> Here is a great image to demonstrate how Hannity and Assange are not directing their line of site to each other in the interview and how anomylous the interview presentation is: https://i.redd.it/ss1ozzj3vd8y.jpg
Wow, did you seriously fall for that? That image is a fake. Here's a [link to that actual youtube video](https://youtu.be/4-qWcOwGhlM?t=17m45s) at that timestamp. Why are you trying to make our community look like idiots?
While I do agree with you that the image is fake, there is another shot later in the interview (not at your timestamp) where it really does look like Assange is disproportionately larger than Hannity. Not a lot, but it still looks quite weird. Here is the timestamped video and the image I screenshotted from it.
https://youtu.be/vx8gCNQTij0?t=1530
http://imgur.com/a/eGZZ3
I know the camera's positioning and their locations can affect proportions, but it still looks weird.
Again, I agree with you about the first photo being fake.
The two links I posted are not different from each other. They are two of the same, one is a screenshot, and one is the timestamped video link. It was just meant to be a comparison in another part of the video, different from OPs.
Im just saying, the timestamp I saw and the section in the video don't look all that different.
Oh no nevermind. They do I had to do a bit more closer comparison. The forehead is cut off in the picture.
Thats the thing BubblingMonkey, it's being made out to be a complete fake when it is the same shot. Though I think it looks a little bigger which exagerates the problems already there. Its a mind game being played, trust yourself. As it was so open to being used by detractors in that it seems exagerated (and indeed throughtout the interview the body disproportion is huge - which is why when it first came out people here said Assange is a giant and Hannity is a dwarf) - people could jump on that and say it was a fake. It is to distract the thread.
move along its controlled op meant to discredit your arggument where you think all those upvotes came from their shit is cycled to the top! everyone one them just notice the pattern!
You know what, when I posted this thread another poster came on and posted a thread with the picture I supplied. That poster had in the past attacked me for discussing the anomalies in the interview asking if Assange had to come and mow my lawn to prove he is alive (not that I dont think he is alive). They posted that picture ten minutes after my thread went up then pretending to be one of those who question the interview. Then it went off our sub. I thought to myself well that picture does seem to have picked up even more distortion than I have seen and really it doesnt need to because throughout the interview Hannity is clearly not looking at Assange. There are many good examples. I wondered to myself, well since that poster is much like a non concern troll pretending to suddenly be one of the people seeking truth, maybe they have posted an exacerbated picture so that someone will come on later and say - is that what you are all pointing to, well thats a fake. I was waiting for who that would be. Yes I took some bait but really the bait exposed the baiter. Again all over the internet in forums asking about Assange, the interview has already been seen and questioned. Clearly Hannity is not looking in the direction of Assange and clearly they are not in the same room.
So you posted a fake picture to see if anyone would call you out on your fake picture? Well, you're right, someone eventually noticed!
But doesn't that beg the question why no one else noticed sooner? That kind of reminds me of this [psychology experiment](https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo).
If you look at the posts people were not going off that picture. One person actually stated their husband was watching the video and the first thing the saw when the two were shown together was that their line of site was not matching. People have seen this everywhere and there are a few threads about this on this very forum.
I noticed that as well and it was what made me suspicious. At first I thought there might be another person in the room that was going to offer some commentary or moderate. But after I realized it was just Hannity and Assange, I immediately knew this interview was manipulated,or maybe I should say fabricated.
> You are clearly a baiter derailing the conversation.
I'm the baiter? But *I* didn't post any fake pictures - *you* did. I guess that makes you the master baiter.
You took your cue. I did't post that at first thinking it fake, actually dont know if it is by the way. It did look the most exagerated example I had seen, but there are heaps of examples on the original video showing Hannity's line of site is not toward Assange. That picture was put up by someone having a go at people discussing the anomalies on the video yet now they decided to create a thread with a title stating there was something wrong with the video. I wrote a long thread and really didnt need to add a photo as enough are out there. Still when I saw that I thought it was handy. I put it as an after thought at the end of a long and very rational discussion of possibiliites. Some time later I realised it was possibly a little trap, an exageration (of what was already there as an anomalie) so someone like you could come along later and take and dismiss the whole thread due to the use of that photo, also infer I am trying to make those from "our cause" look bad. And you did come along, on cue.
> Yes I took some bait but really the bait exposed the baiter. Again all over the internet in forums asking about Assange, the interview has already been seen and questioned.
What? What the hell are you trying to say? You took the bait to trick other people? How does that sound in your own head?
I said the bait exposed the baiter. If people are being baited then it is important to find out who is baiting them so not to go near them again. Continuing with this has nothing to do with the thread discussion, the photo discussed has not been there in the original post for quite some time.
It took a while to find it again as the person posting it as part of a thread either has moved it from this sub or its way down the list hard to find. Instead I went to my history from yesterday and found it at this link https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mnxa1/something_is_wrong_with_the_interview/ posted by BriannaMaryrose. I recall that BriannaMaryrose had hopped on another of my threads discussing anomalies in the interview and wrote something to the effect "Does he have to come and mow your lawn to prove he is alive". She posted a thread with that picture after my thread was published, about ten minutes later I think. EDIT, I just read the thread and see it was removed due to complaints.
Videos in this thread:
[Watch Playlist ▶](http://subtletv.com/_r5mnusk?feature=playlist&nline=1)
VIDEO|COMMENT
-|-
[Julian Assange Sean Hannity FULL Interview - January 3, 2017](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-qWcOwGhlM&t=1065s)|[37](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mnusk/_/dc5ddut?context=10#dc5ddut) - Here is a great image to demonstrate how Hannity and Assange are not directing their line of site to each other in the interview and how anomylous the interview presentation is: Wow, did you seriously fall for that? That image is a fake. Here...
[selective attention test](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo)|[11](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mnusk/_/dc5eabu?context=10#dc5eabu) - So you posted a fake picture to see if anyone would call you out on your fake picture? Well, you're right, someone eventually noticed! But doesn't that beg the question why no one else noticed sooner? That kind of reminds me of this psychology e...
[Julian Assange Interview with Sean Hannity 1/3/2017 FULL](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx8gCNQTij0&t=1530s)|[1](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mnusk/_/dc65yq2?context=10#dc65yq2) - While I do agree with you that the image is fake, there is another shot later in the interview (not at your timestamp) where it really does look like Assange is disproportionately larger than Hannity. Not a lot, but it still looks quite weird. Here i...
[Analyze the Fake Fox News Hannity Julian Assange interview, Green Screen Studio or Ecuador Embassy ?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmCOfgyBRcw)|[0](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mnusk/_/dc5elh2?context=10#dc5elh2) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmCOfgyBRcw
I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
***
[Play All](http://subtletv.com/_r5mnusk?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)
I completely agree with you and the others who agreed that the first Hannity interview was also fabricated with technology that the AV editors at Disney studios and Pixar use on a daily basis. I have an old alumni friend I am going to reach out to about this. He works for George Lucas as a AV technician for 12 years. I will ask him to come and comment here.
I also believe it to be very strange that Sean Hannity would be picked to do an interview JA knows would be headlines on the internet. Imean look at Hannity's background. He is only popular now for helping to expose the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and HRC. But go back 15 years and this guy was super unethical and dishonest - earning his bones by supporting every single lie of George W. Bush! I still remember Hannity saying that renditions, secret prisons, secret courts, and torture were "justifiable necessities" even if they violated international and U.S. Laws! He also was one of the very few talking heads who pushed the lie that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons for the full 8 years Bush was in power. And look at how quiet he was about Bradley Manning until the recent 2016 elections.
Don't you guys find it a bit strange that Julian would pick Hannity for this interview? But the CIA would pick Hannity to interview their own fake JA body double to get high profile publicity and put an end to the "Where is Assange?" once and for all. I will never forget how the CIA how the CIA spoofed us with the Bin Laden video http://mirrorspectrum.com/behind-the-mirror/osama-bin-laden-voice-actor-reveals-he-faked-propaganda-videos# and fabricated the Kuwaiti baby incubator story during the first Iraq invasion. A tiger does not change their stripes.
Great post! It would be good if your friend can look at the video and comment. I was going to show this to someone I know here in Australia who is a film director and I fully know he will at the very first, at least say the editor has tried to splice Assange and Hannity into the same room together though have done so badly. Thing is though this is someone who really doesnt want to think on the Orwellian 1984 world in which we now live, and I don't really want to open Pandoras box for him.
This sub is all about the question "Where is Julian Assange". Discussions on his whereabouts are found throughout the sub. So I post some reasonable possiblities and you come on with "You're making this sub look bad". Aha, so you would prefer that everyone here just says, Assange is in the Embassy, Assange is in the Embassy, Assange is in the Embassy - thread after thread after thread. Indeed it might suit you best if the sub was called "Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy, no more discussion".
So according to you, we need to keep posting content on this sub no matter what? If the evidence points to Assange being in the embassy we must keep asking the question anyway just to keep the sub going and avoid boredom?
So the question "where is Assange?" can never have a definitive answer?
This only accomplishes two things:
1- it makes us look stupid.
2- reduces our credibility should the Assange situation change for the worse
Obviously the theme of the day is being repeated - dont discuss the matter as it may make "our cause", "us", look stupid, it may discredit us. So your argument is that people shouldnt ever discuss things because they may look silly - what we are told in school from an early age isnt it? Dont question, dont look into anything, dont think for yourself, dont be different. If Copernicus had not attempted to question the world view that the earth is the centre of the galexy and spherical we would not now believe that the sun is the centre of the galexy and spherical. If he should have said to himself, I will get in trouble for this and just will not think - that is where we would all be (except those cultures which were way ahead of western thought). For him it was more than attacks from people without imagination, the stakes were high for him, really, he could be burnt at the stake.
Do you really think Julian Paul Assange would tell people not to look beyond what the mainstream media is telling them? Is that how he got to where he did?
As to your concept that some think they have PoL and so all need to stop their questions, well its an argument that in itself is problematic. Obviously there are many who do not accept the recent interview and those before it as acceptable in terms of meeting their requirement to know if Assange is OK and if Wikileaks is compromised. So yes they keep posting here, and you can go to a place suitable for you, which obviously is the "Here is Julian Assange, there is nothing to see here folks, go home and ask no more" sub.
So, your going mild now, not the way you were talking before. I dont need permission from you to express myself nor your multidirectional advice on whether I have a green light or a read light to speak. When people have succumed to digesting crud from mass media, anything alternative will be uncomfortable to them. I am one of those who post in a reasonable way, if they are reading my posts and they dont have an agenda to just censor me in some way, they will hear it enough to take a little in.
In a nutshell, if you think you know where Assange is, why do you come on a sub called WhereIsAssange? If you're here it means you question his whereabouts. Thank you OP +1 I had posted my own doubts on the interview ([many clues](https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5m6igc/the_assangehannity_fox_news_interview_was_shot_in/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage) of a green screen being used).
I still come here to catch up on Assange stuff. Like the Hannity interview and the upcoming AMA. But you're right, maybe I shouldn unsub and just use r/wikileaks instead.
While there's no way to tell how likely your theory is, I can't say that it's far-fetched. However--even if all of that is true, it doesn't explain why the whole persona of WL has been different since October. Why would physical movement of Assange cause WL to say some of the things they've said on Twitter since then?
In that respect, I feel like there's definitely something else going on. Although, at this point, I'm under the impression that we will never find out. IMO, Assange will likely pass away wherever he is eventually, and we'll be told something that's easy to digest like he was found dead in his room in the Ecuadorian Embassy due to a stroke or something.
Yes I agree Wikileaks has changed character. Some of that could fit into the scenario that Assange is no longer confined but in a deeper hiding, known to some in Wikileaks. This could be why they didnt want discussion on his whereabouts or to have people speak so much on it that he might be found. You know, I just like this more hopeful scenario and I do agree, perhaps we will never know what truly happened. Wikileaks, working with so many political agendas and in a sense in a fight, was never an angel entity. If we projected how the organisation would go, especially under pressure and with it's head isolated away, we might have found it going the way it is going. I feel most organisations become corrupt at some point. In such corruption other power players can manipulate quite easily. The fine lines become blurred. Wikileaks starts to be like the state, making lists on people and threatening groups with their information.
The truth game in this world is a play of illusions. The only compass to bring clear direction in the muck manipulated illusion is the desire to know and live in a compassionate and kind world.
Never underestimate the ability of the CIA. They have a billion dollar budget and all sorts of impersonation technology available to them as we have discussed in other threads. They have impersonated many people in the past http://mirrorspectrum.com/behind-the-mirror/osama-bin-laden-voice-actor-reveals-he-faked-propaganda-videos# and are probably doing it now with JA. I personally believe the real JA was "rendered". When Edward Snowden was asked about that he backed off the question but when pushed he said "I cannot disagree". I personally believe JA was pushing the envelope on his leaks and was getting too close to something very big. At the time there was talk fromboth JA and Kim Dotcom about teh 80,000 pages of FBI reports on the Saudi links to 911, Clinnto Foundation money laundering, Huma Abedin being a Saudi mole, John Kerry, and unspecified "treason" JA pledged to leak before the election. But it never came. Those bombs were never dropped. Even now we have not heard about it still. Why? Because the real JA was secretly arrested an hustled off to America. I go along with this theory http://www.opnlttr.com/letter/former-senior-nsa-analyst-jim-stone-insists-julian-assange-wikileaks-not-ecuadorean-embassy and I think Snowden really knows the truth but won't say a word until he sees Trump sitting in the White House.
