problem with "The only one we can trust" vid.

[FriedChicken]

There is nudity in it.
8:25 in, flashed by quickly and I didn't even catch it the first time I watched it.

Having a quick nude shot in the video that some will catch, some will not, is a bad idea for a GOP primary.
This could have some very negative effects (a youth pastor posting the video on facebook)

I think we should all email the creator and request it be changed before being mass distributed even further.
It should not take long to edit since it goes by so quick.

Furthermore the picture was proven to be a hoax and is not a TSA body scan image ...

[bluesc]

... They probably just googled "TSA body scan". I just did it and it is one of the top results in images. It takes a long time to make a video like that, I'm sure they didn't have time to research every image they found on google images. No need to make a huge fuss over it.

[FriedChicken]

I'm 90% sure the edited version would have come up as well but even if it had not it . is . nudity . It should be a no-brainer.

But whatever.
I noticed it. Others will notice it. It will offend some. Excite others. Make it uncomfortable to distribute for some.

Since when did inserting a nude photo in an otherwise professional (and some might even think "official" ESPECIALLY if we mass distribute/mail them) video not fall into the "Terrible idea" category when campaigning in a republican race?

[FriedChicken]

What if we made a really nice, professional and official looking, video that had the f-bomb dropped in it? Regardless of whether or not you have a problem with it its a pretty safe bet the video would be better off without.

[sailingaway]

actually, I believe it is the proof that those scanners really are porn scanners, that it only takes a filter to 'undo' the supposed blurring of features so you look naked. So maybe it is just not for little kids. But we didn't make it, so no one here can change it, you would have to take it up with the person who did.

[pen_thief]

Wow, never noticed that and I've seen it like four times now. I thought I had a pretty keen eye for that stuff, too.
So, that might be a good thing actually, I doubt many people have seen it :P But yeah..wow. Shall have to go look.

[FriedChicken]

actually, I believe it is the proof that those scanners really are porn scanners, that it only takes a filter to 'undo' the supposed blurring of features so you look naked.

The image is a hoax though. So even that argument isn't valid.
But yeah ... talking about it here isn't going to get it changed unless free market principles turn out to be true and more than one person requests that it be changed.

[FriedChicken]

Wow, never noticed that and I've seen it like four times now. I thought I had a pretty keen eye for that stuff, too.
So, that might be a good thing actually, I doubt many people have seen it :P But yeah..wow. Shall have to go look.

I think you're kind of underscoring my point.
I didn't notice it the first time I watched it so I think the video will be just fine without it. All it is is a liability ... potentially a big one. I don't work with video but I'd think it would be easy to edit out, it lasts for just under 1 second.

In a way it makes me think of Fight Club ... cigarette burns anyone?

[pure]

LMAOOOOOOOOOOO - this thread is a joke, right?

[Feeding the Abscess]

The point of the picture is to shock the viewer.

[Xenophage]

actually, I believe it is the proof that those scanners really are porn scanners, that it only takes a filter to 'undo' the supposed blurring of features so you look naked. So maybe it is just not for little kids. But we didn't make it, so no one here can change it, you would have to take it up with the person who did.

That's not even technically possible, except in a very specific circumstance. If the image is blurred or distorted than the original data is lost. It would take some sort of complicated A.I. algorithm to rebuild an approximation of what the original picture might have looked like, and even the most powerful home PC would have to chug away at that one for quite a long time (assuming such an algorithm exists.)

If you're using an Adobe Photoshop project file it may still contain the original data. That's exceptionally unlikely in the case of an image saved on a scanner, though. Firstly, it would be an extremely conspicuous and totally unnecessary waste of computational resources, and secondly Adobe would charge you licensing fees up the wazoo.

[hogsfan90]

Although I believe that is the best Ron Paul vid out, I have been reluctant at times to show it to certain people that I think might be offended. People that if I told them "this is what the government is doing" would still say "well, that doesn't mean you should show me a naked person". So it would be kind of nice if just that one image was changed..I don't think it would be that difficult and if more people will view it as a result it's worth it.

[FreeTraveler]

OFFS. Some people just aren't ready for freedom, apparently.

If you don't like the video, make your own. I'm sure you can whip it out in short order.

[milo10]

If this is serious, it is why I hate anyone confusing me for a conservative.

Out of curiosity, would your conservative friends be offended by the nudity in the famous Vietnam War photo of the little girl who was burnt by napalm?

[spudea]

If you don't like the video, make your own. I'm sure you can whip it out in short order.

qft.

it shows an xray image and you see woman boobs... this thread can't be serious. THAT IS NOT PORN. I AM NOT AROUsED BY THAT IMAGE. I AM INFURIATED!

if anyone is offended by that image, they wouldn't of made it past the war footage, @ 8:11 there is a kid with his leg blown off, and a dying kid on a table after that.

the picture tells of the "mission creep" of the TSA, and the fact they are calling for better and better imaging technology which will lead to removing our clothes with a simple camera.

[Paulitics 2011]

The point of the picture is to shock the viewer.

