Qatar

[cods]

@jonkudelka

“Taken out of context” is now code for “I accidentally said what I really think”.

again bri bri check the video and I mean check it with your eyes open.... gordy has already pointed out the editing for you...

[brian ross]

@jonkudelka

“Taken out of context” is now code for “I accidentally said what I really think”.

again bri bri check the video and I mean check it with your eyes open.... gordy has already pointed out the editing for you...

Are they, or are they not, Pauline Hanson's words, Cods? YES/NO

Get back to us when you've stopping making excuses for what Hanson said, OK? She said what she said.

[Gordon]

@jonkudelka

“Taken out of context” is now code for “I accidentally said what I really think”.

again bri bri check the video and I mean check it with your eyes open.... gordy has already pointed out the editing for you...

Are they, or are they not, Pauline Hanson's words, Cods? YES/NO

Get back to us when you've stopping making excuses for what Hanson said, OK? She said what she said.

This interview runs for 1:08 and it's Pauline's words edited together over what I would suggest was at least an hour, plus it's not chronological, bits and pieces have been moved backwards and forwards in the timeline to change context.

Watch this clip and read my notes at the same time.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-28/ ... e/10947112

It starts with no drinks in front of her.
At 0.17 the drinks appear.
At 0.31 the food appears and that shot only lasts for a second.
At 0.32 the food is gone and I can see a salt/pepper shakers
At 0.41 the food is back and the salt/pepper are gone
At 0.53 the food is gone again and salt/pepper shakers return
At 1.03 the food is back

[brian ross]

@jonkudelka

“Taken out of context” is now code for “I accidentally said what I really think”.

again bri bri check the video and I mean check it with your eyes open.... gordy has already pointed out the editing for you...

Are they, or are they not, Pauline Hanson's words, Cods? YES/NO

Get back to us when you've stopping making excuses for what Hanson said, OK? She said what she said.

This interview runs for 1:08 and it's Pauline's words edited together over what I would suggest was at least an hour, plus it's not chronological, bits and pieces have been moved backwards and forwards in the timeline to change context.

Watch this clip and read my notes at the same time.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-28/ ... e/10947112

It starts with no drinks in front of her.
At 0.17 the drinks appear.
At 0.31 the food appears and that shot only lasts for a second.
At 0.32 the food is gone and I can see a salt/pepper shakers
At 0.41 the food is back and the salt/pepper are gone
At 0.53 the food is gone again and salt/pepper shakers return
At 1.03 the food is back

Videoed from different angles, Gordon. The result is that it is showing different views of the same table. They are Hanson's words, aren't they or are you accepting her ridiculous claim that it was "dubbed"?

[Gordon]

@jonkudelka

“Taken out of context” is now code for “I accidentally said what I really think”.

again bri bri check the video and I mean check it with your eyes open.... gordy has already pointed out the editing for you...

Are they, or are they not, Pauline Hanson's words, Cods? YES/NO

Get back to us when you've stopping making excuses for what Hanson said, OK? She said what she said.

This interview runs for 1:08 and it's Pauline's words edited together over what I would suggest was at least an hour, plus it's not chronological, bits and pieces have been moved backwards and forwards in the timeline to change context.

Watch this clip and read my notes at the same time.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-28/ ... e/10947112

It starts with no drinks in front of her.
At 0.17 the drinks appear.
At 0.31 the food appears and that shot only lasts for a second.
At 0.32 the food is gone and I can see a salt/pepper shakers
At 0.41 the food is back and the salt/pepper are gone
At 0.53 the food is gone again and salt/pepper shakers return
At 1.03 the food is back

Videoed from different angles, Gordon. The result is that it is showing different views of the same table. They are Hanson's words, aren't they or are you accepting her ridiculous claim that it was "dubbed"?

Are autistic?

[brian ross]

again bri bri check the video and I mean check it with your eyes open.... gordy has already pointed out the editing for you...

Are they, or are they not, Pauline Hanson's words, Cods? YES/NO

Get back to us when you've stopping making excuses for what Hanson said, OK? She said what she said.

This interview runs for 1:08 and it's Pauline's words edited together over what I would suggest was at least an hour, plus it's not chronological, bits and pieces have been moved backwards and forwards in the timeline to change context.

Watch this clip and read my notes at the same time.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-28/ ... e/10947112

It starts with no drinks in front of her.
At 0.17 the drinks appear.
At 0.31 the food appears and that shot only lasts for a second.
At 0.32 the food is gone and I can see a salt/pepper shakers
At 0.41 the food is back and the salt/pepper are gone
At 0.53 the food is gone again and salt/pepper shakers return
At 1.03 the food is back

Videoed from different angles, Gordon. The result is that it is showing different views of the same table. They are Hanson's words, aren't they or are you accepting her ridiculous claim that it was "dubbed"?

Are autistic?

Answer the question, please, Gordon. Are they or are they not her words?

[Redneck]

Anyone who doesn't realise that it is edited must have their head up their backside, its made up of an hour or mores recording from at least one or two cameras, do you really think they would show all that without editing.

Further more no one would watch it all unedited, most would be so boring it would put a glass eye to sleep

Jesus Christ some people are dopey!

Its still her words Doubting Thomases !!

[cods]

IN CONTECT BRIAN......REMEMBER SHE WAS BEING SET UP?.....SOMEONE ELSE WAS IN CHARGE OF THE CONVERSATION...


I agree with red.....you are very dopey!

with all the time lapse her words could not have been in one long stream..... GET IT?...

I think she handled this the best way she could....the whole thing is BIZARRE nothing about it makes any sense to me at all..

3 long years in the making......someone goes undercover all that time FOR WHAT>>>>Pauline saying something about Port Arthur...

and two blokes talking to gun fanatics...

any ideas what in it for the NRA to GIVE $20 mil to One nation......

nothing adds up...put two and two together I get 5 every time.

I am going with more sinister... looking at Pauline like brian is doing is just taking your eyes off the real issue..

[Redneck]

I accept it was an unethical sting by a foreign owned news service.

They claimed their primary aim was to try and get something on the NRA which they seem to have done for about two years. They in that time established connections with the NRA

They claim after an article in a Qld paper referring to ON and guns they then approached ON (and I am assuming discussed their connections with NRA ) and obviously ON thought they could get funds from NRA or they wouldnt have went to USA .

[cods]

the NRA is afraid of no one they dont care what anyone thinks of them THEY ARE RIGHT and the rest are WRONG>.

sorry red dont buy that at all.. this has been released NOW...to do what???....lets see now who cares about the NRA who ever thought they had an interest in aussie politics....no one ....in fact they havent been mentioned in RUSSIAGATE ...why Australia....

redthis is a set up its been organised.its been planned........ if it was to get the NRA......why expose Australia???...

if they are funding anyone here wouldnt it be the Shooters party?.....