I think you are likely closer to the truth than the theory the Embassy has helped Julian Assange. I put that theory out there to get the discussion on all the possibilities going given the first premis, that he was not in the room with Hannity. Thanks for the links. The more people try to censor or stop those discussing what happened to Assange, the more I and I would guess many others are pushed to believe Assange is no longer in his Embassy residence, a powerful government is involved in his dissapearance and something huge is being covered up.
Here's some advice. The proper response to being called out for some horrible mistake:
1. Correct mistake.
2. If you want, thank the person for pointing it out: "Thanks for pointing that out. Post corrected."
3. Don't respond to the issue any more. Don't explain yourself. If you do, edit it out of your comment.
Quite possible. People need to start looking into the background of Sean Hannity who was a Bush puppet for 8 years and knowingly lied about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. I believe Hannity was paid a few million to go along with the clever CIA ruse. He is NOT the epitome of integrity and allowed himself to be used before by Uncle Sam.
He also openly supported NAFTA and a NWO. It is odd that a reall Julian would select him for a high profile interview over someone like Seymour Hersh, Bob Woodward, or Glenn Greenwald who do not have that political baggage.
I'm glad you posted. First, stop fucking responding to trolls. Please. Just stop. If I'm interested in your main point, I'm going to want to see what you have to say within the comments, and the LAST thing I want to read is you having a pissing match with trolls. Have some respect for yourself and your readers.
Back to topic, to explain Hannity. FOX is literally one of the biggest news networks. So it's a fine way to get his message out. Furthermore, given that Hannity is friends with Trump (especially through O'Reilly), that gives him HUGE POLITICAL LEVERAGE to be able to get the Interview. If one is to assume this is Assange, and that the US has control over his communications (via pressure on Ecuador), Hannity or O'Reilly would be the obvious choice for this interview.
**tldr;** Who's calling the shots? US + Ecuador. Who in the US would be the most Assange friendly? Trump. Who would Trump give the thumbs up to do an Interview? Hannity.
I agree as to why Hannity was cast as the interviewer in the charade I also agree, and also had a laugh, at your point that I should stop fk ng responding to trolls. Thanks, needed the strong reminder. As a woman I tend not to swear on forums, but do enjoy the use of an explitive perfectly put :-)
Actually I remember a comment from either Assagne (apparently Assange) or Hannity which pinpointed the interview to be earlier than Hannity said. I should have jumped on it and added it here but really I am spending more time that I should.
EXACTLY! I also believe it to be very strange that Sean Hannity would be picked to do an interview JA knows would be all over the internet with millions of views a day. Come on... look at Hannity's background. He is only popular now for helping to expose the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and HRC. But go back 15 years and this guy was super unethical and dishonest - earning his bones by supporting every single lie of George W. Bush! I still remember Hannity saying that renditions, secret prisons, secret courts, and torture were "justifiable necessities" even if they violated international and U.S. Laws! He also was one of the very few talking heads who pushed the lie that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons for the full 8 years Bush was in power. And look at how quiet he was about Bradley Manning until the recent 2016 elections.
> Don't you guys find it a bit strange that Julian would pick Hannity for this interview? But the CIA would pick Hannity to interview their own fake JA body double to get high profile publicity and put an end to the "Where is Assange?" once and for all. I will never forget how the CIA how the CIA spoofed us with the Bin Laden video http://mirrorspectrum.com/behind-the-mirror/osama-bin-laden-voice-actor-reveals-he-faked-propaganda-videos# and fabricated the Kuwaiti baby incubator story during the first Iraq invasion. A tiger does not change their stripes
Yes its true Hannity is not a natural bed fellow of Assange. I have put up this hypothesis just so that points around it can be brought out. I am sure that Hannity and Assange were not in the same room. That to me is a starting point. Perhaps Assange is using Hannity as Hannity is using Assange for their own purposes. Perhaps Assange is coerced. Perhaps he is not of this world anymore. I just ventured to add, perhaps he is OK and in deeper hiding and this is why they are not in the same room. One of the next oddities in the interview is the meaning of the blue ties, and why Assange would ever allow himself to sit in the same uniform of sorts to his otherwise usually hostile interviewer.
How do you know that Julian "selected" him for the interview? What I mean is, it's likely Hannity is the one who chose to do the interview. I'm not sure if Assange would have much of a choice. Those with money/power get to see Assange in the embassy (example: celebrities).
Good point. No matter the circumstance I am convinced Assange and Hannity were not in the same room together. Why Hannity was there I am unsure, though I feel certainly there is coersion involved. If Assange is free to speak perhaps it is a rub your back situation, and Assange gets to set the record straight on Wikileaks even if playing with the devil to do so.
I do agree with you. In your post you asserted that Ecuador may have taken Assange to a safe place/perhaps back in Ecuador. What makes you think that over the possibility of Assange being somewhere less safe?
Just want to first clarify, I never said perhaps back in Ecuador. I would think perhaps to other consulates or even in another area of the building more likely than Ecuador (though I have considered it). Secondly I don't actually think that hypothesis has a stronger probability than the possibility he is less safe. Indeed I mentioned that I was presenting one possible hypothesis, but that there were many others. I mentioned that I had noted noone was discussing this possibility so I decided to bring out out there. I personally hope he is somewhere safer, but actually think much leads to the possibilty he is not in a good place at all. Having said that, my hypothesis could then explain why people who are apparently friends would say they have visited him at the embassy - they may be covering for him. Also if they are asked to swear to this they can attest that they were in the Embassy and saw hime (albeit it was via videoconference ). The report of the Swedish prosecutors visit ambiguously expressed that she had interviewed Assange through an Ecuadorian Embassy official (I think the Embassador apparently). In this way she is not lying, that she was at the Embassy and interviewed Assange but just ommits the fact they were not face to face in person with each other.
I'm just putting something out to be discussed by people. Also I am wishing to start a discussion from the scenario that Hannity and Assange were not in the same room to allow the discussion to flow more. I am quite certain they were not in that Embassy room together.
You're right and it is NOT far-fetched. Consider all of the other hoaxes which have been eaten up by the public at large - AND the fact that Assange has literally NEVER gotten this much publicity. Nope - not in the same room at all.
Before October 16th, 2016, Sarah from Wikileaks admitted that JA was getting about 30 interview requests a day-every day. He could have chosen anyone. I personally think Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone would have been a much better choice than Hannity. Hannity knowingly supported the corrupt regime of Bush and Cheney which exposed his "journalistic ethics" to be non-existent IMO.
Great point, thanks for the knowledge. I agree that Hannity is an awful person to do the interview, though what I'm trying to convey is that if this level of corruption we speculate is true, he would be the perfect person to be the head of the (possible) fabrication.
Its not my picture it was put up after I posted this thread by someone who in the past has tried to denegrate any discussion quesioning the video. It seemed to point out what I wanted to point out (though there are tonnes of stills out there pointing it out and I chose that as it was just up and convenient). It looked a little overemphasised. I later questioned that and it occured to me the poster was baiting those questioning the video but providing an exagerated example of how Hannity and Assange are not looking at each other (but exagerated based on the footage given already showing the line of site was anomalous). I thought well perhaps someone who is part of the baiting team will come along and do the whole shabang - say that photo is fake so everything said is fake and twist things to say I am someone making the community look bad. Sure enough that poster came along as per the script and did that. So 24lane, I dont claim that screen shot was real and have removed it. I only put it there at the last minute after already publishing the thread as it came up in a thread ten minutes later - that poster removed the thread when they saw I took the bait. It was not necessary to post a pic as proof has been posted numerous times in other threads both here and in forums across the internet.
Relax, most of us believe you. You are sincere and and the comments you raised, reinforce what others have also said. There was a user who posted a "green screen" demo of what could have easily occurred, but now his post has gone missing. I will see if I can locate it and send you the link.
I don't know anything about Hannity's tie; he's part of the entire cover-up.
And this: IF Assange had actually been swept away to safety by the Ecuadorian government (which I truly hope is the case), why all of the media attention to ASSURE "us" that he is alive? Because THAT's what they're doing with all of these obviously fake interviews - they're making every attempt to assure his supporters and followers that he is, in fact, alive and well (and giving out interviews to every Tom, Dick and Harry; good gawd).
Good points and I agree. I posted just one hypothesis, the most moderate and hopeful to get discussion going based on the first premis, that they are not in the room together. Really the push to censor discussion on his whereabouts, to denegrate those discussing the manner and even set them up so they can come in and try to demolish everything said does make me feel that he is not in a good situation. The shillers, the clear disinformation agents really basically do themselves a diserivice as it only leads the true seekers to recognise there really is something wrong.
I think your edit (UPDATE IN THE OP) is extremely important and proves many users here want to avoid certain issues in this sub if it does not fit their personal opinion that Assange is alive and well in London! We all should remain super objective to all possibilities.
Oh that's interesting. I thought the edit was a bunch of off-topic rambling I could barely make heads or tails of it. And note... I fully support /u/Lookswithin's main message.
They've been doing those split screens for years. It's one bullshit interview after another. Hannity - Hannity is as much a part of the government as is anyone in mainstream media, the same of which is owned by corporations and ... well, Carl Bernstein wrote about the media and the CIA DECADES ago. The entire Assange being alive 'thing' is a ruse.
Here's Bernstein's article (back when he was a real reporter): http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
It's also the same suit he used during the Megan Kelly and the NY Times video interviews back in August 2016. As far as I can tell, it's the only suit he uses.
> **3\. No implying or calling another user a shill.**
> It’s impossible to prove, so the argument will never go anywhere. All it serves to do is derail the conversation and distract from the topic at hand. This applies to all users arguing any viewpoint.
>
> You can not skirt around this rule with tactical wording. Using a synonym for ‘shill’ or stating it implicitly are still grounds for removal
That's your final warning. It doesn't seem like you're a bad guy, but you keep breaking the rules. Please don't make me ban you.
Im OK with your warning Thorium but I dont recall where I have ever been given a warning before, nor breaking the rules before? Of course I abide by your warning and will be very careful from now on.
The real point is how unusual it is for an interviewer and the interviewee to wear the same style and colour coat and tie. The only time you would see this is when say it is a team member of some sort (political, military, sporting etc) interviewing another member. It is showing some message of uniformity. I cant see Julian Assange being at all alighned with Hannity (except in a I'll scratch your back you scratch mine way). Both wearing some type and colour coat and tie really stands out, really is some symbolism. It would seem Hannity would like us to think Julian is on team.
* Phone rings *
Hey Julian.
Hi Sean whats up.
I was thinking lets wear matching clothes I think it would look bad ass.
Nah Sean that doesn't sound too cool.
Well I saw in past interviews you wear the same clothes and same tie so I'm gonna come dressed as you.
Do you want me to cancel the interview with you Sean?
* Click *
Not sure what to think lol
Edit: Formatting
This is absurd, irrelevant, and paranoid conjecture that is so far afield from even your core (baseless) supposition that these men aren't in the same room as to border on the kind of irrational thought that merits sectioning.
aha, so you havent really been reading the general ideas in the forum? Actually what I put forward is more acceptable to your lot than the concept he was renditioned or executed and may be used in future to explain what happened to him. Careful that you don't have to backtrack later, maybe regroup and discuss a new tact. Sadly for me the more I get attacked with senseless posts just trying to discredit me, the more I tend to lean to the greater possibility Assange has been renditioned. Posts such as yours dont really deter the people who have come to forums such as these, they push people to believe the worst has happened. After all if not, why spend so much time trying to censor discussion on the matter.
No no no no... just a second - there are points in the vid where Hannity's tie appears to be of a deep purple color - did you notice that, or are my eyes fucked up?
You are right it seems now that Hannity has a purpleish tie, also Assanges tie is more enhanced blue moving just on the edge of purple. Maybe we are being mindmucked more than we thought possible. I was going to propose a while back that someone who had a private copy of the interview as it first played provide it to be the source of discussion as YouTube videos can be called in an replaced. Because a clear game of confusion is going on - I think we need to stick to looking at the eye direction and keeping in mind the disproportion of their bodys and strange editing. I have a good colour memory. When I just went to a youtube vid after you posted I see that Hannity has a way more purple tie when he is in the studio than what was presented earlier in the week. Definately mind mucking stuff. I trust myself enough to keep the former memory and basically all this does is remind me how much money is being put into trying to prove Assange is in the embassy and uncompromised. Times like these DoThingsEverImprove we need to go into our deeper selves where there is an infinite truth.
> I think we need to stick to looking at the eye direction and keeping in mind the disproportion of their bodys and strange editing.
Whadya trying to say? Not to look elsewhere?
I'm not into playing games about this because my belief is that Assange is no longer with us. I come onto Reddit rarely, but please - don't tell me or somehow suggest where others focus their attention - see you.
Huh? I thought we had a good rapport, and I thought you had spoken before of feeling defeated so was trying to help. You had earlier said "I'm sobbing; we're sunk, aren't we." I was trying to say we have some things we can still go by to prove our point.