Yeah, I am under the same impression.

[FriedChicken]

my posts have been edited to be a little more on point and less ranty.

Does anyone actually care that the image is a lie? It is not a scan image. It is originally a nude art photo. The scanners infuriate me but that doesn't make this picture true.
But, anyway, this is a video designed for mass distribution/viewership ... it should not have nudity in it just for the simple reason it will turn off some viewers.

I was disturbed by the picture itself, I was pissed that the creator would make such an awesome and powerful movie with that slid in there where it could cause a major problem.
If this were just a TSA scanner informative video I wouldn't say a word.
Since is a Ron Paul promotional video ... yeah .... GOP primary

[FreeTraveler]

Of course the images of children with limbs blown off won't turn off some viewers. :rolleyes: It's just the semi-sorta-kinda-nudity we've got to be concerned about.

[Revolution9]

What if we made a really nice, professional and official looking, video that had the f-bomb dropped in it? Regardless of whether or not you have a problem with it its a pretty safe bet the video would be better off without.

There is an Art Directors Censorship Guild forming and membership looks like its booming as of late. You look like an ideal candidate for a board position. You should be in charge of political expediency censorship IMO.

HTH
Rev9

[milo10]

Is the problem that anyone on this thread is actually offended, or that they project other people as being offended?

I don't discount there being a tiny number of people out there like that. But, those are people with such rigid belief systems that they either like Ron Paul or they don't at this point, and you aren't going to either convince them or turn them off to Paul based on a one second clip.

I can't wait until Ron wins the nomination. The run for Presidency will be a lot more open-minded and a lot more fun.

[PursuePeace]

Whenever I've seen that image in the video, it just makes me think of how our liberties are being stripped from us.
It should stay in there. I think it makes a powerful point.
Just my opinion...

[pacelli]

I think the most effective piece of activism during Ron Paul's last run for president will be if we all run around and put fig leaves on statues.

[Birdlady]

I don't have an issue with the image either.

[CaptainAmerica]

that is infrared,and back scatter x-ray.

[raider4paul]

actually, I believe it is the proof that those scanners really are porn scanners, that it only takes a filter to 'undo' the supposed blurring of features so you look naked. So maybe it is just not for little kids. But we didn't make it, so no one here can change it, you would have to take it up with the person who did.

I agree with this, I noticed it the first time I saw it but I think it positively impacts the video. It shows how truly invasive the scanners are. Let's not start censoring for the sake of protecting them and making the public think they aren't so bad.

[gangreneday]

FriedChicken,

I agree that it might have been lazy for the video makers to include the aforementioned frames, but I think there is room for both sides to be right.

It really isn't hard to edit those frames out when you're distributing the video yourself to church going folk. Just download the link from something like http://keepvid.com and edit it with movie maker. Once you've posted it online, please post a link in the forum so we can link to it. This way we all can choose which video to show people.

All in all, I think the best course of action is to not bring undue attention to it, honestly. Likewise, the people who are calling this censorship need to grow up. We're all on the same team. We would all have a problem with "Penthouse Playmate Pinups and Perverts" :eek: holding a Ron Paul rally; that doesn't mean we're against free speech. It just means we want to win. And unfortunately that means winning over people who are easily offended by the human body.

[FriedChicken]

There is only two people in this thread other than myself who have even addressed the fact that THE IMAGE IS NOT ONE OF A TSA SCAN and is a HOAX.
If you compare the inverted pic to a real tsa scan they don't look very similar. So even if you were inverting the images you would not get one any more revealing than the original.

Anyway ...

I showed the video to a conservative person I know who I thought might have a problem with it. They did not know about the nudity before they watched it.
They pointed something out to me that I didn't even think of ...
There is no mention of the TSA in the video.
So when the images came up they said they didn't actually know what they were about. They thought the picture at 8:31 was a representation of an Afghan woman being searched or something (but they noted "they didn't really look Arab though").
They did not realize the nude picture was suppose to be a TSA scan. They didn't know what it was - I asked 'em what they thought it was and literally the reply I got was "umm... boobs.".

I said something about the TSA scans and they were like "oooooh, ok. That makes more sense."
without me leading the conversation they sounded a little frustrated that something potentially hazardous to the cause was slipped in an otherwise extremely effective video.

Anyways ...

I contact the editor and they replied EXACTLY how I expected. Respectfully said they had no intention of changing it and I should make my own.

[FriedChicken]

It really isn't hard to edit those frames out when you're distributing the video yourself to church going folk. Just download the link from something like http://keepvid.com and edit it with movie maker. Once you've posted it online, please post a link in the forum so we can link to it. This way we all can choose which video to show people.

That was something I honestly didn't know and was very helpful, thanks.

[affa]

with all due respect, Fried, just show it to people or don't show it to people. but don't grill them on what they thought of a one second image flash, rather, talk to them about Ron Paul afterwards. That's the message.

