Neatorama says: "On October 17th, a landslide destroyed the pier at Chibatão Port on the Amazon River in Brazil. This video from a security camera shows the destruction as it happened. The river had been at it lowest level since records started being kept in 1902. A cracked developed along the river bank and cargo containers were sucked down as the banks collapsed"

http://www.neatorama.com/2010/11/15/brazilian-landslide-destroys-port/

I am not disagreeing with you. The video shows 1 guy being scanned before she was lined up to go through and refused. I think she was behind the blocks arguing with them at the start of the video or close enough to the start. We can say she was just in her own little world and didn't care that other people were being picked as long as she wasn't, which is a pretty common trait in all things lately.

She's young and she might even be on the coddled side. But I've personally seen women and especially "enforcement" women being harder on other women than anyone else in the vicinity, especially if the women are roughly the same age or a few years younger. It looked to me that the girl with her hair pulled back was demonstrating this, she seemed more agitated than any other person there aside from the girl being surrounded by however many people "against" her.

It doesn't even have to be her being attractive or not, but to me the whole thing seemed off. They can tell her scan or pat down or she needs to leave. If they thought she was trying to smuggle something onto a plane roping her off a few feet away from other passengers is doing nothing to contain the situation. It's an attraction, if you don't comply we'll rope you off and try to embarrass you and yammer at you instead of making our point and expelling you from the airport. Again if she was that much of a nuisance, they could no-fly list her. The video tape release being split and non-time stamped doesn't exactly eliminate all of my doubts. That they screen more often than the girl noticed (after she had already balked) is apparent, but no idea if they were doing this prior to the the beginning of the situation...one guy was scanned at the beginning. I'll say that for professionals to not be consistent would be doubtful, but professionals wouldn't consider a roped off area sufficient either or showing emotion toward a possible threat.

Most people being surrounded by a lot of unfriendly people after a disagreement would have a different perception than an onlooking, especially if they are young and sheltered. I think it was a lot of over-reaction on both sides part, except the TSA is supposed to a free pass because she might be packing a bomb as underwear......yet they leave her around the rest of the public and in the airport for 20+ minutes as shown in the video instead of isolating or removing.

>> ^nanrod:

You make some good points but I have to disagree with your conclusions. All the missing video in the world won't entirely validate her story. Why? Because the video we do see clearly contradicts her story. One of her main claims was that she was singled out ostensibly because she was a "hot chick". In the 13 minutes of footage where we see her in the screening area I counted 21 people going through of whom 12 were scanned. She certainly wasn't singled out period and while each to his own I didn't see her as being the "hot chick" in the group. She also stated that she was screamed at. What I saw was TSA staff who appeared to be speaking relatively calmly with her including a woman who appeared to be senior personnel who was handing her paper towels to dry her eyes. While at some times some of them looked annoyed with her I didn't see any evidence of screaming.
Bottom line; she was selected for scanning, was uncomfortable with that so had to go for more intensive pat down. She had heard horror stories of breasts being twisted painfully and was concerned about that and asked questions. Whether or not she got satisfactory answers she must have ultimately refused the pat down. No pat down , no scan, no fly. Now was she mistreated at any point along the way? Your absolutely right that without audio and any missing video we'll never know.>> ^Porksandwich:
>> ^ReverendTed:
Politics aside, what's the verdict now that we've seen the raw security camera video?

She said there were a dozen cops that showed up, that she was cuffed to a chair and that they ripped up the ticket. And I think she said it took an hour at least. That's only 12 minutes or so of video in one section and 10 in another. So I am not sure if that's the entirety of the video or if they bring her back to the chair when the cops show up..or take her to another section at that point.
The camera angles kinda suck.
The second video which is hard to tell how far apart they are...shows her with 3-4 people in white shirts who appear to have sheriff/police badges on their arms. Which holds with her story. It is extremely hard to tell what is going on in these videos, she's kind of hard to see with everyone being taller than her.
So I think there's about 10-20 minutes of missing video showing the cops arriving. And that could entirely validate her story.

