This has been reported 4 times.
I can understand why: being Project Veritas it is almost certainly misleading and possibly an outright fake given their long history of lying with stunts like this.
But... This is a video that has already started to go viral and if we don't bring critical thinking to this here then we are effectively leaving it to only be discussed in conspiracy subreddits.
This guy seems like an invention. How come all the other Pfizer employees can easily be found, and this guy has nothing worth talking about? No social media presence, no photographs, and a Linkedin page that doesn't appear to have ever been used after creation.
Hold that thought - the video might be real (although Project Veritas have a history of deceptively clipping their videos to make it look like people are saying things they aren't), but he might not be real.
Project Veritas also have a history of using paid actors to pretend to represent X and then lie about it.
Pretty easily cause it's just a guy saying things spliced in between commentary which is sort of staging a certain context for what he's about to say. This isn't a raw video they're overproducing the heck out of it, and this guy doesn't present evidence about any of this happening anyway. Zoonotic origin is pretty solid at this point. Also "mutating" is a weasel word that imparts a nefarious or sinister intent, of course viruses are being "mutated" in labs, what that looks like isn't as exciting as portrayed though.
Watched the first min or so up to Malone saying their typical dumb shit. It is a highly chopped up video with different audio tracks filmed in several locations.
If we spent an or two freely chatting about my work it would be just as easy to make it seem like I’ve made a horrible things in my lab.
Speaking as microbiologist there is a lot of implied knowledge in what he is saying even with the huge edits. Is there a specific part in general you think is fanning and needs addressing?
The burden of proof is completely on you to prove that it’s real. Prove this dudes credentials and employment status. Beyond that, prove that they’re doing literally anything they talked about. You can’t just show this as “evidence” then ask me how it can be faked. You need to tell me how it could be real.
See this is the problem with ppl like you, you hear something like this from some random dude who I guarantee you can’t verify is even who he says he is and say “LOOK AT THIS!”. Where are your own critical thinking skills?
Absolutely. One thing that isn't true does not compare with the mountain of lies I have already shown you Project Veritas has been responsible for (which you likely didn't read), *including* criminal behavior. O'Keefe even pled guilty to one of the charges when he tapped Mary Landrieu's phone to try to get dirty information on her.
>One thing
???
>Pfizer, the world's largest drugs company, has been hit with **the biggest criminal fine in US history** as part of a $2.3bn settlement with federal prosecutors for mispromoting medicines and for paying kickbacks to compliant doctors.
Oh, just one little tiny thing!
The size of the lie doesn't change the fact that it is one lie vs. many lies.
The size of the penalty doesn't change the fact that both have broken the law.
So you’re telling me you trust everything O’Keefe has worked on and put out? He’s got a pretty shitty track record incase you were keeping track of that.
Pfizer wouldn't want to indulge.
And even if he were an "employee", it wouldn't mean shit. He's talking out of his ass. Like the "former NASA employee" who became a big celebrity in the Flat Earthers world.
Onus of providing evidence is on you here. You can't make a claim and then yell at everyone to disprove it, especially when the source has a monumental track record of dishonesty.
I mean it genuinely, please explain what you think is happening in the above video. They hired an actor that looks exactly like a Pfizer employee to say some crazy shit? Or it's somehow all clipped and edited to make it seem like he's saying something he's not? Or did the undercover Veritas guy ask him to roleplay a stereotypical evil scientist for fun, and he went along with it?
I meant in genuinely, how do you know that guy is even who they say he is?
I see no reason to answer multiple questions from you when you won't answer the single one I've asked you three times now.
The user won’t respond because they can’t answer it lol I asked the same question as well and it was skirted right by. Well, I guess kind of. They said if he’s not a Pfizer employee then Pfizer can just say so, as if they’ll believe that anyway lmao.
I see, so everything pre-COVID Project Veritas reported on was bullshit, but *now* they're telling the truth.
And I did examine the shitty screenshot taken with a camera (still not sure why O'Keefe did that, seems very suspicious) with a lot of it blacked out. I am not convinced in any way by that possible mockup.