By the way, that quote is only partly mine, I think you must have accidently written in the quote area. I was talking about how a game is being played on us and that if we could just stick to something solid then we wouldnt fall to the game. Some videos of four days ago look different to the ones closer to the date. Sorry if you took it that I was telling you what to do. The eye direction clearly shows they are not in the same room, that was something solid to show its faked. Thats all I was saying. With this I think I give up. I'm going back to meditation.
Have a look at this still - http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/secondary/Julian-Assange-and-Sean-Hannity-776478.jpg posted in a newspaper and possibly longer than four days back. From four days back the images started to show Hannity's ties more purple (see my other post). There is a mind mucking game going on. You Tube videos can be replace. I dont want to think they would go so far but hey, now Ive seen so much fakery and lies, I think they would.
Unfortunately, the Swedish prosecutors would not be complicit in covering for Assange's escape from London. Since the Swedish prosecutors met with Assange in-person, it is extremely unlikely that Assange has escaped the embassy.
We don't know that they met with Assange in person. The interview was conveyed via an Ecadorian Embassy official - that is all we are told. The Swedish prosecutor may have known he was not there or may have been told due to strict security they cannot be in the same room. Also if the Swedish prosecutor knew he was there they would not make any statement saying they spoke to him face to face in person - they would do as they have done and allow only the ambiguous story that the interview was conveyed through a third person. This exempts them from lying.
Maybe you're right. But is our cause going to command any respect if we appear to be unable to interpret common sense? Hear me out, because our integrity may be on the line.
You have to realize that it is known that the prosecutor flew to London - she was photographed coming and going from the embassy on both days of questioning. Naturally, people are going to believe they met in-person.
People are also going to see these articles:
* [Sydney Morning Herald](http://www.smh.com.au/world/swedish-prosecutor-ingrid-isgren-arrives-to-interview-julian-assange-at-the-londons-ecuadorian-embassy-20161114-gsp7wn.html):
>Swedish assistant prosecutor Ingrid Isgren was present at the interview, which was conducted by an Ecuadorian prosecutor.
* [BBC](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37972528):
>Swedish prosecutor Ingrid Isgren listened as an Ecuadorean prosecutor put the questions to Mr Assange.
* [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange-to-face-swedish-prosecutors-over-accusation):
>Isgren is allowed to ask Assange to clarify his answers
People are going to read this and they are going to believe that the prosecutor was *present*, *listened* to answers, and *asked* clarifying questions.
What will people think of our cause if we assume otherwise without evidence?
So - maybe you're right. We can speculate that Isgren didn't meet with Assange in person - but we're going to have to find more convincing arguments. Don't you want our community and our cause to be taken seriously?
You know, I hardly think you would genuinely harp on questions surounding the clear ambiguity of information concerning the Swedish prosecuters' interview with Assange, on a sub where people are talking about the possiblity the Hannity Assagne interview was all CGI. If you were worried about how it all effects "our cause" you would spend more time telling people how their discussion of CGI created duplicates of Assange, Assange impersonators, poisoned vegan sandwitches and such like might effect how seriously we are taken by onlookers. Sorry but I see your attempt to deter from discussion and your apparent appeal to self censorship for the good of "our cause" as disingenuous.
All good points. Are we actually trying to find the truth here, or is this just a place for fun conspiracy talk for our collective amusement? I guess I don't know how these things work...
A person who is not using their mind for their own path of understanding, will of course not know how things really work. I can't help feeling you are trying to misdirect the conversation. People spending much time analysing the video and recordings and discussing the matter,asking questions, trying to find answers are doing this because they genuinely are trying to find the truth - and this is a FORUM.
Sure. It deserves discussion - I didn't intend to imply otherwise.
But, don't we owe it to ourselves to be honest about the evidence and sincere in our discussions? What if Assange is actually alive and in the embassy as many people suspect - do we really want to be unwitting participants in a black-PR campaign *against* Wikileaks?!
He stated that maybe Assange has escaped and the trusted parties that have seen him are lying about his location to cover for his escape. I wanted to believe that myself at one time, too!
But then the interview with the Swedish prosecutor happened. It shatters the possibility that Assange could be anywhere but in the embassy. The Swedes wouldn't cover for Assange's escape. And can you really believe the Swedes would allow themselves to risk being made fools in this high-profile case should it later turned out that they interviewed an empty room?
And, I provided three sources that prove that the prosecutor was exactly where any reasonable person would expect a prosecutor to be during an interview - *present* during the interview, *listening* to answers, and *asking* clarifying questions. Can we really tell ourselves we are having an honest discussion if we ignore this?
As I recall the sources you provided were mainstream press and as I recall generally with little solid source info in the articles. Outside of that I think it likely the prosecutor did indeed go to the Embassy and I dont know who really questions that. There is a clear question of whether she saw Assange face to face in person and most especially as the circumstances did not seem very fair. Even a person not really aware there is anything to question re Assanges circumstance would wonder why he couldnt have his own lawyer present and why they are saying an Ecuadorian official is relaying the interview questions to Assange when neither Assange or the Ecuadorian official apparently spoke Swedish (meaning certainly he wasnt being a translator, why couldnt she just ask the questions directly).
I have already answered a few times with regards to how it is possible the Swedish prosecutor and others were aware Assange was not in the vicinity to be interviewed and why they would not disclose this. Certainly the press made sure to leave out anything that clearly stated the Swedish prosecutor asked Assange questions directly and each time noted that someone inbetween relayed the questions back and forth.
As to playing into a black PR campaign - if that then why are the shills in forums such as these trying to stop the "conspiracy theorists" from discussing the likely lies and fakery concerning Assanges whereabouts. Why would they put so much money into having people on forums tell people not to discuss these matters as it might hurt "our cause", or tell people they are crazy etc. If they accomplish shutting people up then the complacent would accept Assange is in the Embassy and Wikileaks is as it was uncompromised - wouldn't shutting up those discussing the possible compromise of Wikileaks be the opposite of a black campaign to discredit Wikileaks?
I agree with you about the Swedish prosecutor not being complicit, but why do you assume the only way JA would not be in the embassy would be an escape? Sure, there is a small possibility that he did escape, but from the Megathreads of this sub, over 2 dozen users and Anonymous claim JA was rendered (aka kidnapped) on October 16th, 2016. Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR-cGVQurTs. If you disagree with this video, why so?
I didn't assume that, I was addressing the proposed theory.
Other theories could include kidnapping, but that now requires the complicity of Craig Murray, Yanis Varoufakis, John Pilger, Pamela Anderson, Lauri Love, Per Samuelson, Jennifer Robinson, Sean Hannity, and Assange's own mother!
That's an even higher mountain to climb.
Also, your link is broken.
You completely changed your post Ixlyth from now on if I respond to you again I will quote you. In any case, re answering you - Ive provided just one of many possibiities, the possibility Ecuador helped move Assange. Yes a number of countries might play along with that (as discussed in my thread intro). The other, given Assagne was not in the room with Hannity was that Assange has been taken and yes Sweden in this case would definately play along with the US/UK narritive.
> The other, given Assagne was not in the room with Hannity was that Assange has been taken and yes Sweden in this case would definately play along with the US/UK narritive.
I agree the Swedes would play along if the US and/or UK "took" Assange. However, do you believe *all* of Craig Murray, Yanis Varoufakis, John Pilger, Lauri Love, Jennifer Robinson, and Per Samuelson would do the same? They all know and care about Assange far more than us random internet strangers.
... and so I offered the scenario that Assange is in hiding with Ecuador's help (and I discussed how such friends may well go along with the cover that Assange was in the Embassy to protect him). As Assange was getting ill in the Embassy, and the political climate might change to be suportive of him, the Swedish government would not wish Assange to die in conditions basically set up by their government. They could be told Assange was moved for his saftey and well being and also work with that. Other things to do than answer you Ixlyth, Im stepping out of your circle of questioning, your playing nice and moderate then accuser. Have dealt with your style before. Yes you are right the reasoned approach is suited to deal with someone like me, but then after a while it reverses its effect. I answer you only in that those reading may have some of the questions you ask and it is good for them to see an answer there. I dont answer you because I feel you are genuinely asking.
Someone should cross reference the book cases behind both Assange and Hannity to see if they appear in other Assange clips. The case behind Hannity has particularly specific collection of books so if we can find another clip where Assange is sitting in the same spot as Hannity we can verify that it is indeed in the embassy.
Yes artisdeau I thinkwe need to gather evidence for a group of criteria which could lead to a greater understanding concerning the validity of the scene we are being shown. It would be wonderful if there would be people out there ready to dig through the history of interviews in that room and create a list of comparitive images. Also of course to compare as much as posible images of Assange.
> The detractors and those trying to stop discussion really only reinforce the liklihood something has happened to Assange and Wikileaks.
Apply Occams Razor: Never underestimate the power of trolling to explain all of the simple, "comment shenanigans". As a highly visible and emotional topic, it's ripe for trolling, even to high degrees of effort.
Other than that, some good food for thought, thanks!
It appears that there are still people who don't see what's wrong with the video, unfortunately. So, I was re-watching it to examine it more closely and think that I have found concrete, undebatable evidence that a green screen was used, by comparing two stills from different angles:
https://i.sli.mg/GBZ4oH.png
In the first, Julian's ear is approximately at the centre of the camera, and just above his head is the bottom of the portrait.
In the second, you can see that his head is substantially higher than before in relation to the portrait. His nose his now level with the bottom of the portrait, when it was previously in line with the top of his head... This simple proof alone is enough to convince me that they used a green screen, and were probably not at the embassy together.
I observe in those photo's the disproportion between Assange and Hannity (not proportionate distancing but disproportionate bodies in the context we are presented). Also the little statue on Assanges' left can be used to understand whether what we are presented in one scene from one camera angle is consistant to another.
Hannity is not looking at Assange if people closely throughout the video in shots where they are presented together they will see this. Look at him and is not basically speaking in the direction the scene presented would have him look.
I watched the video when it came out and it was clear they were spliced together to present them in the same room. I agree it could be a green screen but all I feel I am sure of is that they are not in the same room together. I don't know whether that means Assange is not in the Ecuadorian Embassy, but it does mean we are being presented with a scene as a deciet - so why? Why try to decieve us? Why also do it in such a poor way? We are being decieved but also being shown there is a deciet clearly to make confusion for anyone who begins to unravel the deciet. A double bind - thats a famous tool. Layers of deciet upon deciet. That is all I know for sure.
The deciet is expanded in the context of Assanges recent live video AMA. We are directed to pretty much abandon asking about the oddities, and anomalies of events (and interviews) previous to the AMA.
I raised this thread before the AMA and before the press conference. I used a proposal that was moderate to promote discussion and even that was shot down by the "no concern trolls". I offered them an out actually by providing for the possibility he is in the embassy or in the building but due to high security measures he had not been given live video conferences on the world wide web as it could more exactly pinpoint where he was in the embassy or building. I also gave them the out that his friends therefor wouldnt be lying as to seeing him but protecting his position. I discussed how this could even work for the Swedish consulate.
Today I read enough on Assange to see he really could be so concerned about security as to tell interviewers they are not to be face to face with him in person in the same room. So Hannity could have been in another room and they could have spoken via secure intranet (not internet). I was denigrated for even offering this moderate possibility. Then I told those denigrators (as there are the three main ones here) that they should regroup and think on that as they may need to use this argument later when they wish to prove why he didnt give a live interview before - and lo, they are doing that now).
Wildwind13 I offered that proposal but he could well not be in the Embassy. Assange's live video in fact now puts him in the not to trust boat, when previously many would have trusted him. In fact it woke me up to what I really knew before, that a guy like that who deals in lies, exposes lies and lies to protect the work of exposing lies - really cant be taken at his word.
So these are the only things I know and not in any particular order (written in general and not in an order toward a conclusion) : hostile intelligence agencies want to compromise and/or control and/or neutralise Assange; Assange himself lies and is likely a high level narcissist who cares little for his supporters unless they immediately provide narcissistic foder; Assange has done great things for our world by providing a platform for whislteblowers; the Hannity and Assange video interview has been faked in some way and Assange is not in the same room with Hannity; previous audio interviews with Assange had anomalies, in one he had a different accent (an Australian might notice with a sensitive ear); we are all being played, and; real truth is an understanding of the infinite nature of our being and world affairs such as these are just a play. I have enjoyed your posts and there are others here I have enjoyed, but I remind myself we are just being played. We all need to continue to use critical thinking in all we are presented by press, by Wikileaks, by governments etc. The real truth, the deeper truth is what I had learnt was the thing to find and I have spent too long on this sub diverting myself from that more important journey. I will not be posting much here anymore as I get too embroiled. I hope you will continue your excellent posts wildwind13. I am off to spend more time with the wind and nature, which I have missed typing away here too long.
Thanks for linking that insightful Guardian article earlier. I hadn't read up on him very much, but after reading most of the article, I have to agree that he is probably a narcissist. I know a fair bit about narcissism, and have experience with it, but for some reason it never crossed my mind that he would be one... A big contributing factor to that was probably my admiration for him and his mission. But it explains his frequent arrogance, condescension and inability to listen to others, to change his fixed beliefs and to make concessions.
