I found this over at HotAir about the purported claim by British documentary makers of “638 Ways to Kill Castro" that they caught Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is a Republican Congresswoman from Florida and a ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, who called for Castro's death by assassination. The exact claimed quote:
If you listen closely she says "I" twice as if she was stuttering right before she says "welcome." This is where I believe the audio splice took place to cover up the word "won't" if you lip read it closely without the sound. I believe she said "but" as the first word uttered in the close up video portion of the clip but that was masked over with the two "I" words as if she was stuttering a bit at the beginning. Under normal speed the word "won't" is spoken rather quickly and hard to catch since it happens almost immediately in the second portion of the clip when the camera pans up close to her face. This would be the best place to tamper an audio section between video breaks just enough so anybody wouldn't really notice it under normal viewing and listening scenarios.
Firstly, I noticed her demeanor in body language, her head mostly, as if she is saying and expressing things in the negative in the up close clip portion. Her head seems to shake left and right as in "no" and not up and down in the affirmative like you would see in the 1st half of that clip about how proud she is to represent many Cuban freedom fighters who are now exhiled in the United States and on the island. Her facial expression in the up close video was more scrunched up as if she was expressing in a more serious tone as if she was trying to say something in the negative or something with a tone of disapproval.
The video is fine. Just the audio portion that's been tampered with, which I can hear all the words anyway. Her lip-movements do not jive at all with the claimed transcript at the very beginning in the up close video portion. I can tell just by turning off the volume and read her lips by slowing it down right at the beginning of the second half of the clip with her face up close did I see the difference. I had to repeat this clip portion many times over until I realized that the first word right before "welcome" does indeed start with a "w" letter and the the word "won't" seem to follow well with her lip-movements and body language rather than the two stuttered words "I".."I" that were surreptiously added with the extra personal pronoun "I".
She correctly says this when you read her lips without the sound,
"...but I won't welcome the opportunity of having anyone assassinate Fidel Castro and any leader who is oppressing the people."
But in the tampered audio provided by the makers of a British documentary, “638 Ways to Kill Castro," the clip incorrectly says,
"..I...I welcome the opportunity of having anyone assassinate Fidel Castro and any leader who is oppressing the people."
Now, what is exactly the agenda of this British documentary makers anyway?
UPDATE: Looking at again, I know a "w" lettered word was said before she said "welcome". That's a fact. Whether it's "won't" or "would" is the point of contention here. In fact, I'm inclined now to see that she said "but would I welcome". It does seem more plausible with the lip movements now and that would be consisent with her demeanor and body language. It's also more grammatically correct than "won't". In fact, the clip cuts it off her talk at the begining (of the second clip) and at the end where she seems to continue to talk but was cut off as well. In fact, at the end she seemed to have shrugged a little bit before getting cut off which may indicate that she was answering a question.
We do, however, know that the audio has been messed around with and we don't know what she said before and after (in the second clip) when editing was done. The audio still contain the two "I"s to cover up the visual video gap where her lip movements said "would I" to make it sound like she stuttered a bit there.
Hattip: DrM2B.
I welcome the opportunity of having anyone assassinate Fidel Castro and any leader who is oppressing the people.
If you listen closely she says "I" twice as if she was stuttering right before she says "welcome." This is where I believe the audio splice took place to cover up the word "won't" if you lip read it closely without the sound. I believe she said "but" as the first word uttered in the close up video portion of the clip but that was masked over with the two "I" words as if she was stuttering a bit at the beginning. Under normal speed the word "won't" is spoken rather quickly and hard to catch since it happens almost immediately in the second portion of the clip when the camera pans up close to her face. This would be the best place to tamper an audio section between video breaks just enough so anybody wouldn't really notice it under normal viewing and listening scenarios.
Firstly, I noticed her demeanor in body language, her head mostly, as if she is saying and expressing things in the negative in the up close clip portion. Her head seems to shake left and right as in "no" and not up and down in the affirmative like you would see in the 1st half of that clip about how proud she is to represent many Cuban freedom fighters who are now exhiled in the United States and on the island. Her facial expression in the up close video was more scrunched up as if she was expressing in a more serious tone as if she was trying to say something in the negative or something with a tone of disapproval.
The video is fine. Just the audio portion that's been tampered with, which I can hear all the words anyway. Her lip-movements do not jive at all with the claimed transcript at the very beginning in the up close video portion. I can tell just by turning off the volume and read her lips by slowing it down right at the beginning of the second half of the clip with her face up close did I see the difference. I had to repeat this clip portion many times over until I realized that the first word right before "welcome" does indeed start with a "w" letter and the the word "won't" seem to follow well with her lip-movements and body language rather than the two stuttered words "I".."I" that were surreptiously added with the extra personal pronoun "I".
She correctly says this when you read her lips without the sound,
"...but I won't welcome the opportunity of having anyone assassinate Fidel Castro and any leader who is oppressing the people."
But in the tampered audio provided by the makers of a British documentary, “638 Ways to Kill Castro," the clip incorrectly says,
"..I...I welcome the opportunity of having anyone assassinate Fidel Castro and any leader who is oppressing the people."
Now, what is exactly the agenda of this British documentary makers anyway?
UPDATE: Looking at again, I know a "w" lettered word was said before she said "welcome". That's a fact. Whether it's "won't" or "would" is the point of contention here. In fact, I'm inclined now to see that she said "but would I welcome". It does seem more plausible with the lip movements now and that would be consisent with her demeanor and body language. It's also more grammatically correct than "won't". In fact, the clip cuts it off her talk at the begining (of the second clip) and at the end where she seems to continue to talk but was cut off as well. In fact, at the end she seemed to have shrugged a little bit before getting cut off which may indicate that she was answering a question.
We do, however, know that the audio has been messed around with and we don't know what she said before and after (in the second clip) when editing was done. The audio still contain the two "I"s to cover up the visual video gap where her lip movements said "would I" to make it sound like she stuttered a bit there.
Hattip: DrM2B.
posted by . | 9:41 PM
<< Home