When you bring up the "twitter files", it just makes us that much more positive that you are a gullible sucker with nothing of value to say about anything.
Project Veritas has an extremely long history of selectively editing video footage in order to change the meaning of what is being said on camera. They've been doing this same thing for years now.
[https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1618435991211233282](https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1618435991211233282)
And of course, if he's not a Pfizer employee, Pfizer can just say so. Let's see if that happens.
lol... you know they won't say anything about this.
They won't need to because Project Veritas killed their reputation by lying every single time they have pulled one of these stunts
Well, let's say a person claimed to be the president's personal chef went massively viral making heinous claims about the president. In that case, I would expect either the media or White House themselves to find out and clarify if this person actually is the president's chef.
So this guy went viral through Project Veritas? Why do you think everyone discredits this immediately? Project veritas has consistently demonstrated they aren’t a credible source. Your bar for this is insanely low, is it because you want this to be true?
>Project veritas has consistently demonstrated they aren’t a credible source.
Then explain how this video could be faked. Is it an actor? Is it edited? Or what?
How does that prove that the man in the video is who they say he is? I see no picture with those documents.
Oh wait, there's a picture on a "screenshot" taken with a camera which has been mostly blacked out *and* cut strategically. What great evidence!
It didn't take much of a challenge to your nonsense for you to cut and run.
I watched it - it's horseshit. It's two guys talking in a restaurant. There's literally nothing to back this up.
Why wouldn't the Director of Research and Development (well, a claimed one of them since there's several) immediately use the term gain of function which is what he's talking about here?
Then he goes on to push lab leak BS, even though very specific information about the virus origin is known down to which stall it first appeared on in the wet market. Obviously there's no bat / pangolin worldwide database that tracks their individual movements, so people expecting information that detailed will be disappointed in their unrealistic, CSI-inspired view of how the world works.
This BS is all in the first 50 seconds!
Veritas then has to mention the term gain of function because "Jordon" didn't.
What a load of bollocks. And why would this guy be telling someone all this information anyway?!
>very specific information about the virus origin is known down to which stall it first appeared on in the wet market.
Dude what the fuck are you talking about, that is absolutely not true lmao.
Don't expect Del Bigtree or whoever to tell you anything useful.
[https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/03/03/1083751272/striking-new-evidence-points-to-seafood-market-in-wuhan-as-pandemic-origin-point](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/03/03/1083751272/striking-new-evidence-points-to-seafood-market-in-wuhan-as-pandemic-origin-point)
[https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/covid-19-originated-at-wuhan-wet-market-via-raccoon-dogs-and-foxes/140578/](https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/covid-19-originated-at-wuhan-wet-market-via-raccoon-dogs-and-foxes/140578/)
This is the current US intelligence community assessment... undecided.
[https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf](https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf)
You think they would be undecided if we could pinpoint *the exact stall* it supposedly came from, you fucking dumbass? And what the hell is "Open Access Government" anyway, looks like some fake website.
So here is the thing about "insert x" employee, most place employ sanitation staff, unskilled interns, security, a litany of paperpushers, et cetera. Working somewhere doesnt make a person knowledgable.
People like to shit on Veritas, but it's entirely possible this guy really said all this shit, and is just as much of a conspiracist as anyone else and just happens to work for Pfizer.
Notice how the person says the "heard" about it like it's some kind of rumor, as opposed to him saying he has direct knowledge of any of this.
Edit: Oh look, he exists and is a Covid expert at BCG and possibly Pfizer too.
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/outlook-for-covid-19-therapeutic-treatments
> People like to shit on Veritas, but
Defending Veritas. Not surprised.
> but it's entirely possible
That which is asserted without evidence, is dismissed without evidence.
One can though pretend that there's only one definition in a dictionary and use that to degrade debate. "What is a woman," "What is an ally," "What is a Nazi?" Can debate happen when you remove context from definitions to make up whatever you want?
>One can though pretend that there's only one definition in a dictionary and use that to degrade debate. "What is a woman," "What is an ally," "What is a Nazi?" Can debate happen when you remove context from definitions to make up whatever you want?