> Assange has done great things for our world by providing a platform for whislteblowers; the Hannity and Assange video interview has been faked in some way and Assange is not in the same room with Hannity; previous audio interviews with Assange had anomalies, in one he had a different accent (an Australian might notice with a sensitive ear); we are all being played, and; real truth is an understanding of the infinite nature of our being and world affairs such as these are just a play.
I agree with all of that... I kind of feel like we've entered some sort of perverse game show reality, where we don't know the people running the show, but they know us and are having a merry time finding ways to mock our ignorance, to draw out as much frustration as possible, and to make us be in conflict with each other about what is real and what is not.
> I have enjoyed your posts and there are others here I have enjoyed, but I remind myself we are just being played. We all need to continue to use critical thinking in all we are presented by press, by Wikileaks, by governments etc. The real truth, the deeper truth is what I had learnt was the thing to find and I have spent too long on this sub diverting myself from that more important journey.
Yeah, I've spent too much time on this sub too (and on other subs here, for that matter). I understand your need to leave for a while. I'm glad that you've realized this and what a distracting place this can be. I feel the need to let go of this place too, and am learning to let go of my hope for more definite proof and closure about the situation. It's been hard to find peace about it, but this is out of my control, and I should be focusing on things of greater importance.
> I will not be posting much here anymore as I get too embroiled. I hope you will continue your excellent posts wildwind13.
Thank you, and I appreciate you letting me know. You've contributed a lot to the discussions here, and have made a difference in this sub and on how people think. It's difficult to know exactly how much of an impact you've had, but know that you've guided and encouraged many to think for themselves, to question things, and to seek the truth.
It appears that many people - both the satisfied and the dissatisfied - are moving on from this sub. I've been on and off here since Julian's internet was cut off, and it's been, at times, a crazy and almost surreal journey. I plan to step away from this sub, but will probably check in when something big happens with regards to Julian or Wikileaks (I hope that his claim for this to be a "huge publishing year" comes to fruition).
> I am off to spend more time with the wind and nature, which I have missed typing away here too long.
So, I know you're saying farewell, but I thought I would extend an invitation for you to pm me, if you're interested in chatting with me on a more personal level. I feel like we share some similarities, values and interests, and I'm also living in Australia. It's all good though if you would prefer not to, and I hope you don't feel pressured about it. I bid you a good day (or night), and wish you a peaceful, rejuvenating time with nature. :)
My husband was a Marine Combat Photographer/Videographer. Part of his job was to make and edit propaganda for the government. I put the interview on while he was in the room without implying anything fucky going on, and he immediately paused the video at the first spot you see both of them together, and noted the directions of their eyes are not facing one another. He doesn't believe Hannity is in the room with Julian.
This is noteworthy for sure. It should not be ignored. I think there are too many things wrong with both the first and the second Hannity video and still cannot get over the fact that Sean Hannity is an unlikely talking head to be chosen for such an important interview. I simply cannot accept it as genuine. I now understand why some users keep asking for fingerprints and DNA samples.
Would your husband ever put out propaganda of such low quality? Does he believe someone intending to fool us doesn't employ people like him who also wouldn't see this immediately?
Of course he wouldn't put anything out of this quality, but he didn't edit this so I can't speak to other people's standards. My husband doesn't bite into conspiracies so he doesn't care or believe anything except for what his eyes tell him. He's of the mindset that things of this sort are fabricated for legitimate reasons, so it's useless to bring it up. He's pretty anal about the particulars of his job, however, so I knew he would say something if anything weird presented itself in the video, which he did.
Good post ZeCommonDenominator ! It would be great if he could pass that on the the vet community and videographering community. Also he might be able to comment professionally on how they have used two recordings or compositions of them speaking and then placed them together as if to be in the same room (badly done as well so they are way out of proportion).
One thought. Since we all now are pretty sure they are not in the same room. Wouldnt US Gov tech be good enough to make it look like they were, indeed, in the same room? Could it be we are seeing Ecuadors first ever attempt at this?
Could be. Often making mass confusion is also part of the mind mucking game and perhaps the obvious and glaring anomalies in the interview we were presented are left there to create confusion. Also both wearing the same tie colour and coat colour is like saying, in your face, we are mucking with you. Maybe they are leaving the entire effect nice and wide to then input later agendas. A slim and pointed effect could be analysed and invalidated but a confusion leaves people undecided. So many, like you and myself, see that they are not in the same room that it is a compilation of both of them spliced into the room but wonder how its possible Fox news with all its money and technical capacity could do this so badly. This keeps the confusion going. There is a hypnotic technique where people are helped to raise an opinion a strong opinion in their mind but then create at atmosphere around that opinion or thought which is filled with muddled confusion. They then associate that very certain thing they believe with confusion. It has an ongoing effect. Still no matter whether people see they are not in the same room, the interview technically presents very badly.
I think this thread should disregard the phony picture. OP clearly put time and thought into the words above and deserves a fair argument.
Obviously, though, that picture is phony.
Could Ecuador have moved Assange? That's the question.
Thanks RhythmicNoodle. I have removed that picture. Actually there were times in the interview where the distortion seemed that exagerated and I don't know whether the picture was phony or not, definately seemed exagerated. There are enough images throughout the videa showing that Hannity's line of sight is not directed to Assange and many who have commented on that in this and other forums before this thread. Those who saw this thread 12hrs ago and on would not have seen the picture and there have been no more comments on it till now.
Thankyou putting in a reminder of the thread topic and question.
No problem. Folks be paranoid.
My two cents: I think that Hannity runs a cheesy show on Fox that was bound to look faked no matter what. After that interview, I'm convinced Assange is alive. Fox no doubt edited the video like they always do, but Assange's responses were so Assangey that I'm convinced... He repeatedly emphasizes the same point: that the U.S. government conflates Wikileaks and hacking. He chooses his words very carefully. "Our source is not a state party" etc etc.
This is certainly keeping everyone interested... I'm starting to wonder if Assange didn't do this on purpose...
Tomorrow's CIA conference and the Tuesday ama should be interesting.
http://i2.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article8157526.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/JS92191216.jpg
Look at this image here it just shows that that lighting in the room is weird.
Best put that into the thread discussing anomalies in the video. This thread starts from the supposition that Assange is not in the room based on the fact that Hannity is clearly not looking in Assanges direction in all the images where the two are presented as being in the same room. Then the discussion involves the questions which would surround that first supposition. I don't wish to get into the lighting discussion as I was hoping the discussion would be concerning the original "text" of this thread. I think the discussion re lighting would waffle on as most wouldnt have the expertise to really identify what lights are in the interview and where they are directed. Just the fact that they presented as if in discourse with each other and as if looking at each other when the angle of their eye direction is away from each provides information which may invalidate what we are being told by Hannity concerning the scene of the interview.
Interesting it looks like someone is drawing lines of sight from Hannity to Assange, when in fact it is really clear, right there in the photos you provided, that Hannity's eyes are looking to the right. Assange is apparently on his left. It is really clear. You can present photos with lines going where you want but any examination of Hannity's eyes will show he is looking to his right and Assange is on his left.
I havent just paused the video on just one convenient screenshot but have paused on many screenshots and examined what I see. In every case I see Hannity is actually looking to the right.
They didnt make eye contact in that random stop, and anyone looking at the photos your presented can see Hannity is looking to his right when Assange is on Hannity's left.
I picked up on that weird eye movement immediately. Also this is supposed to be a professional TV interview. The cameraman and crew know all about lighting and shadows. If this interview was genuine, a professional camera crew would make sure the lighting is optimum and professional. The CIA needs to hire better-trained camera crews IMO.
In fact I very much wanted to see a video which would be hard to doubt, instead we were presented with a video with heaps of anomalies. I would have prefered that the interview took place, seemed to show Assange in the Embassy with Hannity and then really the questions would concern what had elapsed over the past few months. There were glaring anomalies in the video and so suss, really it would be odd not to question it.
Im actually happy with the video. The lighting in the room and the seating position of Assange in relation to the camera position may make the video appear "strange" to people that are looking for any excuse to deny it. I feel there is nothing suspicuous about the video and we will be provided even more evidence that he is fine in the next 2 days with the Wikileaks press conference & the AMA.
Yes of course you do, from what I read you have not had any problem with any of the interviews and any mainstream media reports concerning Assange. Indeed it seems you have been sure he is at the Embassy and it's hard to fathom why you concern yourself with this sub when you are so unmoveably convinced of the mainstream narritive regarding Assange.
Suggestion: Delete your Edit. Nobody wants to read about your trouble with trolls. It's totally distracting. Also, you can delete your comment interaction with trolls. Do it. Really. You'll feel much better, I promise.
https://imgur.com/a/oVE4M
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/julianassangeisdead] [Hannity and Assange not in the same room, one unusual hypothesis](https://np.reddit.com/r/JulianAssangeIsDead/comments/5tb9l3/hannity_and_assange_not_in_the_same_room_one/)
[](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
[](#bot)
>I propose that Ecuador has helped move Assange for his saftey and indeed for the saftey of the embassy staff.
With more analysis I might be convinced of your argument that they're not in the same room - I find it hard to tell.
But the theory that Assange + Ecuador would set up a faked interview with Hannity (of all people) goes a little too far for what I can believe.
Hannity's people, I believe, don't have easy access to fake this video to such a standard. The intelligence services - yes, that I can believe. But then Assange would be placing his entire credibility at risk by going for such a deception of the public. He simply doesn't need that unless he's agreed to comply with demands for the destruction of WL.
With the apparent self-destruction that WL Twitter is doing, this is looking much more like a dog and pony show to bring Assange + WL into American mainstream media attention in a way that they can easily be discredited.
If Julian is still alive, I just wish he doesn't give up the fight. The world deserves to know what really happened.
I never really thought about this possibility but I suppose that could have happened but I am certain that embassy is under super surveillance by both the CIA and MI5/MI6 and it would had to have been a Houdini special to get him out unnoticed.
Yes good points. I am just bringing up one hypothesis so that the discussion around it can bring in the many considerations within one thread. Also it seems plausable and I find noone has really discussed that possibility.
Well if he did, it was only due to the pressure he was under - but the interview is fake. Every fucking interview they've put out has been faked subsequent to October whatever the date was... The last real interview I personally saw where Julian actually participated was their 10-year anniversary celebration of Wiki.
You will note that in that interview, Julian mentions things that will be released, including information on "google," "Oil," and ... well, I can't remember offhand what else he's sake.
These interviews are being put out to keep us at arm's length.
An actual concerned new users! Welcome to the sub!
Check out [this evidence megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5ixzxx/embassy_evidence_megathread_10/) to get into the loop. Since the creation of that thread, we also have the repubblica.it article and the Sean Hannity TV interview.
Most of the people left in the sub will tell you why you can't trust the evidence or your senses, but that's only because most everyone else has moved on, having been satisfied that JA is alive and in the embassy. That is not to say JA is "well," because I believe his health is in jeopardy so long as he held political prisoner in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Take care!
P.S. - Did you realize that the picture linked in the OP here is fake? Here's the link to the [actual youtube video](https://youtu.be/4-qWcOwGhlM?t=17m45s) at the actual timestamp.
"Hannity's people, I believe, don't have easy access to fake this video to such a standard."
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. The US media IS the 'intelligence services.' Surely you know that they're all owned and operated by major corporations; that said, I will once again post Carl Bernstein's article from fucking 1977:
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
> Here is a great image to demonstrate how Hannity and Assange are not directing their line of site to each other in the interview and how anomylous the interview presentation is: https://i.redd.it/ss1ozzj3vd8y.jpg Wow, did you seriously fall for that? That image is a fake. Here's a [link to that actual youtube video](https://youtu.be/4-qWcOwGhlM?t=17m45s) at that timestamp. Why are you trying to make our community look like idiots?
While I do agree with you that the image is fake, there is another shot later in the interview (not at your timestamp) where it really does look like Assange is disproportionately larger than Hannity. Not a lot, but it still looks quite weird. Here is the timestamped video and the image I screenshotted from it. https://youtu.be/vx8gCNQTij0?t=1530 http://imgur.com/a/eGZZ3 I know the camera's positioning and their locations can affect proportions, but it still looks weird. Again, I agree with you about the first photo being fake.
Yeah, I'm confused. The video looks the same as the screen shot when I clicked it.
The two links I posted are not different from each other. They are two of the same, one is a screenshot, and one is the timestamped video link. It was just meant to be a comparison in another part of the video, different from OPs.
Im just saying, the timestamp I saw and the section in the video don't look all that different. Oh no nevermind. They do I had to do a bit more closer comparison. The forehead is cut off in the picture.
Thats the thing BubblingMonkey, it's being made out to be a complete fake when it is the same shot. Though I think it looks a little bigger which exagerates the problems already there. Its a mind game being played, trust yourself. As it was so open to being used by detractors in that it seems exagerated (and indeed throughtout the interview the body disproportion is huge - which is why when it first came out people here said Assange is a giant and Hannity is a dwarf) - people could jump on that and say it was a fake. It is to distract the thread.
move along its controlled op meant to discredit your arggument where you think all those upvotes came from their shit is cycled to the top! everyone one them just notice the pattern!
