Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Who took the picture of Joe Wilson? And how?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:27 AM
Original message
Who took the picture of Joe Wilson? And how?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fund...


So here's what I don't understand. If Joe Wilson's outburst during Obama's speech Wednesday night was truly "spontaneous," as Wilson claims, and no one (including Wilson himself) could have anticipated it, how come there is a sharply focused and neatly centered picture of Wilson right at the moment he shouted "You lie!" when the outburst lasted less than a second? In the picture, Wilson's mouth is still open, apparently in the middle of his shouting "lie."

There are 535 members of Congress in attendance during the joint session, plus a few extras like Michelle Obama and Vicki Kennedy. Until last night, Wilson was just about the least well known member of Congress. Why did someone have a camera fixed and focused on him during Obama's speech? The picture in question has been variously credited to "Getty Images," "AFP" (Agence France-Presse) or "Chip Somodevilla." None of them are local press in South Carolina, which might have had a reason to pay particular attention to their local Congressman during the speech. I doubt local press photographers are allowed in the joint session of Congress during a Presidential speech anyway.

Think about it. If you were one of the (probably) dozen press photographers in the chamber last night, generally taking pictures of the Congressmen and Senators during the speech, and if you suddenly heard a two-word, one-second outburst coming from somewhere in the chamber, uttered by one of the 535 members of Congress (okay, one of the Republicans), there is no way you could take a (well focused and neatly centered) picture of the culprit during the second word of the outburst. Whoever took the picture must have anticipated the outburst.

This is the question that Albert Brooks asked about William Hurt in Broadcast News, which eventually ended the relationship between Hurt and Holly Hunter. I just don't see how the picture could be possible. How can you capture someone's "spontaneous" moment, when there are more than 535 other people around to pay attention to?





-----------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. I have actually wondered the same thing...
But then I also wonder why someone would stage such a thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. Really?
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 11:43 AM by Proud Liberal Dem
With all the stuff going on about ACORN? O'Keefe? Giles? Not saying it couldn't been totally spontaneous and happened to be caught on camera but there's no reason it couldn't have been staged either. :shrug: The people sitting around don't seem to be very shocked by his actions but that just might mean that they were REALLY paying attention to Obama's speech (doubtful but possible I guess- assuming they were all Republicans).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. But WHY? That's the question. Why in the hell would Republicans
hurt their reputation more than they already have by doing something like this? All it did was galvanize the loonies, but it alienated even more people they could have had on their side of the table, as evidenced by Obama's recovering poll numbers following the speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #23
45. Ummmmm.........because they're Republicans?
:shrug:

Seriously, it could very well have been that Wilson just spontaneously yelled at President Obama during the speech. Maybe he was thinking it and just unconsciously blurted it out. I don't think that we will ever really know for sure whether or not it was planned in advance or spontaneous unless Wilson and/or others tell us. If I had to guess, I'd guess it was probably spontaneous.
However, it's not like the Republicans don't blunder into things either. The examples are far too numerous but this IS the party of people like George "with us or against us" W. Bush, George "Macaca" Allen, Michelle "slit our wrists" Bachmann, Sarah "Death Panels" Palin, and Jim "Obama's waterloo" DeMint we're talking about.
Did you ever see that video clip (I can't remember who did it but I think I saw it on TYT) where some guy went around Capitol Hill asking Republican Congressmen about the "birthers" and whether or not they believed them and many of them avoided him and/or flat our refused to answer. What does the combined experience of most of this year and the last 8 years tell you about the intelligence and political acumen of the Republican Party nowadays?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Well I will hand it to you that they're idiots. lol
Which is why I think this is more spontaneous stupidity than calculated. But you are right in that maybe I'm given them too much credit in the brains department. They may just be delusional enough now to believe a stunt like this would have helped them. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Well, they also thought that the August town hall meetings
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 02:07 PM by Proud Liberal Dem
stocked with plenty of "birthers," "deathers", "teabaggers", and other assorted wingnuts trying to drown everybody out would be seen as a "grassroots uprising" against Obama and help bury health care reform. I think that many of them, probably including Wilson, had become so emboldened by Obama's sagging poll numbers right before his speech that they REALLY let their disgust for Obama *shine* through. Frankly, I think that, aside from a few exceptions, the Republicans made for a poor audience during the speech based on what I saw. Most of them were sporting nasty/sour looks on their faces the whole time and Cantor was texting during the address. Wilson's shouting was just the worst of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. Good thoughts, all of them.
And I believe the answer is ...it wasn't spontaneous.