A few things are clear, she was crying, one of the TSA agents was clearly angry at her, and the police did escort her out of the airport. Not enough video to disprove her story, but enough to make it look like she lied if you assume these two videos have nothing in between them.
At this point I side with the McLain because I think they are withholding portions of the video. And I would think video like this would have time stamps....being security footage and all.

You make some good points but I have to disagree with your conclusions. All the missing video in the world won't entirely validate her story. Why? Because the video we do see clearly contradicts her story. One of her main claims was that she was singled out ostensibly because she was a "hot chick". In the 13 minutes of footage where we see her in the screening area I counted 21 people going through of whom 12 were scanned. She certainly wasn't singled out period and while each to his own I didn't see her as being the "hot chick" in the group. She also stated that she was screamed at. What I saw was TSA staff who appeared to be speaking relatively calmly with her including a woman who appeared to be senior personnel who was handing her paper towels to dry her eyes. While at some times some of them looked annoyed with her I didn't see any evidence of screaming.

Bottom line; she was selected for scanning, was uncomfortable with that so had to go for more intensive pat down. She had heard horror stories of breasts being twisted painfully and was concerned about that and asked questions. Whether or not she got satisfactory answers she must have ultimately refused the pat down. No pat down , no scan, no fly. Now was she mistreated at any point along the way? Your absolutely right that without audio and any missing video we'll never know.>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^ReverendTed:
Politics aside, what's the verdict now that we've seen the raw security camera video?

She said there were a dozen cops that showed up, that she was cuffed to a chair and that they ripped up the ticket. And I think she said it took an hour at least. That's only 12 minutes or so of video in one section and 10 in another. So I am not sure if that's the entirety of the video or if they bring her back to the chair when the cops show up..or take her to another section at that point.
The camera angles kinda suck.
The second video which is hard to tell how far apart they are...shows her with 3-4 people in white shirts who appear to have sheriff/police badges on their arms. Which holds with her story. It is extremely hard to tell what is going on in these videos, she's kind of hard to see with everyone being taller than her.
So I think there's about 10-20 minutes of missing video showing the cops arriving. And that could entirely validate her story.

A few things are clear, she was crying, one of the TSA agents was clearly angry at her, and the police did escort her out of the airport. Not enough video to disprove her story, but enough to make it look like she lied if you assume these two videos have nothing in between them.
At this point I side with the McLain because I think they are withholding portions of the video. And I would think video like this would have time stamps....being security footage and all.

>> ^ReverendTed:

Politics aside, what's the verdict now that we've seen the raw security camera video?


She said there were a dozen cops that showed up, that she was cuffed to a chair and that they ripped up the ticket. And I think she said it took an hour at least. That's only 12 minutes or so of video in one section and 10 in another. So I am not sure if that's the entirety of the video or if they bring her back to the chair when the cops show up..or take her to another section at that point.

The camera angles kinda suck.

The second video which is hard to tell how far apart they are...shows her with 3-4 people in white shirts who appear to have sheriff/police badges on their arms. Which holds with her story. It is extremely hard to tell what is going on in these videos, she's kind of hard to see with everyone being taller than her.

So I think there's about 10-20 minutes of missing video showing the cops arriving. And that could entirely validate her story.


A few things are clear, she was crying, one of the TSA agents was clearly angry at her, and the police did escort her out of the airport. Not enough video to disprove her story, but enough to make it look like she lied if you assume these two videos have nothing in between them.

At this point I side with the McLain because I think they are withholding portions of the video. And I would think video like this would have time stamps....being security footage and all.

Politics aside, what's the verdict now that we've seen the raw security camera video?

"Pick it up and fill it out because we have security cameras and we're watching you."

>> ^bamdrew:

... hmm, I always imagined they had security cameras at Best Buy.

