Hillary's Teleprompter caught during debate

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Honestly... no.

a reply to: Kali74

Ah, ok.

_______________________________________

"I don't believe anyone except my wife." -- James Comey, FBI Director in charge of Hillary's email server scandal

Anyone consider that the light on the podium served the purpose of lighting-up her face for the camera?

If you watch the start of the debate, it lights-up before she even gets to the podium, but his does not.



You can see it at 4:43.

Notice how it lights-up her flabby chin?

It's a light.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

How exactly is that rigged? Again I despise Hillary, but thats hardly RIGGING a debate......

Did I say that was the exclusive reason for it being rigged?

While it has been done during a FEW debates in the past, it still an unfair advantage to the candidate that uses techniques to increase their height.

The same psychological factors that she used for the tv do not apply in real life for her as she is only 5'4". Trump has a natural commanding position at 4 inches over the average male height.

That should be portrayed on the television as well as it will have impact on the elected candidates impact on others in real life(foreign leaders).

Here's a quick read on the psychology of height.

Most people would say this is benign, but it isn't. If it was, Hillary wouldn't have taken the measures she did.

Both candidates should be portrayed only as they are.

a reply to: Darkmadness
It is a light,. just a light, and only a light -- most certainly not a teleprompter.

Notice she is speaking in each of the pics with light emitting from the light and no words scrolling across.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: CigaretteByrnes

That doesn't make sense. The light would be positioned above the notes...like a desk lamp.

But having an overhead light directly over the area she is taking notes does so as to further obstruct view of her?

The pictures above show clearly it is nothing more than a light, that lit the podium well enough for her to read her notes she took during the debate. The divider is likely there to prevent too much light from glaring into the eyes. Whether Trump used his light or not would be his preference and it appears he did not use his light, seemingly not once, possibly not at all, likely arranged beforehand to not even turn on.

I can tell you if that was a teleprompter, worst one ever seeing how that microphone is right in the middle, splitting it nearly in half through and through.

MotherMayEye
a reply to: Kali74

Be honest...if Trump won the debate and had some light that could be a screen on his podium -- but Hillary didn't -- you'd think it was odd? No?

I would. I'd be freaked 'they' were actually colluding to foist Trump on us.

I would be taking the same critical thinking approach.

a reply to: kamebard

He kind of explained it in the first debate. He said Hillary has spent millions on advertisements to make him look bad, while he used 0$ to do that. I consider that he thinks it´s a waste of money, and it is. We´re doing it for him.

a reply to: coffeetalk

You wrote:

But having an overhead light directly over the area...

Obviously, I did not state nor mean "directly" above. Clearly, I meant above and directed at her notes....like a desk lamp. Like I used as an example.

Having a light shining up into your eyes -- but not on your notes -- is going to make it difficult to read your notes.

I thought I was pretty clear, but perhaps I needed to be more descriptive for a few of the more intellectually-dishonest folks.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: coffeetalk

You wrote:

But having an overhead light directly over the area...

Obviously, I did not state nor mean "directly" above. Clearly, I meant above and directed at her notes....like a desk lamp. Like I used as an example.

Having a light shining up into your eyes -- but not on your notes -- is going to make it difficult to read your notes.

I thought I was pretty clear, but perhaps I needed to be more descriptive for a few of the more intellectually-dishonest folks.

Yes, you should have, because that is precisely how desk lamps are and function. In using the the words "desk lamp" it is implicitly implied "directly above." You can see in the pictures that the light is a soft light and illuminates the note area perfectly fine.

That aside, regardless of the purpose and function, it obviously is just a light.

Another YouTube hoax. Awesome. Keep searching for "the truth" on YouTube.

a reply to: coffeetalk

When I think of a desk lamp, I think of this:

Link


I assumed everyone knew that desk lamps do not sit right directly on top of the paper you are looking at on your desk.

Your work-space sounds like it's pretty funky, but ok. Now you know...a desk lamp sits above, but not directly on, what you work on at a desk. It is merely aimed at your workspace from above.

ETA: A light serves no function to help you see notes if it is not shining on your notes. If it is shining on your eyes, but not your notes, that will obscure your view of the notes.

a reply to: ghostrager

It's rigged because they gave her the exact same angle as Trump? Think that through.

Why would Trump get a favorable angle and Hillary get one that wasn't? Why isn't the story: Trump gets same angle as Hillary? Are the cameras positioned for a person of his exact height? Is that a standard somewhere? Is there a regulation for this somewhere?

Ridiculous.

a reply to: MotherMayEye
Yes, and various other designs all of which would obstruct our view of Hillary and all of which are designed to shine light directly over the work area while not being in the way of the work area, that is why they are adjustable.

ETA: I suppose I was not specific enough to state the physicality of the light itself would not be directly overhead, but that of the luminosity. Either way, a desk lamp would not have done the job well. It is either front or side lighting built into the podium.

Trump logic:

He didn't prepare so by default anything Hillary did was cheating.

originally posted by: coffeetalk
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Yes, and various other designs all of which would obstruct our view of Hillary and all of which are designed to shine light directly over the work area while not being in the way of the work area, that is why they are adjustable.

Ok, how again would the light coming up from the podium not hinder the view of her notes?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: coffeetalk
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Yes, and various other designs all of which would obstruct our view of Hillary and all of which are designed to shine light directly over the work area while not being in the way of the work area, that is why they are adjustable.

Ok, how again would the light coming up from the podium not hinder the view of her notes?

Look at the pictures I hyperlinked, it clearly is not being hindered by anything but Hillary's own shadow.

ETA: I can concede its purpose is not to provide light for notes, but clearly, it is nothing more than a light. Debating anything else of the matter is actually moot.

a reply to: smurfy

Couldn't care less about the studio lighting.

The fact that anyone could be using prompters when they're supposed to know this stuff cold is disturbing to me. It's like being allowed to use notes during a school test...

The debates are supposed to allow for us to see if they know what they're talking about, not to see who can read their notes the best.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't hardly be the first time...

originally posted by: coffeetalk

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: coffeetalk
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Yes, and various other designs all of which would obstruct our view of Hillary and all of which are designed to shine light directly over the work area while not being in the way of the work area, that is why they are adjustable.

Ok, how again would the light coming up from the podium not hinder the view of her notes?

Look at the pictures I hyperlinked, it clearly is not being hindered by anything but Hillary's own shadow.

When light is directed at your eyes, your vision of everything else is hindered.

The light directed at her eyes would make it difficult to read her notes. Not something else.

Again, I found the OP interesting because, AT THE TIME, my husband mentioned he thought Hillary was reading from a tablet/iPad.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

When light is directed at your eyes, your vision of everything else is hindered.

The light directed at her eyes would make it difficult to read her notes. Not something else.

That is what I assume, by educated guessing, that the divider is there for.
Note I added an edit to that post.

a reply to: Kali74
Didn't she use a earpiece in a debate or townhall before?



What does this look like to you?

originally posted by: coffeetalk
Note I added an edit to that post.

I see that now.

Fair enough then to discuss the purpose of the light.