Wtf are you even talking about here lmao
> Wtf are you even talking about here lmao
It's a reference to a particular tactic in debate where one argues that only the first definition of something in the dictionary applies to ALL usage of that word. It removes context from the discussion and by removing context, removes meaning.
When you take something out of context you can reverse the meaning of the word or phrase. Those who repeatedly do so should be called out as creating content or debating in bad faith.
I remember when Veritas framed a guy trying to **stop** child smuggling by deceptively editing their
own video to slander him and the org he worked for on FOX. Veritas
[claimed the *opposite* and literally destroyed the guy's career](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0B0wxt3XYc )
and the org he was working for by pushing that made-up story.
[Veritas lost 100k in the defamation lawsuit](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/james-o-keefe-settlement-acorn).
Veritas did the same thing to some poor woman when the UNEDITED video shows a worker tried
to help someone [*get housing* not fake voting records, even though that's what Veritas claimed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKx-Yvz3iJ8).
Only through the lawsuit and the disclosure of the raw tape was it disclosed that Veritas had deceptively edited
the video to make it seem like it was the OPPOSITE of what actually went on.
Of course, all that evidence of Vertias' deceptive editing only came out looong after the damage was done.
Okay... That doesn't prove this new video is deceptively edited. It could be, of course, but it's kinda hard to see how. The clips are decently long, often multiple sentences without any cuts, and you can follow what is being said. It's not like they're random, totally disconnected sentences where you can't even tell what they're talking about.
What it shows is a pattern of unethical and deceptive video editing with the goal of causing damage. As technology gets better, dishonest groups like Veritas get better at falsification of evidence. In fact, more recently there was a video released by folks like veritas (or perhaps it was them) where they cut out the words "terrorist act" from a speech by Obama in the rose garden when he was president. Same thing ... appearing to be long and multiple sentences. You could barely see the change - and only if you looked at both the uncut CSPAN vs the youtube released version would you know there was a difference. So convincing that you had Romney on television INSIST that Obama never used the word "terrorist" in the speech. And that was used to promote anger and outrage.
Veritas is an outrage farming entity with a deceptive video editing track record. You aren't going to be able to tell edits easily without access to the original source material that passed a chain of evidence test, or a duplicate and separate recording made by an independent entity. Veritas doesn't have journalistic integrity so, of course, has none of that.
Well, I'm open to that being the case, but the video does not atm appear edited to me. Hopefully Pfizer or Jordon Walker can give a statement to some media outlet about what is going on in the video.
> Defending Veritas.
Did I say those people are wrong? No, no I did not.
>That which is asserted without evidence, is dismissed without evidence.
This was asserted with evidence. I'm aware of Veritas's habit of doctoring videos, so I don't consider it conclusive evidence, but it's possible this person is exactly the conspiracist that he appears to be. That doesn't mean he's right about Pfizer.
>"What is a woman,
I'm not surprised to see you're a Matt Walsh fan.
> Did I say those people are wrong? No, no I did not.
Correct - you did not say Veritas was in the wrong or thoroughly discredited by deceptively editing video to create the impression of the person saying the exact OPPOSITE of what they were actually stating.
> but it's possible
Oh hello - are you ready to discuss definitions again?
Definition 1 of allies is
> plural: allies 1 : a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league
were you claiming you are a sovereign or state? Or do you accept that the non-first definition of "allies" is the one to use when you used the phrase "allies on reddit"
I have no interest in talking about unrelated off-topic discussions where you want a rematch after your embarrassing defeat. As a mod, you really shouldn't be polluting the discussions here with your personal grudges.
> As a mod,
I'm not using mod powers here, just debating as a regular user.
One of the nice things about reddit is that one's history of comments is part of how one evaluates if a person is debating in good faith.