Someone pointed out that the Congress got an advance copy of the President's speech, so he would know just when he would shout his lie.

And he must have arranged to have a photographer in place...

This seems most obvious to me ...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. Every seat is covered...
...by 1 camera or another. The studio director was not anticipating it b/c I saw the president, not Wilson, on the TV at that moment.

Still, the cameras are there so we have the above pic but the president was (appropriately) the focus of the actual broadcast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Interesting, did not know that
by the way, welcome to DU :-).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. thank you
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. Over 500 seats are constantly covered?
I'm skeptical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. In one way or another, its not that difficult
1 Camera could cover quite a few seats, and cropping with high def would make it easy to appear as if any quadrant of the FOV was the focal point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Here's a response to the article in the OP.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-in-limbo/20090...

What's important isn't so much the response but the comments made to that response, which are here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-in-limbo/20090...

This comment in particular is skeptical of the idea that this could have been cropped from a wide angle shot: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-in-limbo/20090...
A search online shows that the highest resolution cameras out there are special-purpose scientific imagers used by universities for archiving, and in astronomy. These imagers have hit the 1000 megapixel size, which is huge enough to perhaps create the kind of result we're speculating could've been achieved by the camera focused on the congressional crowd ... however, the cameras are huge and not suitable for this photographic application.
...
The camera is not yet available that allows us to just aim it at a general wide area and sit back and extract that great shot from within a little window within the wide angle capture. Maybe in another few years though ...

I don't know how accurate this individual's research is, but he sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

I personally suspect that it may be that Wilson was already creating a ruckus and someone focused on him because of that. I do however wonder about the fact that neither of the gentlemen on either side of him seem to be showing any reaction to his outburst. I'd think they would if it was unexpected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. No, no, I promise
To one extent or another every seat is covered...for just such an incident...well, maybe not anything quite so rude and despicable but for reaction shots et al. You catch my drift. C-SPAN alone uses numerous crews PLUS remotely operated cameras to provide as wide a coverage as is possible then when you figure the major nets get involved things are pretty well scoped-out.

And it is plausible as well. Let's face facts: the GOP was adversarial going into the speech. Why wouldn't the MSM be looking for a juicy reaction shot? I think Wilson gave the news whores (with apologies to real sex workers) more than they dared hope for but I don't think it was planned. Ever watch the British parliament when the PM is in front of them? They're a hoot!

It's also quite plausible that a RWer is daily on the emotional cusp and the slightest stress that doesn't comport with his preconceptions of reality would lead to an unhinged outburst. Perhaps an order to emotional councilling would have been more constructive than censure.

"Unt tell me vhy you zink ze Afr-r-rican Umer-r-rican pr-r-residunt ischt out to getsch you."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. You promise?
On what do you base that promise?

I don't recall seeing a wall of cameras behind the President. Please see my post #16 on the possibility of if being a crop from a wide angle shot.

I personally think that what may have happened is that Wilson was already creating a ruckus and someone was focused on him because of that, but I do think that the lack of any surprise reaction from his colleagues on either side is interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. I Promise I'm Not Fabricating My Assertion
...but as you do not know me as a person I suppose that doesn't mean much. That's natural and that's fair. We'll get to know each other eventually and I think things will only improve.

Just out of curiosity: why does there have to be a wall of cameras behind the president? Why is it too hard to believe they are tasefully out of immediate view? Certainly there are many many cameras and these cameras would have been trained not only on President Obama but on both sides of the aisle for the purpose of gatehring reaction shots.