Regarding the image being a hoax, it's a shame, but consider it a symbolic image, then. Because we ARE giving the TSA the ability to see us naked everytime we step through one of their machines, whether or not it gets blurred a bit or not. We have no idea what is saved or not saved, we only know what they tell us happens... and we don't trust them in the first place.

[FriedChicken]

that is infrared,and back scatter x-ray.

This is the pic I'm talking about (the one on the right)
http://stapledesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/tsa-full-body-scan.jpg

Here is the website that the picture came from originally: http://www.f1online.de/f1online/index.cfm?
location=search&colNo=2274&language=1 (contains nude pictures)

So like I said ... this is proven to be a hoax anyway. Anyone who is moved by this is fooled by this.

[FriedChicken]

with all due respect, Fried, just show it to people or don't show it to people. but don't grill them on what they thought of a one second image flash, rather, talk to them about Ron Paul afterwards. That's the message.

Regarding the image being a hoax, it's a shame, but consider it a symbolic image, then. Because we ARE giving the TSA the ability to see us naked everytime we step through one of their machines, whether or not it gets blurred a bit or not. We have no idea what is saved or not saved, we only know what they tell us happens... and we don't trust them in the first place.

I didn't grill 'em, they lead the conversation. They were confused on that part. They're also a big RP supporter, so we talk about that all the time anyway.

What you said about the TSA is enough. We don't need to discredit ourselves with a false picture to prove our point.

[milo10]

There is only two people in this thread other than myself who have even addressed the fact that THE IMAGE IS NOT ONE OF A TSA SCAN and is a HOAX.

Except that it's not a hoax. A hoax is a much stronger term.

That picture is used to make a point. The woman with the attractive body shape is used because she is an "everywoman." She illustrates a point perfectly without other irrelevant observations coming to the fore, like "This woman could lose some weight" or "Her posture is terrible."

For similar reasons, you will not find obese people as the first choice in anatomy books, unless it is to illustrate some specific aspect of obesity. They use an everyman or everywoman.

Eadweard Muybridge, the pioneer of Victorian era motion photography, similarly used attractive and well-built nudes to illustrate body mechanics. I don't even think the Victorians had an issue with that.

The video was done properly. You are making much ado about nothing, and this is the last I am going to bother with this thread.

Edit: One last point and that is it. If you look at children's comic books, you will see perfect body shapes on all of the heroines: full breasts, toned bodies, shapely asses and thighs. There is not a lot of distinction between the different heroines usually, although some may be more petite or whatever based on age and so forth. This is a similar principle, and it is actually considered less sexual than if you were to start adding in lots of individual body quirks.

[Crotale]

I think the most effective piece of activism during Ron Paul's last run for president will be if we all run around and put fig leaves on statues.

Lol. :D

[hammy]

I can't believe this is seriously a debate. This is such a non-issue. It's a quarter of a second picture in a 10 minute video full of truth bombs and hard hitting inspiration. It's an image surrounded by similar images that all follow a specific idea. I don't care if it's a hoax or not, nobody is going to look at THAT specific picture, get pissed off and then spend 20 minutes on google to find out if it's a hoax or not.

Let's get off this.

[FriedChicken]

K, lets let it die.
I'm just a little bewildered that, like you said, we have a 10 minute long video filled with truth bombs and hard hitting inspiration (completely agree), but we don't feel that it containing a fully nude photo (even if its only for a split second) makes it a little less suitable for mass distribution.

And like I said, you have to already have been informed about TSA scanners to realize that this is what it is. Those scanners are last years news (literally last year, the last time they were reported on much was for the Thanksgiving opt out boycott)
So if this is intended for the masses ... its not going to register with a large amount of people who are just wondering what the images are about.

The only reason I care is because:
1. I think the video is awesome and think the image could, in isolated and rare cases, cause an unneeded toxic reaction.
2. The video is seemingly professionally done. If it is viewed by the masses most will assume its an official campaign video - pretty sure a campaign would never put the image into a video.
3. I think removing the picture will not lose a single vote. However ... keeping it in? Maybe it will. (maybe. but why flirt with maybe when we can have certainty?)
4. The average American doesn't know anything about TSA scanners - so if the video doesn't do any educating on the subject (which would be a waste of time, they hit all the important topics very well) they very likely will not know what the heck the pictures are about. (As was the case with one person I showed it to).


I'm surprised everyone thinks its worth the risk is all.
Thread can be locked if mod sees fit.

[shadowhooch]

Any person who thinks the brief flash of nudity is offensive probably isn't old enough or shouldn't be voting in the first place.:rolleyes:

[Revolution9]

K, lets let it die.

I am so pleased you have realized the pure folly of your attempts at control freaking. Have a great campaign!

Rev9

[Paulitics 2011]

Chicken, if you're willing to edit that single frame out, then by all means do it.

[hammy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7jtOlPg4PA

Here you go guys. Now everyone is happy.

[LibertyEagle]

Here you go guys. Now everyone is happy.

Thank you, hammy. Thank you too, FriedChicken, for pointing out the issue. I agreed with you, by the way.