... also,... Conan is awesome.


They do, however, I won't go into full details on how the security works, but there's usually the guy who greets you on the way in. He's got a monitor infront of him with all the cameras in the store on a 4-split screen. They can put whichever camera they want into one of those slots and are able to control its movement so it can watch up and down isles.. Sometimes if someone went out of view, they'd call a code, been ages, can't remember what it is, but it's to make all the employees go to hot spots, and in our store, blow a clown "Honk Honk" horn.

The horns were placed in strategic areas the camera couldn't see well, so it would essentially sound "fun" while at the same time get employees to cover areas where something was potentially going on. However, they'd sometimes slip up, especially in the CD dept. because since they're the cheapest item in the store, they're not high on priority.

Once anyone, but for continuing the story, we'll use me, found a wrapper of a movie or CD, you take it to the front of the store to the "greeter" and they log the time as to go over that part of the cam footage later, and try to catch the person should they come in again.

However, my manager didn't care about watching the footage, and just used those kinds of excuses to keep the less qualified person on instead of me.

... hmm, I always imagined they had security cameras at Best Buy.


... also,... Conan is awesome.


>> ^Shepppard:

Really though, I started my shift (I was in media, cd's, movies, etc.) went over and instantly found 2 wrappers for CD's. I took them to my manager and got blamed for not watching my section properly.. even though I'd been there for 5 minutes, and nobody had even been in my section yet.
/sigh, but I guess that's more of a single person rather then bestbuy as a whole.

>> ^ponceleon:
I'm sorry, I must have missed something, what does the year have anything to do with any of my points? We have rather modern security cameras where I work and due to the volume of video they have to take, the quality is low and there is no sound (or perhaps it is because of the legal implications as someone else pointed out). Yes, there is a lot of fancy video surveillance equipment out there, but given that this was a bike rack at some no-name university, you really believe they are going to use night-vision, high-def, 30fps 24/7 video to secure that?
>> ^BoneRemake:
its 2010



Just saying, but modern HD security cams use video-motion-detection to start and stop recording. The same tech used in that web cam "game" where you can hit an on-screen beach ball. If it doesn't see movement, it records nothing. There was a sift in the last year of a guy driving his Town Car through a government office. Those cameras were like that, the system only recorded when the car or people were on-screen.

not fake at all... nop. As we all know security cameras all have microphones.

And then the cops show up at the nick of time as they're leaving? please.....

I'm sorry, I must have missed something, what does the year have anything to do with any of my points? We have rather modern security cameras where I work and due to the volume of video they have to take, the quality is low and there is no sound (or perhaps it is because of the legal implications as someone else pointed out). Yes, there is a lot of fancy video surveillance equipment out there, but given that this was a bike rack at some no-name university, you really believe they are going to use night-vision, high-def, 30fps 24/7 video to secure that?

>> ^BoneRemake:

its 2010

I thought security cameras specifically avoided recording audio because of first amendment problems. It's pretty difficult to legally record what somebody says without their permission.

Maybe the red-handed club has a member that's really into video editing and dubbed everything well. But really, it's fake.

>> ^ponceleon:

Three things make me believe that it is bogus.
1. What security camera has sound? At least it is rare at best.
2. The quality of the security camera is also very very similar to the quality of the video footage they are shooting, also way too high for a security camera.
3. Cops got there just a bit too quick and dramatically and the cop sounds seems dubbed in like the music.
Nice concept, but it just seems iffy.


its 2010

not 1990

Three things make me believe that it is bogus.

1. What security camera has sound? At least it is rare at best.
2. The quality of the security camera is also very very similar to the quality of the video footage they are shooting, also way too high for a security camera.
3. Cops got there just a bit too quick and dramatically and the cop sounds seems dubbed in like the music.

Nice concept, but it just seems iffy.

I can see what he was trying to do there. Thank god for security cameras!