CNN CGI interview?

its not CGI its just shitty crisis actors. they were standing around the "crime scene" all night giving interviews

CNN is shit and all, but you're a fucking retard if you think that's CGI.

>Country music
>Line dancing
None of these kids or event security were packing heat?
Sounds sketchy as fuck.

In my opinion you need to get your eyes checked.

what makes you think its CGI? he is weird looking and that lighting makes it look worse

Not as retarded as that time they caught carrying a fake body prop inside an ambulance during a NM shooting.

Attached: image.jpg (900x600, 550K)

i agree with skeptic-user. OP has been playing too much vidya. what "gives it away" that its cgi? . there is no reason to suggest this is the case and the idea of using it is needlessly expensive and unreliable. have seen them green-screening in a background, but even that does not seem to be the case here. also the guy in the hat can be seen again later in the last scene walking around. he is just a guy with a finely groomed beard, user.

Digits confirm.

>he is weird looking
>lighting makes it look worse
>finely groomed beard

Looks like you’re already listing reasons why this might look fake and I haven’t said anything other than openly speculate.

>-and I haven’t said anything other than-..
cause you suck dick, OP.
i had to take my own time to think about what you might have seen in it. is this an npc test? it does not appear to be cgi. the guy looks weird but not "gummy" as in generated, neither is the background out of place, nor do any other people involved appear strange. please do speculate and inform us on whatever crackpot loop your brain was on when you thought of this thread.

>the guy looks weird

But I’m a crackpot for thinking he looks weird?

they've been using cgi interviews in the news for years.

lots of people look weird. you are a crackpot for dragging this out. what do you want to talk about? lying news, or the degree to which they lie and by what medium? if so, this is a strange example because there is loose reasoning, provided by a skeptic, and the person suggesting the idea (You), just sits back as if they are correct for no reason.
>you: peanut butter is really cheese
>me: that's bullshit, heres a peanut right here
>you: ... lets see what other people say.

this user has a better example

>i.e. JA interview (shirt collar warp in real time)

If your goal is to confuse people and make me look bad at least formulate an argument that makes sense instead of going on an unrelated and in cohesive tangent comparing apples to oranges.

>I don’t understand how backlight, depth of field, or video cameras work the post

>at least formulate an argument that makes sense instead
how about:
OP has not provided any evidence or speculation on his own thread, believing him requires delving into his simpleton perspective and is most likely detrimental to your natural grasp on life, in thus he is gay, and does suck dicks.

>California.

>OP is gay because he doesn’t agree with me therefore my opinion is right

>haha I was only pretending to be retarded.

I dunno the meltdown The Young Turks had on election night was comic gold.

WHAT THE FUCK

don't forget about the picture of the crying kid in the cage.

sadly this.

Will be remembered for many years.

Investigators ask everyone questions, which takes a long time.

thats just rigor mortis. jk. who are these fucking "men" who go along with this shit.