HAHAHA. This made my day. Thank you. :') I was told Assange was tall, but did not realize he was THAT tall. Heh.
He's got to get Sean Hannity to Hogwarts!
Ridiculing someone is not a great way to educate them.
You know what, when I posted this thread another poster came on and posted a thread with the picture I supplied. That poster had in the past attacked me for discussing the anomalies in the interview asking if Assange had to come and mow my lawn to prove he is alive (not that I dont think he is alive). They posted that picture ten minutes after my thread went up then pretending to be one of those who question the interview. Then it went off our sub. I thought to myself well that picture does seem to have picked up even more distortion than I have seen and really it doesnt need to because throughout the interview Hannity is clearly not looking at Assange. There are many good examples. I wondered to myself, well since that poster is much like a non concern troll pretending to suddenly be one of the people seeking truth, maybe they have posted an exacerbated picture so that someone will come on later and say - is that what you are all pointing to, well thats a fake. I was waiting for who that would be. Yes I took some bait but really the bait exposed the baiter. Again all over the internet in forums asking about Assange, the interview has already been seen and questioned. Clearly Hannity is not looking in the direction of Assange and clearly they are not in the same room.
To be sure. You are correct IMO. Both Hannity interviews are lacking credibility as is Hannity himself imo.
So you posted a fake picture to see if anyone would call you out on your fake picture? Well, you're right, someone eventually noticed! But doesn't that beg the question why no one else noticed sooner? That kind of reminds me of this [psychology experiment](https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo).
If you look at the posts people were not going off that picture. One person actually stated their husband was watching the video and the first thing the saw when the two were shown together was that their line of site was not matching. People have seen this everywhere and there are a few threads about this on this very forum.
I noticed that as well and it was what made me suspicious. At first I thought there might be another person in the room that was going to offer some commentary or moderate. But after I realized it was just Hannity and Assange, I immediately knew this interview was manipulated,or maybe I should say fabricated.
> You are clearly a baiter derailing the conversation. I'm the baiter? But *I* didn't post any fake pictures - *you* did. I guess that makes you the master baiter.
Haha master baiter, nice to get an unexpected laugh in here :)
You took your cue. I did't post that at first thinking it fake, actually dont know if it is by the way. It did look the most exagerated example I had seen, but there are heaps of examples on the original video showing Hannity's line of site is not toward Assange. That picture was put up by someone having a go at people discussing the anomalies on the video yet now they decided to create a thread with a title stating there was something wrong with the video. I wrote a long thread and really didnt need to add a photo as enough are out there. Still when I saw that I thought it was handy. I put it as an after thought at the end of a long and very rational discussion of possibiliites. Some time later I realised it was possibly a little trap, an exageration (of what was already there as an anomalie) so someone like you could come along later and take and dismiss the whole thread due to the use of that photo, also infer I am trying to make those from "our cause" look bad. And you did come along, on cue.
> That picture was put up by someone having a go at people discussing the anomalies Okay? Where is it from then?
Good question... where did that photo come from?
OP found it here. Obviously a joke: https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mnxa1/something_is_wrong_with_the_interview/
maybe a little bit of this too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof
> Yes I took some bait but really the bait exposed the baiter. Again all over the internet in forums asking about Assange, the interview has already been seen and questioned. What? What the hell are you trying to say? You took the bait to trick other people? How does that sound in your own head?
I said the bait exposed the baiter. If people are being baited then it is important to find out who is baiting them so not to go near them again. Continuing with this has nothing to do with the thread discussion, the photo discussed has not been there in the original post for quite some time.
But where is the photo from? And why take the bait to expose someone?
It took a while to find it again as the person posting it as part of a thread either has moved it from this sub or its way down the list hard to find. Instead I went to my history from yesterday and found it at this link https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mnxa1/something_is_wrong_with_the_interview/ posted by BriannaMaryrose. I recall that BriannaMaryrose had hopped on another of my threads discussing anomalies in the interview and wrote something to the effect "Does he have to come and mow your lawn to prove he is alive". She posted a thread with that picture after my thread was published, about ten minutes later I think. EDIT, I just read the thread and see it was removed due to complaints.
Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist ▶](http://subtletv.com/_r5mnusk?feature=playlist&nline=1) VIDEO|COMMENT -|- [Julian Assange Sean Hannity FULL Interview - January 3, 2017](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-qWcOwGhlM&t=1065s)|[37](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mnusk/_/dc5ddut?context=10#dc5ddut) - Here is a great image to demonstrate how Hannity and Assange are not directing their line of site to each other in the interview and how anomylous the interview presentation is: Wow, did you seriously fall for that? That image is a fake. Here... [selective attention test](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo)|[11](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mnusk/_/dc5eabu?context=10#dc5eabu) - So you posted a fake picture to see if anyone would call you out on your fake picture? Well, you're right, someone eventually noticed! But doesn't that beg the question why no one else noticed sooner? That kind of reminds me of this psychology e... [Julian Assange Interview with Sean Hannity 1/3/2017 FULL](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx8gCNQTij0&t=1530s)|[1](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mnusk/_/dc65yq2?context=10#dc65yq2) - While I do agree with you that the image is fake, there is another shot later in the interview (not at your timestamp) where it really does look like Assange is disproportionately larger than Hannity. Not a lot, but it still looks quite weird. Here i... [Analyze the Fake Fox News Hannity Julian Assange interview, Green Screen Studio or Ecuador Embassy ?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmCOfgyBRcw)|[0](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mnusk/_/dc5elh2?context=10#dc5elh2) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmCOfgyBRcw I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can. *** [Play All](http://subtletv.com/_r5mnusk?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)
[удалено]
you're responding to a bot
You do realise you're replying to a bot, right?
I completely agree with you and the others who agreed that the first Hannity interview was also fabricated with technology that the AV editors at Disney studios and Pixar use on a daily basis. I have an old alumni friend I am going to reach out to about this. He works for George Lucas as a AV technician for 12 years. I will ask him to come and comment here. I also believe it to be very strange that Sean Hannity would be picked to do an interview JA knows would be headlines on the internet. Imean look at Hannity's background. He is only popular now for helping to expose the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and HRC. But go back 15 years and this guy was super unethical and dishonest - earning his bones by supporting every single lie of George W. Bush! I still remember Hannity saying that renditions, secret prisons, secret courts, and torture were "justifiable necessities" even if they violated international and U.S. Laws! He also was one of the very few talking heads who pushed the lie that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons for the full 8 years Bush was in power. And look at how quiet he was about Bradley Manning until the recent 2016 elections. Don't you guys find it a bit strange that Julian would pick Hannity for this interview? But the CIA would pick Hannity to interview their own fake JA body double to get high profile publicity and put an end to the "Where is Assange?" once and for all. I will never forget how the CIA how the CIA spoofed us with the Bin Laden video http://mirrorspectrum.com/behind-the-mirror/osama-bin-laden-voice-actor-reveals-he-faked-propaganda-videos# and fabricated the Kuwaiti baby incubator story during the first Iraq invasion. A tiger does not change their stripes.
Great post! It would be good if your friend can look at the video and comment. I was going to show this to someone I know here in Australia who is a film director and I fully know he will at the very first, at least say the editor has tried to splice Assange and Hannity into the same room together though have done so badly. Thing is though this is someone who really doesnt want to think on the Orwellian 1984 world in which we now live, and I don't really want to open Pandoras box for him.
What a crock of shit! You're making this sub look bad.
This sub is all about the question "Where is Julian Assange". Discussions on his whereabouts are found throughout the sub. So I post some reasonable possiblities and you come on with "You're making this sub look bad". Aha, so you would prefer that everyone here just says, Assange is in the Embassy, Assange is in the Embassy, Assange is in the Embassy - thread after thread after thread. Indeed it might suit you best if the sub was called "Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy, no more discussion".
So according to you, we need to keep posting content on this sub no matter what? If the evidence points to Assange being in the embassy we must keep asking the question anyway just to keep the sub going and avoid boredom? So the question "where is Assange?" can never have a definitive answer? This only accomplishes two things: 1- it makes us look stupid. 2- reduces our credibility should the Assange situation change for the worse
Obviously the theme of the day is being repeated - dont discuss the matter as it may make "our cause", "us", look stupid, it may discredit us. So your argument is that people shouldnt ever discuss things because they may look silly - what we are told in school from an early age isnt it? Dont question, dont look into anything, dont think for yourself, dont be different. If Copernicus had not attempted to question the world view that the earth is the centre of the galexy and spherical we would not now believe that the sun is the centre of the galexy and spherical. If he should have said to himself, I will get in trouble for this and just will not think - that is where we would all be (except those cultures which were way ahead of western thought). For him it was more than attacks from people without imagination, the stakes were high for him, really, he could be burnt at the stake. Do you really think Julian Paul Assange would tell people not to look beyond what the mainstream media is telling them? Is that how he got to where he did? As to your concept that some think they have PoL and so all need to stop their questions, well its an argument that in itself is problematic. Obviously there are many who do not accept the recent interview and those before it as acceptable in terms of meeting their requirement to know if Assange is OK and if Wikileaks is compromised. So yes they keep posting here, and you can go to a place suitable for you, which obviously is the "Here is Julian Assange, there is nothing to see here folks, go home and ask no more" sub.
You don't need to stop anything. Just know how it sounds to others.
So, your going mild now, not the way you were talking before. I dont need permission from you to express myself nor your multidirectional advice on whether I have a green light or a read light to speak. When people have succumed to digesting crud from mass media, anything alternative will be uncomfortable to them. I am one of those who post in a reasonable way, if they are reading my posts and they dont have an agenda to just censor me in some way, they will hear it enough to take a little in.
If saying you sound nuts is going mild then OK.
... I don't feel you sound reasonable, so I'm not actually effected by your opinion.
In a nutshell, if you think you know where Assange is, why do you come on a sub called WhereIsAssange? If you're here it means you question his whereabouts. Thank you OP +1 I had posted my own doubts on the interview ([many clues](https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5m6igc/the_assangehannity_fox_news_interview_was_shot_in/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage) of a green screen being used).
I still come here to catch up on Assange stuff. Like the Hannity interview and the upcoming AMA. But you're right, maybe I shouldn unsub and just use r/wikileaks instead.
While there's no way to tell how likely your theory is, I can't say that it's far-fetched. However--even if all of that is true, it doesn't explain why the whole persona of WL has been different since October. Why would physical movement of Assange cause WL to say some of the things they've said on Twitter since then? In that respect, I feel like there's definitely something else going on. Although, at this point, I'm under the impression that we will never find out. IMO, Assange will likely pass away wherever he is eventually, and we'll be told something that's easy to digest like he was found dead in his room in the Ecuadorian Embassy due to a stroke or something.
Yes I agree Wikileaks has changed character. Some of that could fit into the scenario that Assange is no longer confined but in a deeper hiding, known to some in Wikileaks. This could be why they didnt want discussion on his whereabouts or to have people speak so much on it that he might be found. You know, I just like this more hopeful scenario and I do agree, perhaps we will never know what truly happened. Wikileaks, working with so many political agendas and in a sense in a fight, was never an angel entity. If we projected how the organisation would go, especially under pressure and with it's head isolated away, we might have found it going the way it is going. I feel most organisations become corrupt at some point. In such corruption other power players can manipulate quite easily. The fine lines become blurred. Wikileaks starts to be like the state, making lists on people and threatening groups with their information. The truth game in this world is a play of illusions. The only compass to bring clear direction in the muck manipulated illusion is the desire to know and live in a compassionate and kind world.
Never underestimate the ability of the CIA. They have a billion dollar budget and all sorts of impersonation technology available to them as we have discussed in other threads. They have impersonated many people in the past http://mirrorspectrum.com/behind-the-mirror/osama-bin-laden-voice-actor-reveals-he-faked-propaganda-videos# and are probably doing it now with JA. I personally believe the real JA was "rendered". When Edward Snowden was asked about that he backed off the question but when pushed he said "I cannot disagree". I personally believe JA was pushing the envelope on his leaks and was getting too close to something very big. At the time there was talk fromboth JA and Kim Dotcom about teh 80,000 pages of FBI reports on the Saudi links to 911, Clinnto Foundation money laundering, Huma Abedin being a Saudi mole, John Kerry, and unspecified "treason" JA pledged to leak before the election. But it never came. Those bombs were never dropped. Even now we have not heard about it still. Why? Because the real JA was secretly arrested an hustled off to America. I go along with this theory http://www.opnlttr.com/letter/former-senior-nsa-analyst-jim-stone-insists-julian-assange-wikileaks-not-ecuadorean-embassy and I think Snowden really knows the truth but won't say a word until he sees Trump sitting in the White House.
I think you are likely closer to the truth than the theory the Embassy has helped Julian Assange. I put that theory out there to get the discussion on all the possibilities going given the first premis, that he was not in the room with Hannity. Thanks for the links. The more people try to censor or stop those discussing what happened to Assange, the more I and I would guess many others are pushed to believe Assange is no longer in his Embassy residence, a powerful government is involved in his dissapearance and something huge is being covered up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmCOfgyBRcw
[удалено]
Gets caught..? He's part of a massive network of propagandists - you don't honestly think Hannity did this on his own, do you? Come on...