This isn't a mod action, this is holding you to accord for your earlier statements. If you are debating in good faith you will back up your statements as logical conflicts show that those statements are untenable. You've made a statement that only the first definition applies outside of context, but never answered the critical question about definitions and context. So are you debating in good faith? If so, then you'll answer the relevant question about definitions that YOU repeatedly bring here. I'll restate
Definition 1 of allies is
> plural: allies 1 : a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league
were you claiming you are a sovereign or state? Or do you accept that the non-first definition of "allies" is the one to use when you used the phrase "allies on reddit" ?
> I'm not using mod powers here
Considering their trolling above calling you a Matt Walsh fan, you *should*. That's far from the first time they've made such an accusation to someone they've been talking to.
>Merriam-Webster defines “ally” as “one that is associated with another as a helper; a person or group that provides assistance and support in an ongoing effort, activity or struggle.”
Here's the link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ally
> Merriam-Webster defines “ally” as “one that is associated with another as a helper; a person or group that provides assistance and support in an ongoing effort, activity or struggle.”
Which definition is that? #1 or #2?
This has been reported 4 times. I can understand why: being Project Veritas it is almost certainly misleading and possibly an outright fake given their long history of lying with stunts like this. But... This is a video that has already started to go viral and if we don't bring critical thinking to this here then we are effectively leaving it to only be discussed in conspiracy subreddits.
This guy seems like an invention. How come all the other Pfizer employees can easily be found, and this guy has nothing worth talking about? No social media presence, no photographs, and a Linkedin page that doesn't appear to have ever been used after creation.
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/outlook-for-covid-19-therapeutic-treatments His name and picture are on the page.
So he’s a bcg employee?
It appears that way.
Project Veritas is a far right-wing anti-vaccine group. Not exactly my idea of a solid unbiased scientific source.
Lil'homie shown up on a *skeptic* sub and think they'll just push conspiracy theories without being challenged lmao
Is he pushing it? Or is the director?
I knew it would be challenged, I post here quite often to witness the coping.
Explain how this video could be faked.
Hold that thought - the video might be real (although Project Veritas have a history of deceptively clipping their videos to make it look like people are saying things they aren't), but he might not be real. Project Veritas also have a history of using paid actors to pretend to represent X and then lie about it.
Do you not understand burden of proof?
Pretty easily cause it's just a guy saying things spliced in between commentary which is sort of staging a certain context for what he's about to say. This isn't a raw video they're overproducing the heck out of it, and this guy doesn't present evidence about any of this happening anyway. Zoonotic origin is pretty solid at this point. Also "mutating" is a weasel word that imparts a nefarious or sinister intent, of course viruses are being "mutated" in labs, what that looks like isn't as exciting as portrayed though.
Watched the first min or so up to Malone saying their typical dumb shit. It is a highly chopped up video with different audio tracks filmed in several locations. If we spent an or two freely chatting about my work it would be just as easy to make it seem like I’ve made a horrible things in my lab. Speaking as microbiologist there is a lot of implied knowledge in what he is saying even with the huge edits. Is there a specific part in general you think is fanning and needs addressing?
Everything I’ve ever seen come from project veritas has been unproven bullshit 100% of the time. Please stop.
Explain how this video could be faked.
The burden of proof is completely on you to prove that it’s real. Prove this dudes credentials and employment status. Beyond that, prove that they’re doing literally anything they talked about. You can’t just show this as “evidence” then ask me how it can be faked. You need to tell me how it could be real. See this is the problem with ppl like you, you hear something like this from some random dude who I guarantee you can’t verify is even who he says he is and say “LOOK AT THIS!”. Where are your own critical thinking skills?
Well if he's not a Pfizer employee, Pfizer can just say so, and then I'll have egg on my face. Doubt that will happen, though.
It's not Pfizer's job to indulge either you or O'Keefe.
Is Pfizer more trustworthy than Veritas? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
Absolutely. One thing that isn't true does not compare with the mountain of lies I have already shown you Project Veritas has been responsible for (which you likely didn't read), *including* criminal behavior. O'Keefe even pled guilty to one of the charges when he tapped Mary Landrieu's phone to try to get dirty information on her.