Did the GOP stage this little event? I suppose many things are possible but I don't think the pic in question was if the underlying supposition is to have a pic that would have caused trouble for President Obama. I know I didn't see Wilson on TV during his outburst and there have been threads here on this very forum about how the president remained staid and collected giving the outburst its due attention, i.e. dismissive. If anybody would have sought to have a pic to embarrass the president it would have been the station that didn't even bother to air the speech in the first place.

In short: the outburst may have been planned but I don't think the pic was part of any plan otherwise it would have aired at the time.

That's all I'm trying to communicate.

"I personally think that what may have happened is that Wilson was already creating a ruckus and someone was focused on him because of that, but I do think that the lack of any surprise reaction from his colleagues on either side is interesting."

This too is plausible and I don't think our respective theories conflict with each other.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. "I don't think the pic was part of any plan otherwise it would have aired at the time."
Ok you have made an error there. Just because one photographer was 'in on it' does not mean all media outlets were 'in on it'. You only need one picture and one camera. Your theory of continuous coverage of all people needs some other evidence as the evidence just presented is not actually evidence, it is more conjecture and even more dubious than the claim it is meant to substantiate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. I have a thousand things I would like to say
...but the tones are starting to seem ominous. If you prefer to dismiss my comments that is fine.

I prefer friendship over submission to any supposition I may bring to a conversation.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. par for the course
i actually find your posts on this more informative than theirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
37. Clearly this person has some expertise and knowledge
and you are writing off what they say as if they are just some crank who sits at home watching cspan a lot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. I thank-you for your defense...
...but when I said "peace" I honestly meant it.

What the 3 of us can agree to is that Wilson was very boorish and he owed a lot of people a big apology...which he refused to tender in his self-emabarrassing effort to embarrass our president. That is what is important.

Please do not be harsh with endarkenment.

Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. there's no peace around here
but the good info and people that you find here offset some of the annoying tendency to put conspiracy theories over empirical observation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
29. Fine. now produce some actual evidence that this is true.
Promises are cheap. I promise you I don't believe your theory. See how cheap that is? Evidence that 'every seat is covered all the time' would be appropriate, promises or no promises.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
19. Are you saying there's a bank of 535 cameras constantly focused
on each seat in the House?

You sure about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
36. tv cameras with high resolution- i believe this is a crop from those cameras.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
39. oh come on, that poster never said that
this is stupid.

but when you suggest something is not a conspiracy around here, you get beat up.

that's the way it works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
28. Was this a still from a video or a digital camera?
What is the source of the photo? I think I first saw it on a Reuters site.

So, did Reuters get it from one of their own photographers or did they get it from the "pool feed" of the video cameras?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
35. I just assumed it was taken from the TV camera coverage
there are tv cameras covering every seat in the congress- so it didn't seem that unusual to me that they were able to isolate and print the exact moment of his finger pointing "you lie" outburst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #35
62. That is what makes the most sense.
They could do it with a handful of cameras. Just divide the house up into sections and put the camera's in position to cover that section. If something happened, they could crop a freeze frame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. I've considered that, too
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 10:34 AM by Wickerman
but I've attributed it to a crop of a wider shot of the Rethuglicans/wealthcare toadies acting up right before Wilson took it over the top.

YMMV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
40. that's what the other poster (the new guy) said
Occam's Razor tells me that this explanation makes the most sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. the new GIRL thank-you
:hi:

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. sorry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. No worries, friend
Still, the stars don't seem to favor you as you don't seem to have much luck guessing even on a (generally) 50-50 prospect.

Save yourself $1 and don't play the lottery.

:pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. One other possibility
beyond "orchestrated spontaneity": you remember that there was a group outburst, booing, whatever, just a few moments before his "you lie". Cameras may have been pointed in that direction as a result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. If it's a digital photo, you can zoom in after the fact, crop nicely...
...doesn't concern me that it was staged...I do, however, think he knew he was going to say someting, he's not passionate, just a racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Exactly. It's just a phony zoom on a pic from a quality camera. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
68. Yes. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
10. He had already shouted once...
...although it was not as clear due to other distractions at the time. So it's quite possible the camera had already gone over in that direction.