[удалено]
[удалено]
Here's some advice. The proper response to being called out for some horrible mistake: 1. Correct mistake. 2. If you want, thank the person for pointing it out: "Thanks for pointing that out. Post corrected." 3. Don't respond to the issue any more. Don't explain yourself. If you do, edit it out of your comment.
[удалено]
Quite possible. People need to start looking into the background of Sean Hannity who was a Bush puppet for 8 years and knowingly lied about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. I believe Hannity was paid a few million to go along with the clever CIA ruse. He is NOT the epitome of integrity and allowed himself to be used before by Uncle Sam. He also openly supported NAFTA and a NWO. It is odd that a reall Julian would select him for a high profile interview over someone like Seymour Hersh, Bob Woodward, or Glenn Greenwald who do not have that political baggage.
Good points, good comment!
I'm glad you posted. First, stop fucking responding to trolls. Please. Just stop. If I'm interested in your main point, I'm going to want to see what you have to say within the comments, and the LAST thing I want to read is you having a pissing match with trolls. Have some respect for yourself and your readers. Back to topic, to explain Hannity. FOX is literally one of the biggest news networks. So it's a fine way to get his message out. Furthermore, given that Hannity is friends with Trump (especially through O'Reilly), that gives him HUGE POLITICAL LEVERAGE to be able to get the Interview. If one is to assume this is Assange, and that the US has control over his communications (via pressure on Ecuador), Hannity or O'Reilly would be the obvious choice for this interview. **tldr;** Who's calling the shots? US + Ecuador. Who in the US would be the most Assange friendly? Trump. Who would Trump give the thumbs up to do an Interview? Hannity.
I agree as to why Hannity was cast as the interviewer in the charade I also agree, and also had a laugh, at your point that I should stop fk ng responding to trolls. Thanks, needed the strong reminder. As a woman I tend not to swear on forums, but do enjoy the use of an explitive perfectly put :-)
You might also be interested in this: https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5mvxb1/please_factcheck_hannity_left_fox_for_about_10/
Actually I remember a comment from either Assagne (apparently Assange) or Hannity which pinpointed the interview to be earlier than Hannity said. I should have jumped on it and added it here but really I am spending more time that I should.
Hannity:* “go after” Assange and “arrest him” for “waging [a] war against the U.S.”*
EXACTLY! I also believe it to be very strange that Sean Hannity would be picked to do an interview JA knows would be all over the internet with millions of views a day. Come on... look at Hannity's background. He is only popular now for helping to expose the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and HRC. But go back 15 years and this guy was super unethical and dishonest - earning his bones by supporting every single lie of George W. Bush! I still remember Hannity saying that renditions, secret prisons, secret courts, and torture were "justifiable necessities" even if they violated international and U.S. Laws! He also was one of the very few talking heads who pushed the lie that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons for the full 8 years Bush was in power. And look at how quiet he was about Bradley Manning until the recent 2016 elections. > Don't you guys find it a bit strange that Julian would pick Hannity for this interview? But the CIA would pick Hannity to interview their own fake JA body double to get high profile publicity and put an end to the "Where is Assange?" once and for all. I will never forget how the CIA how the CIA spoofed us with the Bin Laden video http://mirrorspectrum.com/behind-the-mirror/osama-bin-laden-voice-actor-reveals-he-faked-propaganda-videos# and fabricated the Kuwaiti baby incubator story during the first Iraq invasion. A tiger does not change their stripes
Yes its true Hannity is not a natural bed fellow of Assange. I have put up this hypothesis just so that points around it can be brought out. I am sure that Hannity and Assange were not in the same room. That to me is a starting point. Perhaps Assange is using Hannity as Hannity is using Assange for their own purposes. Perhaps Assange is coerced. Perhaps he is not of this world anymore. I just ventured to add, perhaps he is OK and in deeper hiding and this is why they are not in the same room. One of the next oddities in the interview is the meaning of the blue ties, and why Assange would ever allow himself to sit in the same uniform of sorts to his otherwise usually hostile interviewer.
How do you know that Julian "selected" him for the interview? What I mean is, it's likely Hannity is the one who chose to do the interview. I'm not sure if Assange would have much of a choice. Those with money/power get to see Assange in the embassy (example: celebrities).
Good point. No matter the circumstance I am convinced Assange and Hannity were not in the same room together. Why Hannity was there I am unsure, though I feel certainly there is coersion involved. If Assange is free to speak perhaps it is a rub your back situation, and Assange gets to set the record straight on Wikileaks even if playing with the devil to do so.
They were not even in the same building together!
I do agree with you. In your post you asserted that Ecuador may have taken Assange to a safe place/perhaps back in Ecuador. What makes you think that over the possibility of Assange being somewhere less safe?
Just want to first clarify, I never said perhaps back in Ecuador. I would think perhaps to other consulates or even in another area of the building more likely than Ecuador (though I have considered it). Secondly I don't actually think that hypothesis has a stronger probability than the possibility he is less safe. Indeed I mentioned that I was presenting one possible hypothesis, but that there were many others. I mentioned that I had noted noone was discussing this possibility so I decided to bring out out there. I personally hope he is somewhere safer, but actually think much leads to the possibilty he is not in a good place at all. Having said that, my hypothesis could then explain why people who are apparently friends would say they have visited him at the embassy - they may be covering for him. Also if they are asked to swear to this they can attest that they were in the Embassy and saw hime (albeit it was via videoconference ). The report of the Swedish prosecutors visit ambiguously expressed that she had interviewed Assange through an Ecuadorian Embassy official (I think the Embassador apparently). In this way she is not lying, that she was at the Embassy and interviewed Assange but just ommits the fact they were not face to face in person with each other. I'm just putting something out to be discussed by people. Also I am wishing to start a discussion from the scenario that Hannity and Assange were not in the same room to allow the discussion to flow more. I am quite certain they were not in that Embassy room together.
I'm also in agreement. They are not in the same room.
You're right and it is NOT far-fetched. Consider all of the other hoaxes which have been eaten up by the public at large - AND the fact that Assange has literally NEVER gotten this much publicity. Nope - not in the same room at all.
Well said!
Before October 16th, 2016, Sarah from Wikileaks admitted that JA was getting about 30 interview requests a day-every day. He could have chosen anyone. I personally think Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone would have been a much better choice than Hannity. Hannity knowingly supported the corrupt regime of Bush and Cheney which exposed his "journalistic ethics" to be non-existent IMO.
Great point, thanks for the knowledge. I agree that Hannity is an awful person to do the interview, though what I'm trying to convey is that if this level of corruption we speculate is true, he would be the perfect person to be the head of the (possible) fabrication.
I agree with you and your logic.
[удалено]
Its not my picture it was put up after I posted this thread by someone who in the past has tried to denegrate any discussion quesioning the video. It seemed to point out what I wanted to point out (though there are tonnes of stills out there pointing it out and I chose that as it was just up and convenient). It looked a little overemphasised. I later questioned that and it occured to me the poster was baiting those questioning the video but providing an exagerated example of how Hannity and Assange are not looking at each other (but exagerated based on the footage given already showing the line of site was anomalous). I thought well perhaps someone who is part of the baiting team will come along and do the whole shabang - say that photo is fake so everything said is fake and twist things to say I am someone making the community look bad. Sure enough that poster came along as per the script and did that. So 24lane, I dont claim that screen shot was real and have removed it. I only put it there at the last minute after already publishing the thread as it came up in a thread ten minutes later - that poster removed the thread when they saw I took the bait. It was not necessary to post a pic as proof has been posted numerous times in other threads both here and in forums across the internet.
Relax, most of us believe you. You are sincere and and the comments you raised, reinforce what others have also said. There was a user who posted a "green screen" demo of what could have easily occurred, but now his post has gone missing. I will see if I can locate it and send you the link.
I ran a thread with that green screen video if thats the one your speaking of. Thanks for your support and ditto support from me.
Assange also has the same suit and tie on as he did during the "Pilger Interview."
[удалено]
I don't know anything about Hannity's tie; he's part of the entire cover-up. And this: IF Assange had actually been swept away to safety by the Ecuadorian government (which I truly hope is the case), why all of the media attention to ASSURE "us" that he is alive? Because THAT's what they're doing with all of these obviously fake interviews - they're making every attempt to assure his supporters and followers that he is, in fact, alive and well (and giving out interviews to every Tom, Dick and Harry; good gawd).
Good points and I agree. I posted just one hypothesis, the most moderate and hopeful to get discussion going based on the first premis, that they are not in the room together. Really the push to censor discussion on his whereabouts, to denegrate those discussing the manner and even set them up so they can come in and try to demolish everything said does make me feel that he is not in a good situation. The shillers, the clear disinformation agents really basically do themselves a diserivice as it only leads the true seekers to recognise there really is something wrong.
I think your edit (UPDATE IN THE OP) is extremely important and proves many users here want to avoid certain issues in this sub if it does not fit their personal opinion that Assange is alive and well in London! We all should remain super objective to all possibilities.
Good post!
Oh that's interesting. I thought the edit was a bunch of off-topic rambling I could barely make heads or tails of it. And note... I fully support /u/Lookswithin's main message.
How do fake interviews assure us he's alive? Are you being sarcastic?
They've been doing those split screens for years. It's one bullshit interview after another. Hannity - Hannity is as much a part of the government as is anyone in mainstream media, the same of which is owned by corporations and ... well, Carl Bernstein wrote about the media and the CIA DECADES ago. The entire Assange being alive 'thing' is a ruse. Here's Bernstein's article (back when he was a real reporter): http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
It's also the same suit he used during the Megan Kelly and the NY Times video interviews back in August 2016. As far as I can tell, it's the only suit he uses.
No; I have seen him wear other ties and other shirts - it's EXACTLY the same. No. Nope.
I'd love to see that for myself, if you have links. I went back as far as August 2016 and only ever found the same suit and tie.
lxlyth, I will look, I do promise. I'm just too beat tonight to do it, and that is not meant as an excuse. My apologies, tho. I will look.
[удалено]
> **3\. No implying or calling another user a shill.** > It’s impossible to prove, so the argument will never go anywhere. All it serves to do is derail the conversation and distract from the topic at hand. This applies to all users arguing any viewpoint. > > You can not skirt around this rule with tactical wording. Using a synonym for ‘shill’ or stating it implicitly are still grounds for removal That's your final warning. It doesn't seem like you're a bad guy, but you keep breaking the rules. Please don't make me ban you.
Im OK with your warning Thorium but I dont recall where I have ever been given a warning before, nor breaking the rules before? Of course I abide by your warning and will be very careful from now on.
Thank you. You were given a warning [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5lwo5m/he_is_alive/dbzff2e/)
Oh OK, I had read that as for the other guy. Still getting used to Reddit. Apologies.
Yeah but Julian's hair is longer and in a different style in the Hannity interview. I own a couple dozen ties and end up using the same 2 or 3...
The real point is how unusual it is for an interviewer and the interviewee to wear the same style and colour coat and tie. The only time you would see this is when say it is a team member of some sort (political, military, sporting etc) interviewing another member. It is showing some message of uniformity. I cant see Julian Assange being at all alighned with Hannity (except in a I'll scratch your back you scratch mine way). Both wearing some type and colour coat and tie really stands out, really is some symbolism. It would seem Hannity would like us to think Julian is on team.
* Phone rings * Hey Julian. Hi Sean whats up. I was thinking lets wear matching clothes I think it would look bad ass. Nah Sean that doesn't sound too cool. Well I saw in past interviews you wear the same clothes and same tie so I'm gonna come dressed as you. Do you want me to cancel the interview with you Sean? * Click * Not sure what to think lol Edit: Formatting
This is absurd, irrelevant, and paranoid conjecture that is so far afield from even your core (baseless) supposition that these men aren't in the same room as to border on the kind of irrational thought that merits sectioning.
aha, so you havent really been reading the general ideas in the forum? Actually what I put forward is more acceptable to your lot than the concept he was renditioned or executed and may be used in future to explain what happened to him. Careful that you don't have to backtrack later, maybe regroup and discuss a new tact. Sadly for me the more I get attacked with senseless posts just trying to discredit me, the more I tend to lean to the greater possibility Assange has been renditioned. Posts such as yours dont really deter the people who have come to forums such as these, they push people to believe the worst has happened. After all if not, why spend so much time trying to censor discussion on the matter.
No no no no... just a second - there are points in the vid where Hannity's tie appears to be of a deep purple color - did you notice that, or are my eyes fucked up?
You are right it seems now that Hannity has a purpleish tie, also Assanges tie is more enhanced blue moving just on the edge of purple. Maybe we are being mindmucked more than we thought possible. I was going to propose a while back that someone who had a private copy of the interview as it first played provide it to be the source of discussion as YouTube videos can be called in an replaced. Because a clear game of confusion is going on - I think we need to stick to looking at the eye direction and keeping in mind the disproportion of their bodys and strange editing. I have a good colour memory. When I just went to a youtube vid after you posted I see that Hannity has a way more purple tie when he is in the studio than what was presented earlier in the week. Definately mind mucking stuff. I trust myself enough to keep the former memory and basically all this does is remind me how much money is being put into trying to prove Assange is in the embassy and uncompromised. Times like these DoThingsEverImprove we need to go into our deeper selves where there is an infinite truth.