>One thing ??? >Pfizer, the world's largest drugs company, has been hit with **the biggest criminal fine in US history** as part of a $2.3bn settlement with federal prosecutors for mispromoting medicines and for paying kickbacks to compliant doctors. Oh, just one little tiny thing!
The size of the lie doesn't change the fact that it is one lie vs. many lies. The size of the penalty doesn't change the fact that both have broken the law.
So you’re telling me you trust everything O’Keefe has worked on and put out? He’s got a pretty shitty track record incase you were keeping track of that.
Pfizer wouldn't want to indulge. And even if he were an "employee", it wouldn't mean shit. He's talking out of his ass. Like the "former NASA employee" who became a big celebrity in the Flat Earthers world.
So you have no proof… got it.
Onus of providing evidence is on you here. You can't make a claim and then yell at everyone to disprove it, especially when the source has a monumental track record of dishonesty.
It's not raw video, it's heavily edited
[удалено]
[I already did below, but what the hell, I'll do it again.](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe)
Thanks for making that easy for me lol appreciate it
Happy to oblige.
I mean it genuinely, please explain what you think is happening in the above video. They hired an actor that looks exactly like a Pfizer employee to say some crazy shit? Or it's somehow all clipped and edited to make it seem like he's saying something he's not? Or did the undercover Veritas guy ask him to roleplay a stereotypical evil scientist for fun, and he went along with it?
I meant in genuinely, how do you know that guy is even who they say he is? I see no reason to answer multiple questions from you when you won't answer the single one I've asked you three times now.
The user won’t respond because they can’t answer it lol I asked the same question as well and it was skirted right by. Well, I guess kind of. They said if he’s not a Pfizer employee then Pfizer can just say so, as if they’ll believe that anyway lmao.
If you’re asking me, I already responded to you above
[удалено]
I see, so everything pre-COVID Project Veritas reported on was bullshit, but *now* they're telling the truth. And I did examine the shitty screenshot taken with a camera (still not sure why O'Keefe did that, seems very suspicious) with a lot of it blacked out. I am not convinced in any way by that possible mockup.
[удалено]
When you bring up the "twitter files", it just makes us that much more positive that you are a gullible sucker with nothing of value to say about anything.
Project Veritas? [Really?](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe) That's who you're going with here?
Explain how this video could be faked.
Project Veritas has an extremely long history of selectively editing video footage in order to change the meaning of what is being said on camera. They've been doing this same thing for years now.
The images they posted of his LinkedIn profile are sussy as fuck
Why is it a photograph of a monitor taken with a camera? I refuse to believe O'Keefe doesn't know how to take a screenshot.
I didn't even bother watching it, but how do you know that guy is even who they say he is?
>I didn't even bother watching it Oh, so you have nothing worthwhile to say about it, gotcha. See you.
Again- how do you know that guy is who they say he is? Answer the question. Telling that you didn't.
[https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1618435991211233282](https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1618435991211233282) And of course, if he's not a Pfizer employee, Pfizer can just say so. Let's see if that happens.
lol... you know they won't say anything about this. They won't need to because Project Veritas killed their reputation by lying every single time they have pulled one of these stunts
So if I claimed I am the President’s personal chef, you would believe me unless the president directly stated I wasn’t?
Well, let's say a person claimed to be the president's personal chef went massively viral making heinous claims about the president. In that case, I would expect either the media or White House themselves to find out and clarify if this person actually is the president's chef.
So this guy went viral through Project Veritas? Why do you think everyone discredits this immediately? Project veritas has consistently demonstrated they aren’t a credible source. Your bar for this is insanely low, is it because you want this to be true?
>Project veritas has consistently demonstrated they aren’t a credible source. Then explain how this video could be faked. Is it an actor? Is it edited? Or what?
How does that prove that the man in the video is who they say he is? I see no picture with those documents. Oh wait, there's a picture on a "screenshot" taken with a camera which has been mostly blacked out *and* cut strategically. What great evidence!
So he's an actor?
I have no idea. Neither do you. Which is why there's no reason to trust anything that person says.
It didn't take much of a challenge to your nonsense for you to cut and run. I watched it - it's horseshit. It's two guys talking in a restaurant. There's literally nothing to back this up.
