That article quotes a lot of stupidity in the /pol analysis of this video.
I’m watching posted to Twitter in full screen mode.
The “strange movement” they’re seeing in the video is mostly likely the temporal video compression ignoring subtle changes until a fly breaks the threshold that forces it to encode something.
I don’t see anything unusual to the right of her head at 1:20. These people may have been watching a more compressed version of the video than what I saw. Temporal compression does odd things at low bit rates.
The mysterious stripes on her shirt showing up in her shadow are her reflection on the painted, polished, wooden bench.
I hear no audio distortion at 1:40. She says “to us both” in an abbreviated, British way. It might sound odd if you’re not used to her dialect.
Her left eyebrow looks the same as it always does.
To anyone who has spent time outside listening to birds (likely not many /pol posters) hearing them make a repeated chorus in response to one another is perfectly natural. They really do sit in the trees and bleat the same thing over and over again and wait their turn while other birds do the same thing.
Even if they did add some bird sounds in post it only means they’re trying to make the video more pleasant.
One of the flies lands on her hair and flies off at 0:29. She was not recorded in front of a green screen.
You can also see the bright sunlight on her hair fade as it fades in the background.
I appreciate the skepticism and analysis on /pol, but none of those comments are worth quoting. Every detail they told me to examine was a waste of my time. Either this author’s “moderately-trained eye” failed him, or he didn’t bother to look closely at the video before he quoted all of that nonsense.
(post is archived)