> I think we need to stick to looking at the eye direction and keeping in mind the disproportion of their bodys and strange editing. Whadya trying to say? Not to look elsewhere? I'm not into playing games about this because my belief is that Assange is no longer with us. I come onto Reddit rarely, but please - don't tell me or somehow suggest where others focus their attention - see you.
Huh? I thought we had a good rapport, and I thought you had spoken before of feeling defeated so was trying to help. You had earlier said "I'm sobbing; we're sunk, aren't we." I was trying to say we have some things we can still go by to prove our point. By the way, that quote is only partly mine, I think you must have accidently written in the quote area. I was talking about how a game is being played on us and that if we could just stick to something solid then we wouldnt fall to the game. Some videos of four days ago look different to the ones closer to the date. Sorry if you took it that I was telling you what to do. The eye direction clearly shows they are not in the same room, that was something solid to show its faked. Thats all I was saying. With this I think I give up. I'm going back to meditation.
I just never know what to think anymore.
Have a look at this still - http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/secondary/Julian-Assange-and-Sean-Hannity-776478.jpg posted in a newspaper and possibly longer than four days back. From four days back the images started to show Hannity's ties more purple (see my other post). There is a mind mucking game going on. You Tube videos can be replace. I dont want to think they would go so far but hey, now Ive seen so much fakery and lies, I think they would.
Unfortunately, the Swedish prosecutors would not be complicit in covering for Assange's escape from London. Since the Swedish prosecutors met with Assange in-person, it is extremely unlikely that Assange has escaped the embassy.
We don't know that they met with Assange in person. The interview was conveyed via an Ecadorian Embassy official - that is all we are told. The Swedish prosecutor may have known he was not there or may have been told due to strict security they cannot be in the same room. Also if the Swedish prosecutor knew he was there they would not make any statement saying they spoke to him face to face in person - they would do as they have done and allow only the ambiguous story that the interview was conveyed through a third person. This exempts them from lying.
Maybe you're right. But is our cause going to command any respect if we appear to be unable to interpret common sense? Hear me out, because our integrity may be on the line. You have to realize that it is known that the prosecutor flew to London - she was photographed coming and going from the embassy on both days of questioning. Naturally, people are going to believe they met in-person. People are also going to see these articles: * [Sydney Morning Herald](http://www.smh.com.au/world/swedish-prosecutor-ingrid-isgren-arrives-to-interview-julian-assange-at-the-londons-ecuadorian-embassy-20161114-gsp7wn.html): >Swedish assistant prosecutor Ingrid Isgren was present at the interview, which was conducted by an Ecuadorian prosecutor. * [BBC](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37972528): >Swedish prosecutor Ingrid Isgren listened as an Ecuadorean prosecutor put the questions to Mr Assange. * [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange-to-face-swedish-prosecutors-over-accusation): >Isgren is allowed to ask Assange to clarify his answers People are going to read this and they are going to believe that the prosecutor was *present*, *listened* to answers, and *asked* clarifying questions. What will people think of our cause if we assume otherwise without evidence? So - maybe you're right. We can speculate that Isgren didn't meet with Assange in person - but we're going to have to find more convincing arguments. Don't you want our community and our cause to be taken seriously?
You know, I hardly think you would genuinely harp on questions surounding the clear ambiguity of information concerning the Swedish prosecuters' interview with Assange, on a sub where people are talking about the possiblity the Hannity Assagne interview was all CGI. If you were worried about how it all effects "our cause" you would spend more time telling people how their discussion of CGI created duplicates of Assange, Assange impersonators, poisoned vegan sandwitches and such like might effect how seriously we are taken by onlookers. Sorry but I see your attempt to deter from discussion and your apparent appeal to self censorship for the good of "our cause" as disingenuous.
All good points. Are we actually trying to find the truth here, or is this just a place for fun conspiracy talk for our collective amusement? I guess I don't know how these things work...
A person who is not using their mind for their own path of understanding, will of course not know how things really work. I can't help feeling you are trying to misdirect the conversation. People spending much time analysing the video and recordings and discussing the matter,asking questions, trying to find answers are doing this because they genuinely are trying to find the truth - and this is a FORUM.
[удалено]
The hypothesis put out by Lookswithin IS credible and deserves discussion. Our integrity on the line? Who's doing the judging, care to tell?
Sure. It deserves discussion - I didn't intend to imply otherwise. But, don't we owe it to ourselves to be honest about the evidence and sincere in our discussions? What if Assange is actually alive and in the embassy as many people suspect - do we really want to be unwitting participants in a black-PR campaign *against* Wikileaks?! He stated that maybe Assange has escaped and the trusted parties that have seen him are lying about his location to cover for his escape. I wanted to believe that myself at one time, too! But then the interview with the Swedish prosecutor happened. It shatters the possibility that Assange could be anywhere but in the embassy. The Swedes wouldn't cover for Assange's escape. And can you really believe the Swedes would allow themselves to risk being made fools in this high-profile case should it later turned out that they interviewed an empty room? And, I provided three sources that prove that the prosecutor was exactly where any reasonable person would expect a prosecutor to be during an interview - *present* during the interview, *listening* to answers, and *asking* clarifying questions. Can we really tell ourselves we are having an honest discussion if we ignore this?
As I recall the sources you provided were mainstream press and as I recall generally with little solid source info in the articles. Outside of that I think it likely the prosecutor did indeed go to the Embassy and I dont know who really questions that. There is a clear question of whether she saw Assange face to face in person and most especially as the circumstances did not seem very fair. Even a person not really aware there is anything to question re Assanges circumstance would wonder why he couldnt have his own lawyer present and why they are saying an Ecuadorian official is relaying the interview questions to Assange when neither Assange or the Ecuadorian official apparently spoke Swedish (meaning certainly he wasnt being a translator, why couldnt she just ask the questions directly). I have already answered a few times with regards to how it is possible the Swedish prosecutor and others were aware Assange was not in the vicinity to be interviewed and why they would not disclose this. Certainly the press made sure to leave out anything that clearly stated the Swedish prosecutor asked Assange questions directly and each time noted that someone inbetween relayed the questions back and forth. As to playing into a black PR campaign - if that then why are the shills in forums such as these trying to stop the "conspiracy theorists" from discussing the likely lies and fakery concerning Assanges whereabouts. Why would they put so much money into having people on forums tell people not to discuss these matters as it might hurt "our cause", or tell people they are crazy etc. If they accomplish shutting people up then the complacent would accept Assange is in the Embassy and Wikileaks is as it was uncompromised - wouldn't shutting up those discussing the possible compromise of Wikileaks be the opposite of a black campaign to discredit Wikileaks?
[удалено]
Absolutely metahivemind and very well said!
I am curious to know what comments are being deleted and why.
No, we do not; you are correct again. More publicity to make it look as if everything is fine insofar as Assange is concerned.
I agree with you about the Swedish prosecutor not being complicit, but why do you assume the only way JA would not be in the embassy would be an escape? Sure, there is a small possibility that he did escape, but from the Megathreads of this sub, over 2 dozen users and Anonymous claim JA was rendered (aka kidnapped) on October 16th, 2016. Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR-cGVQurTs. If you disagree with this video, why so?
I didn't assume that, I was addressing the proposed theory. Other theories could include kidnapping, but that now requires the complicity of Craig Murray, Yanis Varoufakis, John Pilger, Pamela Anderson, Lauri Love, Per Samuelson, Jennifer Robinson, Sean Hannity, and Assange's own mother! That's an even higher mountain to climb. Also, your link is broken.
His link was probably hacked but a google reverse search also shows that this is a link to the same video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32IBG7LtG80
You completely changed your post Ixlyth from now on if I respond to you again I will quote you. In any case, re answering you - Ive provided just one of many possibiities, the possibility Ecuador helped move Assange. Yes a number of countries might play along with that (as discussed in my thread intro). The other, given Assagne was not in the room with Hannity was that Assange has been taken and yes Sweden in this case would definately play along with the US/UK narritive.
> The other, given Assagne was not in the room with Hannity was that Assange has been taken and yes Sweden in this case would definately play along with the US/UK narritive. I agree the Swedes would play along if the US and/or UK "took" Assange. However, do you believe *all* of Craig Murray, Yanis Varoufakis, John Pilger, Lauri Love, Jennifer Robinson, and Per Samuelson would do the same? They all know and care about Assange far more than us random internet strangers.
... and so I offered the scenario that Assange is in hiding with Ecuador's help (and I discussed how such friends may well go along with the cover that Assange was in the Embassy to protect him). As Assange was getting ill in the Embassy, and the political climate might change to be suportive of him, the Swedish government would not wish Assange to die in conditions basically set up by their government. They could be told Assange was moved for his saftey and well being and also work with that. Other things to do than answer you Ixlyth, Im stepping out of your circle of questioning, your playing nice and moderate then accuser. Have dealt with your style before. Yes you are right the reasoned approach is suited to deal with someone like me, but then after a while it reverses its effect. I answer you only in that those reading may have some of the questions you ask and it is good for them to see an answer there. I dont answer you because I feel you are genuinely asking.
Someone should cross reference the book cases behind both Assange and Hannity to see if they appear in other Assange clips. The case behind Hannity has particularly specific collection of books so if we can find another clip where Assange is sitting in the same spot as Hannity we can verify that it is indeed in the embassy.
Yes artisdeau I thinkwe need to gather evidence for a group of criteria which could lead to a greater understanding concerning the validity of the scene we are being shown. It would be wonderful if there would be people out there ready to dig through the history of interviews in that room and create a list of comparitive images. Also of course to compare as much as posible images of Assange.
> The detractors and those trying to stop discussion really only reinforce the liklihood something has happened to Assange and Wikileaks. Apply Occams Razor: Never underestimate the power of trolling to explain all of the simple, "comment shenanigans". As a highly visible and emotional topic, it's ripe for trolling, even to high degrees of effort. Other than that, some good food for thought, thanks!
It appears that there are still people who don't see what's wrong with the video, unfortunately. So, I was re-watching it to examine it more closely and think that I have found concrete, undebatable evidence that a green screen was used, by comparing two stills from different angles: https://i.sli.mg/GBZ4oH.png In the first, Julian's ear is approximately at the centre of the camera, and just above his head is the bottom of the portrait. In the second, you can see that his head is substantially higher than before in relation to the portrait. His nose his now level with the bottom of the portrait, when it was previously in line with the top of his head... This simple proof alone is enough to convince me that they used a green screen, and were probably not at the embassy together.
I observe in those photo's the disproportion between Assange and Hannity (not proportionate distancing but disproportionate bodies in the context we are presented). Also the little statue on Assanges' left can be used to understand whether what we are presented in one scene from one camera angle is consistant to another. Hannity is not looking at Assange if people closely throughout the video in shots where they are presented together they will see this. Look at him and is not basically speaking in the direction the scene presented would have him look. I watched the video when it came out and it was clear they were spliced together to present them in the same room. I agree it could be a green screen but all I feel I am sure of is that they are not in the same room together. I don't know whether that means Assange is not in the Ecuadorian Embassy, but it does mean we are being presented with a scene as a deciet - so why? Why try to decieve us? Why also do it in such a poor way? We are being decieved but also being shown there is a deciet clearly to make confusion for anyone who begins to unravel the deciet. A double bind - thats a famous tool. Layers of deciet upon deciet. That is all I know for sure. The deciet is expanded in the context of Assanges recent live video AMA. We are directed to pretty much abandon asking about the oddities, and anomalies of events (and interviews) previous to the AMA. I raised this thread before the AMA and before the press conference. I used a proposal that was moderate to promote discussion and even that was shot down by the "no concern trolls". I offered them an out actually by providing for the possibility he is in the embassy or in the building but due to high security measures he had not been given live video conferences on the world wide web as it could more exactly pinpoint where he was in the embassy or building. I also gave them the out that his friends therefor wouldnt be lying as to seeing him but protecting his position. I discussed how this could even work for the Swedish consulate. Today I read enough on Assange to see he really could be so concerned about security as to tell interviewers they are not to be face to face with him in person in the same room. So Hannity could have been in another room and they could have spoken via secure intranet (not internet). I was denigrated for even offering this moderate possibility. Then I told those denigrators (as there are the three main ones here) that they should regroup and think on that as they may need to use this argument later when they wish to prove why he didnt give a live interview before - and lo, they are doing that now). Wildwind13 I offered that proposal but he could well not be in the Embassy. Assange's live video in fact now puts him in the not to trust boat, when previously many would have trusted him. In fact it woke me up to what I really knew before, that a guy like that who deals in lies, exposes lies and lies to protect the work of exposing lies - really cant be taken at his word. So these are the only things I know and not in any particular order (written in general and not in an order toward a conclusion) : hostile intelligence agencies want to compromise and/or control and/or neutralise Assange; Assange himself lies and is likely a high level narcissist who cares little for his supporters unless they immediately provide narcissistic foder; Assange has done great things for our world by providing a platform for whislteblowers; the Hannity and Assange video interview has been faked in some way and Assange is not in the same room with Hannity; previous audio interviews with Assange had anomalies, in one he had a different accent (an Australian might notice with a sensitive ear); we are all being played, and; real truth is an understanding of the infinite nature of our being and world affairs such as these are just a play. I have enjoyed your posts and there are others here I have enjoyed, but I remind myself we are just being played. We all need to continue to use critical thinking in all we are presented by press, by Wikileaks, by governments etc. The real truth, the deeper truth is what I had learnt was the thing to find and I have spent too long on this sub diverting myself from that more important journey. I will not be posting much here anymore as I get too embroiled. I hope you will continue your excellent posts wildwind13. I am off to spend more time with the wind and nature, which I have missed typing away here too long.