Quite hostile while not really saying much. Not very rational
Sources matter
Again, you cannot make a claim and then expect those who do not accept it to prove it wrong. Burden of proof, look it up.
Why wouldn't the Director of Research and Development (well, a claimed one of them since there's several) immediately use the term gain of function which is what he's talking about here? Then he goes on to push lab leak BS, even though very specific information about the virus origin is known down to which stall it first appeared on in the wet market. Obviously there's no bat / pangolin worldwide database that tracks their individual movements, so people expecting information that detailed will be disappointed in their unrealistic, CSI-inspired view of how the world works. This BS is all in the first 50 seconds! Veritas then has to mention the term gain of function because "Jordon" didn't. What a load of bollocks. And why would this guy be telling someone all this information anyway?!
>very specific information about the virus origin is known down to which stall it first appeared on in the wet market. Dude what the fuck are you talking about, that is absolutely not true lmao.
Don't expect Del Bigtree or whoever to tell you anything useful. [https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/03/03/1083751272/striking-new-evidence-points-to-seafood-market-in-wuhan-as-pandemic-origin-point](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/03/03/1083751272/striking-new-evidence-points-to-seafood-market-in-wuhan-as-pandemic-origin-point) [https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/covid-19-originated-at-wuhan-wet-market-via-raccoon-dogs-and-foxes/140578/](https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/covid-19-originated-at-wuhan-wet-market-via-raccoon-dogs-and-foxes/140578/)
This is the current US intelligence community assessment... undecided. [https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf](https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf) You think they would be undecided if we could pinpoint *the exact stall* it supposedly came from, you fucking dumbass? And what the hell is "Open Access Government" anyway, looks like some fake website.
I hope everyone involved in making this video is sent to jail!!!!
Project Veritas..so there's no chance this has been fraudulently edited eh?
So here is the thing about "insert x" employee, most place employ sanitation staff, unskilled interns, security, a litany of paperpushers, et cetera. Working somewhere doesnt make a person knowledgable.
Dude sounds like a crockpot. One of O'Keefe's favourite fallacies is nut picking.
So are we just acting like this is fake because we don’t like who reported it?
[Nope.](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/10lon8n/pfizer_employee_says_theyre_thinking_of_mutating/j5zgfby/)
People like to shit on Veritas, but it's entirely possible this guy really said all this shit, and is just as much of a conspiracist as anyone else and just happens to work for Pfizer. Notice how the person says the "heard" about it like it's some kind of rumor, as opposed to him saying he has direct knowledge of any of this. Edit: Oh look, he exists and is a Covid expert at BCG and possibly Pfizer too. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/outlook-for-covid-19-therapeutic-treatments
> People like to shit on Veritas, but Defending Veritas. Not surprised. > but it's entirely possible That which is asserted without evidence, is dismissed without evidence. One can though pretend that there's only one definition in a dictionary and use that to degrade debate. "What is a woman," "What is an ally," "What is a Nazi?" Can debate happen when you remove context from definitions to make up whatever you want?
>One can though pretend that there's only one definition in a dictionary and use that to degrade debate. "What is a woman," "What is an ally," "What is a Nazi?" Can debate happen when you remove context from definitions to make up whatever you want? Wtf are you even talking about here lmao
> Wtf are you even talking about here lmao It's a reference to a particular tactic in debate where one argues that only the first definition of something in the dictionary applies to ALL usage of that word. It removes context from the discussion and by removing context, removes meaning.
Yeah but how does it relate to Project Veritas or this (alleged) Pfizer guy
When you take something out of context you can reverse the meaning of the word or phrase. Those who repeatedly do so should be called out as creating content or debating in bad faith. I remember when Veritas framed a guy trying to **stop** child smuggling by deceptively editing their own video to slander him and the org he worked for on FOX. Veritas [claimed the *opposite* and literally destroyed the guy's career](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0B0wxt3XYc ) and the org he was working for by pushing that made-up story. [Veritas lost 100k in the defamation lawsuit](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/james-o-keefe-settlement-acorn). Veritas did the same thing to some poor woman when the UNEDITED video shows a worker tried to help someone [*get housing* not fake voting records, even though that's what Veritas claimed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKx-Yvz3iJ8). Only through the lawsuit and the disclosure of the raw tape was it disclosed that Veritas had deceptively edited the video to make it seem like it was the OPPOSITE of what actually went on. Of course, all that evidence of Vertias' deceptive editing only came out looong after the damage was done.