IOW I don't think for a minute that the person behind the camera was "in on it", which seems to be suggested here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
65. Plus...
It helped that many of the Repubs sitting around him were holding up signs saying, "what bill?" and making great pains to visually display their indifference by texting on their iphones or getting the baseball score from their blackberry. They were acting like a bunch of pompus frat boys - of course the media was going to have their cameras trained in their general direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
15. I also found the looks on the faces on the men around him interesting


like the cat that ate the canary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
30. The two sitting next to him on either side look almost like "twins"...
Don't know if that was by design as well or not... But seeing the way they are sitting with similar facial expressions and looks is kind of amusing "framing" of him in the middle.

I was thinking the same thing though of a cropped zoom from a larger photo/video frame that would appear to have him centered. now if there were a video sequence that showed him from start to end with him centered in it, that would be another thing.

I wonder also if Wilson might have telegraphed his action earlier that drew attention to himself, like perhaps putting up a thumbs down sign or some other behavioral twist that would have got the cameras moving in his direction. Certainly if that section was "booing" that would have drawn them on him too before he let out his retort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
18. I thought the same first time I saw the picture,
look at the expressions on the two characters on either side of him. I think it was staged to get the wingnuts attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
20. he drew the longest straw and was the one chosen to shout /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
22. Wondered about that, too (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
25. Dunno but could whomever have gotten a more
bloated toady looking shot? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SIMPLYB1980 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
26. Could it have been taken from a camera feed?
One that wasn't shown on the air? I know that their are cameras that have a view of the congress because they always like to pan away, and get their reactions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
27. He did say you lie twice....the first was with the other boos from the Rethug side and then he said
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 12:26 PM by Jennicut
it again but was alone in saying something. Guess he forgot they were only supposed to shout once.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNGsaRJ8cvk

Its clear on the youtube clip he said it more then once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
31. Photoshop is an amazing tool, especially if you have a professional digital camera,
which obviously these photographers have. He could've started snapping away as soon as all the comments started just before Wilson's outburst. Then, in a shot of nearly all the Republicans, he cropped and centered Joe Wilson into a nice, tidy image.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
33. I'm guessing it's a cropped frame from video.
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 12:29 PM by tridim
But that begs the question, why haven't we seen the video?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
43. I figured there were multiple cameras panning the entire room...
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 01:05 PM by Honeycombe8
If you recall, TV cameras were focused on the President at the time. But there were other cameras (video/TV cameras) shooting at the time, I'm sure. There always are.

If I were in control of that speech's video, I'd have a camera on the President, the Speaker, and the VP at all times. Then I'd have multiple other cameras on both sides of the room, regularly panning the room, just to make sure I'd have the availability to get any congress person's response to any part of the speech.

Just common sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. being a C=Span junkie, I've heard this discussed there...their are several video cameras recording
everything and everyone always during these events....it is simple to make a still photograph and crop it.

ah all this new fangled new technology
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #52
61. Yeah. I figured they'd do it that way for big speeches. They may not do that for every speech.
In fact, I'm sure they don't. But this was a national event, so the cameras were out in force, I'm sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hvn_nbr_2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
44. There's actually a better, even more remarkable picture.
Either Keith or Rachel showed it recently, without commenting about this aspect of it. It's more straight-on and it shows nine people--the three in this pic plus the three in front and behind. Of the eight other people in that pic, not a single one is turning their head or looking at Wilson. C'mon, people. Someone suddenly shouts out, interrupting a presidential speech to a joint session of Congress, and no one even looks. Well, in fact, we all know from the video of the speech that anyone who didn't know this "spontaneous" outburst was coming looked immediately. Remember Obama, Pelosi, and Biden. They all looked immediately and kept looking, as anyone who was surprised did. The other eight people in that pic were all accomplices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #44
66. You and Racel are absolutely correct!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
46. It was not coincidence
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 01:48 PM by Hutzpa
but spontaneous, there was decent coming from that section during the speech
and prior to Joe 'you lie' Wilson's outburst, some other folks have been
mumbling under their breath but Wilson felt brave enough to show his anger
aloud, hence the now famous photo of his disrespect.