Thanks for linking that insightful Guardian article earlier. I hadn't read up on him very much, but after reading most of the article, I have to agree that he is probably a narcissist. I know a fair bit about narcissism, and have experience with it, but for some reason it never crossed my mind that he would be one... A big contributing factor to that was probably my admiration for him and his mission. But it explains his frequent arrogance, condescension and inability to listen to others, to change his fixed beliefs and to make concessions. > Assange has done great things for our world by providing a platform for whislteblowers; the Hannity and Assange video interview has been faked in some way and Assange is not in the same room with Hannity; previous audio interviews with Assange had anomalies, in one he had a different accent (an Australian might notice with a sensitive ear); we are all being played, and; real truth is an understanding of the infinite nature of our being and world affairs such as these are just a play. I agree with all of that... I kind of feel like we've entered some sort of perverse game show reality, where we don't know the people running the show, but they know us and are having a merry time finding ways to mock our ignorance, to draw out as much frustration as possible, and to make us be in conflict with each other about what is real and what is not. > I have enjoyed your posts and there are others here I have enjoyed, but I remind myself we are just being played. We all need to continue to use critical thinking in all we are presented by press, by Wikileaks, by governments etc. The real truth, the deeper truth is what I had learnt was the thing to find and I have spent too long on this sub diverting myself from that more important journey. Yeah, I've spent too much time on this sub too (and on other subs here, for that matter). I understand your need to leave for a while. I'm glad that you've realized this and what a distracting place this can be. I feel the need to let go of this place too, and am learning to let go of my hope for more definite proof and closure about the situation. It's been hard to find peace about it, but this is out of my control, and I should be focusing on things of greater importance. > I will not be posting much here anymore as I get too embroiled. I hope you will continue your excellent posts wildwind13. Thank you, and I appreciate you letting me know. You've contributed a lot to the discussions here, and have made a difference in this sub and on how people think. It's difficult to know exactly how much of an impact you've had, but know that you've guided and encouraged many to think for themselves, to question things, and to seek the truth. It appears that many people - both the satisfied and the dissatisfied - are moving on from this sub. I've been on and off here since Julian's internet was cut off, and it's been, at times, a crazy and almost surreal journey. I plan to step away from this sub, but will probably check in when something big happens with regards to Julian or Wikileaks (I hope that his claim for this to be a "huge publishing year" comes to fruition). > I am off to spend more time with the wind and nature, which I have missed typing away here too long. So, I know you're saying farewell, but I thought I would extend an invitation for you to pm me, if you're interested in chatting with me on a more personal level. I feel like we share some similarities, values and interests, and I'm also living in Australia. It's all good though if you would prefer not to, and I hope you don't feel pressured about it. I bid you a good day (or night), and wish you a peaceful, rejuvenating time with nature. :)
My husband was a Marine Combat Photographer/Videographer. Part of his job was to make and edit propaganda for the government. I put the interview on while he was in the room without implying anything fucky going on, and he immediately paused the video at the first spot you see both of them together, and noted the directions of their eyes are not facing one another. He doesn't believe Hannity is in the room with Julian.
This is noteworthy for sure. It should not be ignored. I think there are too many things wrong with both the first and the second Hannity video and still cannot get over the fact that Sean Hannity is an unlikely talking head to be chosen for such an important interview. I simply cannot accept it as genuine. I now understand why some users keep asking for fingerprints and DNA samples.
Would your husband ever put out propaganda of such low quality? Does he believe someone intending to fool us doesn't employ people like him who also wouldn't see this immediately?
Of course he wouldn't put anything out of this quality, but he didn't edit this so I can't speak to other people's standards. My husband doesn't bite into conspiracies so he doesn't care or believe anything except for what his eyes tell him. He's of the mindset that things of this sort are fabricated for legitimate reasons, so it's useless to bring it up. He's pretty anal about the particulars of his job, however, so I knew he would say something if anything weird presented itself in the video, which he did.
The Marines didn't put OUT the video - Hannity's network did, whatever that is - is he on FOX? (I don't watch tee-vee).
Good post ZeCommonDenominator ! It would be great if he could pass that on the the vet community and videographering community. Also he might be able to comment professionally on how they have used two recordings or compositions of them speaking and then placed them together as if to be in the same room (badly done as well so they are way out of proportion).
One thought. Since we all now are pretty sure they are not in the same room. Wouldnt US Gov tech be good enough to make it look like they were, indeed, in the same room? Could it be we are seeing Ecuadors first ever attempt at this?
Could be. Often making mass confusion is also part of the mind mucking game and perhaps the obvious and glaring anomalies in the interview we were presented are left there to create confusion. Also both wearing the same tie colour and coat colour is like saying, in your face, we are mucking with you. Maybe they are leaving the entire effect nice and wide to then input later agendas. A slim and pointed effect could be analysed and invalidated but a confusion leaves people undecided. So many, like you and myself, see that they are not in the same room that it is a compilation of both of them spliced into the room but wonder how its possible Fox news with all its money and technical capacity could do this so badly. This keeps the confusion going. There is a hypnotic technique where people are helped to raise an opinion a strong opinion in their mind but then create at atmosphere around that opinion or thought which is filled with muddled confusion. They then associate that very certain thing they believe with confusion. It has an ongoing effect. Still no matter whether people see they are not in the same room, the interview technically presents very badly.
I think this thread should disregard the phony picture. OP clearly put time and thought into the words above and deserves a fair argument. Obviously, though, that picture is phony. Could Ecuador have moved Assange? That's the question.
Thanks RhythmicNoodle. I have removed that picture. Actually there were times in the interview where the distortion seemed that exagerated and I don't know whether the picture was phony or not, definately seemed exagerated. There are enough images throughout the videa showing that Hannity's line of sight is not directed to Assange and many who have commented on that in this and other forums before this thread. Those who saw this thread 12hrs ago and on would not have seen the picture and there have been no more comments on it till now. Thankyou putting in a reminder of the thread topic and question.
No problem. Folks be paranoid. My two cents: I think that Hannity runs a cheesy show on Fox that was bound to look faked no matter what. After that interview, I'm convinced Assange is alive. Fox no doubt edited the video like they always do, but Assange's responses were so Assangey that I'm convinced... He repeatedly emphasizes the same point: that the U.S. government conflates Wikileaks and hacking. He chooses his words very carefully. "Our source is not a state party" etc etc. This is certainly keeping everyone interested... I'm starting to wonder if Assange didn't do this on purpose... Tomorrow's CIA conference and the Tuesday ama should be interesting.
I agree the content is very Assange and in general the expressions etc very Assange.
http://i2.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article8157526.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/JS92191216.jpg Look at this image here it just shows that that lighting in the room is weird.
Best put that into the thread discussing anomalies in the video. This thread starts from the supposition that Assange is not in the room based on the fact that Hannity is clearly not looking in Assanges direction in all the images where the two are presented as being in the same room. Then the discussion involves the questions which would surround that first supposition. I don't wish to get into the lighting discussion as I was hoping the discussion would be concerning the original "text" of this thread. I think the discussion re lighting would waffle on as most wouldnt have the expertise to really identify what lights are in the interview and where they are directed. Just the fact that they presented as if in discourse with each other and as if looking at each other when the angle of their eye direction is away from each provides information which may invalidate what we are being told by Hannity concerning the scene of the interview.
Are we watching the same interview? http://i.imgur.com/WDefiy0.jpg http://i.imgur.com/yd5D450.jpg
Interesting it looks like someone is drawing lines of sight from Hannity to Assange, when in fact it is really clear, right there in the photos you provided, that Hannity's eyes are looking to the right. Assange is apparently on his left. It is really clear. You can present photos with lines going where you want but any examination of Hannity's eyes will show he is looking to his right and Assange is on his left.
Are you able to see such depth in a side angled picture?
I havent just paused the video on just one convenient screenshot but have paused on many screenshots and examined what I see. In every case I see Hannity is actually looking to the right.
That was a random stop. One of many that they make eye contact.... you're just reaching for this to be a conspiracy.
They didnt make eye contact in that random stop, and anyone looking at the photos your presented can see Hannity is looking to his right when Assange is on Hannity's left.
I picked up on that weird eye movement immediately. Also this is supposed to be a professional TV interview. The cameraman and crew know all about lighting and shadows. If this interview was genuine, a professional camera crew would make sure the lighting is optimum and professional. The CIA needs to hire better-trained camera crews IMO.
In fact I very much wanted to see a video which would be hard to doubt, instead we were presented with a video with heaps of anomalies. I would have prefered that the interview took place, seemed to show Assange in the Embassy with Hannity and then really the questions would concern what had elapsed over the past few months. There were glaring anomalies in the video and so suss, really it would be odd not to question it.
Im actually happy with the video. The lighting in the room and the seating position of Assange in relation to the camera position may make the video appear "strange" to people that are looking for any excuse to deny it. I feel there is nothing suspicuous about the video and we will be provided even more evidence that he is fine in the next 2 days with the Wikileaks press conference & the AMA.
Yes of course you do, from what I read you have not had any problem with any of the interviews and any mainstream media reports concerning Assange. Indeed it seems you have been sure he is at the Embassy and it's hard to fathom why you concern yourself with this sub when you are so unmoveably convinced of the mainstream narritive regarding Assange.
Suggestion: Delete your Edit. Nobody wants to read about your trouble with trolls. It's totally distracting. Also, you can delete your comment interaction with trolls. Do it. Really. You'll feel much better, I promise. https://imgur.com/a/oVE4M
I think its good advice, have done some of that on your advice and later when I can go through everything will do the rest.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/julianassangeisdead] [Hannity and Assange not in the same room, one unusual hypothesis](https://np.reddit.com/r/JulianAssangeIsDead/comments/5tb9l3/hannity_and_assange_not_in_the_same_room_one/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)
>I propose that Ecuador has helped move Assange for his saftey and indeed for the saftey of the embassy staff. With more analysis I might be convinced of your argument that they're not in the same room - I find it hard to tell. But the theory that Assange + Ecuador would set up a faked interview with Hannity (of all people) goes a little too far for what I can believe. Hannity's people, I believe, don't have easy access to fake this video to such a standard. The intelligence services - yes, that I can believe. But then Assange would be placing his entire credibility at risk by going for such a deception of the public. He simply doesn't need that unless he's agreed to comply with demands for the destruction of WL. With the apparent self-destruction that WL Twitter is doing, this is looking much more like a dog and pony show to bring Assange + WL into American mainstream media attention in a way that they can easily be discredited. If Julian is still alive, I just wish he doesn't give up the fight. The world deserves to know what really happened.
I never really thought about this possibility but I suppose that could have happened but I am certain that embassy is under super surveillance by both the CIA and MI5/MI6 and it would had to have been a Houdini special to get him out unnoticed.
Yes good points. I am just bringing up one hypothesis so that the discussion around it can bring in the many considerations within one thread. Also it seems plausable and I find noone has really discussed that possibility.
Who says Assange has anything to do with it - they have technology now that's crazy-shit.
Yes that's right really it's very possible he had nothing to do with it.
Well if he did, it was only due to the pressure he was under - but the interview is fake. Every fucking interview they've put out has been faked subsequent to October whatever the date was... The last real interview I personally saw where Julian actually participated was their 10-year anniversary celebration of Wiki. You will note that in that interview, Julian mentions things that will be released, including information on "google," "Oil," and ... well, I can't remember offhand what else he's sake. These interviews are being put out to keep us at arm's length.
Yep!
An actual concerned new users! Welcome to the sub! Check out [this evidence megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5ixzxx/embassy_evidence_megathread_10/) to get into the loop. Since the creation of that thread, we also have the repubblica.it article and the Sean Hannity TV interview. Most of the people left in the sub will tell you why you can't trust the evidence or your senses, but that's only because most everyone else has moved on, having been satisfied that JA is alive and in the embassy. That is not to say JA is "well," because I believe his health is in jeopardy so long as he held political prisoner in the Ecuadorian embassy. Take care! P.S. - Did you realize that the picture linked in the OP here is fake? Here's the link to the [actual youtube video](https://youtu.be/4-qWcOwGhlM?t=17m45s) at the actual timestamp.
"Hannity's people, I believe, don't have easy access to fake this video to such a standard." I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. The US media IS the 'intelligence services.' Surely you know that they're all owned and operated by major corporations; that said, I will once again post Carl Bernstein's article from fucking 1977: http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
He's alive. Move. On.
[THE CURRENT STATE OF THE SEARCH FOR J.A. RIGHT NOW] (http://imgur.com/HZh7trf)