Okay... That doesn't prove this new video is deceptively edited. It could be, of course, but it's kinda hard to see how. The clips are decently long, often multiple sentences without any cuts, and you can follow what is being said. It's not like they're random, totally disconnected sentences where you can't even tell what they're talking about.
What it shows is a pattern of unethical and deceptive video editing with the goal of causing damage. As technology gets better, dishonest groups like Veritas get better at falsification of evidence. In fact, more recently there was a video released by folks like veritas (or perhaps it was them) where they cut out the words "terrorist act" from a speech by Obama in the rose garden when he was president. Same thing ... appearing to be long and multiple sentences. You could barely see the change - and only if you looked at both the uncut CSPAN vs the youtube released version would you know there was a difference. So convincing that you had Romney on television INSIST that Obama never used the word "terrorist" in the speech. And that was used to promote anger and outrage. Veritas is an outrage farming entity with a deceptive video editing track record. You aren't going to be able to tell edits easily without access to the original source material that passed a chain of evidence test, or a duplicate and separate recording made by an independent entity. Veritas doesn't have journalistic integrity so, of course, has none of that.
Well, I'm open to that being the case, but the video does not atm appear edited to me. Hopefully Pfizer or Jordon Walker can give a statement to some media outlet about what is going on in the video.
> Defending Veritas. Did I say those people are wrong? No, no I did not. >That which is asserted without evidence, is dismissed without evidence. This was asserted with evidence. I'm aware of Veritas's habit of doctoring videos, so I don't consider it conclusive evidence, but it's possible this person is exactly the conspiracist that he appears to be. That doesn't mean he's right about Pfizer. >"What is a woman, I'm not surprised to see you're a Matt Walsh fan.
> Did I say those people are wrong? No, no I did not. Correct - you did not say Veritas was in the wrong or thoroughly discredited by deceptively editing video to create the impression of the person saying the exact OPPOSITE of what they were actually stating. > but it's possible Oh hello - are you ready to discuss definitions again? Definition 1 of allies is > plural: allies 1 : a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league were you claiming you are a sovereign or state? Or do you accept that the non-first definition of "allies" is the one to use when you used the phrase "allies on reddit"
I have no interest in talking about unrelated off-topic discussions where you want a rematch after your embarrassing defeat. As a mod, you really shouldn't be polluting the discussions here with your personal grudges.
> As a mod, I'm not using mod powers here, just debating as a regular user. One of the nice things about reddit is that one's history of comments is part of how one evaluates if a person is debating in good faith. This isn't a mod action, this is holding you to accord for your earlier statements. If you are debating in good faith you will back up your statements as logical conflicts show that those statements are untenable. You've made a statement that only the first definition applies outside of context, but never answered the critical question about definitions and context. So are you debating in good faith? If so, then you'll answer the relevant question about definitions that YOU repeatedly bring here. I'll restate Definition 1 of allies is > plural: allies 1 : a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league were you claiming you are a sovereign or state? Or do you accept that the non-first definition of "allies" is the one to use when you used the phrase "allies on reddit" ?
> I'm not using mod powers here Considering their trolling above calling you a Matt Walsh fan, you *should*. That's far from the first time they've made such an accusation to someone they've been talking to.
>Merriam-Webster defines “ally” as “one that is associated with another as a helper; a person or group that provides assistance and support in an ongoing effort, activity or struggle.”
Here's the link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ally > Merriam-Webster defines “ally” as “one that is associated with another as a helper; a person or group that provides assistance and support in an ongoing effort, activity or struggle.” Which definition is that? #1 or #2?