It could be all of them in that group knew that Wilson was going to shout
at the President, because the mumbling was strong on that side of the aisle,
if you watch the video you can see Nancy Pelosi looking over and talking
to VP just before Wilson's outburst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
48. There is another reason to think this was staged.
If someone yells out something like this in the normal course of events, there is universal surprise. Everyone saw the IMMEDIATE shock and anger on Ms Pelosi's face when this happened. There is NO reaction from the people around asshole Wilson. They knew this was coming. They had the speech and knew that someone was going to scream this out.

As to why? We have already seen the reich wing heap PRAISE on Wilson for being "bold" enough to yell this inflammatory statement. They wanted to bring as much attention to the subject as they could, and this sure as hell accomplished their goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
50. I don't buy the contention that the guys next to him must have been in on it
Wilson's mouth is still open. He's at some point in the delivery of his outburst, quite possibly only a fraction of a second after any sound left his mouth. It seems quite plausible that his seatmates haven't yet had time to react.

If they had been in on it, then an obvious part of the plan would have been for them to feign surprise and turn toward him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. Then why are they smirking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. I interpret their expressions differently.
"All right, Mr. Hope-and-Change, you can still give a stirring speech, but let's just see you even TRY to get any decent bill past us."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
55. My guess is that it's a small part of a much larger picture. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RubyDuby in GA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
57. More importantly...who picked out their ugly as hell ties?
Dear Gawd they have no fashion sense!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
58. Because he announced he was going to "stand up to Obama" on Twitter, beforehand. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
59. It's a still from the digital video cameras
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 10:10 PM by blogslut
Look, I can be as OCD about things as the any conspiracist but come on.

That section of the galley was pretty feisty that night and I would imagine that camera operators pointed their lenses on them the moment they began their rumbling, if not before. The captured image is clear but I seriously doubt it's of 1000 megapixel quality.

Did Wilson plan his little fit beforehand? My guess is yes and he probably wasn't alone.

However, to turn a screen capture into some cooperative plot between C-SPAN and the wingnuts is just silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetloukillbot Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
63. "You lie" was his second outburst IIRC
He said something muffled immediately before it that the president kind of brushed aside then shouted "you lie" after the first rebuttal. Maybe the photographer heard the first heckle and turned and then got the shot of the second?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
64. My uneducated guess...
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 12:59 AM by Drunken Irishman
There are a few cameras pointed at areas of the congress. If you've gone to a sporting event, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Prior to the "You Lie" moment, Obama had said something that brought a shower of boos down on him. Obviously this was coming from the Republican side. I actually believe Wilson yelled it twice, once during the boos and then again when it was quiet.

So as this was going down, I'm sure one of the cameras panned over in that general area and snapped a bunch of photos. It's unlikely they focused on Wilson. Those are some high powered lenses they use and I'm guessing this photo is rather large with multiple members of congress in it that aren't seen in this photo.

As the cameraman was taking photos, Wilson yelled out the second, "you lie" and it was caught in one of his photos.

After the event, maybe even before it ended, he probably searched through the photos, maybe zoomed into some members of congress, and found that Wilson was caught yelling and then cropped just that area for release.

That's my explanation, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
67. Any decent American hates jackass joe, but
the greedy, nasty, scared idiots that support racism and fall for the right wing spew have given him $2 million. He's an ass, but he's knows his donor base are asses also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
69. The two guys on each side of him look like twins
It is an artful photograph, well balanced, perfect focus. Surprising that it could be spontaneous, but many of the best known photographs are such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC