I am really not at all sure about this, but I am wondering if they were using 3D videography in the courtroom and software was involved to translate it to either flat for youtube, or 3D for future immersive experience. They were using 3D visuals in parts of the trial, for the jury, and I can just about imagine making the decision to shoot in 3D so that later on it could be an entire immersive experience.
In the very next camera angle, the wall trim behind Kyle is in double vision and it stays that way. There are other instances of double vision and it's always an object or person that's a certain distance from the focus points. Around 30 minutes, when the judge rips the prosecution (don't something me) both the prosecution and the judge are in focus but the court reporter's jawline is in double vision when she's in certain angles where the line of her jaw shows cleanly. And this looks like "early" tech merging of multiple cameras, to me.
But I really am only comfortable with still shooting not video. It just looks like that to me.
Whether this means AI was involved in fixing these guards who were possibly moving between cameras? That is a super diving board guess on my part not coming from knowledge. only from geometry and still camera behavior.
Something someone else said somewhere made me think, they might have shelved any 3D immersion experience plans if they had ever had them, which I don't know, when it turned out he was acquitted. Only because it makes retelling his story so much less fun. For some audiences. But I couldn't stop duckduckgo AI from telling me, it thinks courttv might use that sort of tech from time to time. But it's also in the evidence/ scene reconstruction production so... who knows if they film that way too. I don't.
We’ve been unknowingly watching it our entire lives. Btw Sage, apparently I’ve been banned as a subscriber, perhaps due to a post. Anyway, my yearly subscription is gone. I’ll be glad to send a yearly kofi, but need to prevent Substack from charging me again when my “subscription” expires. Substack is sending your emails, but demanding I update my profile, which it’s never done before. Do you know how they are working this and why it happened? Let me know, thanks.
When you say you are "banned as a subscriber" what does that mean from your end?
This place has turned into a prison. I was giving these assholes almost 900,000 views a month until I started covering 🇮🇱 and all manner of shitfuckery emerged like fake viruses
Q: "what regulations govern cameras in US courtrooms?"
"Federal Courts
The use of cameras in federal courts is governed primarily by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53, which generally prohibits the taking of photographs or broadcasting of judicial proceedings in federal trial courts.
Pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Each federal district court may adopt local rules that further restrict or permit camera use, and judges retain discretion to allow coverage on a case-by-case basis, especially in high-profile cases. The Supreme Court currently prohibits cameras in its courtroom, though bipartisan legislation like the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act and the Cameras in the Courtroom Act has been introduced to allow limited, judge-controlled coverage.
State Courts
State court policies vary widely. Some states, such as California and Virginia, allow cameras in courtrooms under strict guidelines, with judges having discretion to approve coverage.
Rules typically require:
Advance written requests (e.g., five court days prior);
Restrictions on equipment (e.g., no more than two cameras, no artificial lighting);
Prohibitions on covering jury selection, jurors, witnesses (e.g., minors, victims), or private attorney-client conferences;
Media pooling arrangements to limit courtroom presence.
Key Principles Across Jurisdictions
Judicial discretion is central—judges may permit or deny camera access based on fairness, security, and courtroom decorum.
Privacy and due process are prioritized—especially for victims, minors, and jurors.
No constitutional right to broadcast exists, per Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978), but states and federal courts may experiment with coverage.
Technical safeguards are often required—e.g., unobtrusive equipment, designated media areas, and no distracting lights or sounds.
For the most current rules, courts typically publish local policies online, such as through the U.S. Courts website or individual state court portals.
Pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference (e.g., in the Ninth Circuit).
Specific purposes: evidence presentation, record preservation, security, or judicial administration.
Judges retain discretion to approve coverage on a case-by-case basis, provided it does not interfere with the administration of justice.
State-Level Regulations:
States vary widely in their rules. For example:
New York: Cameras are permitted only with a presiding judge’s order, subject to strict rules on equipment, location, and timing.
Coverage is prohibited during witness testimony (except arraignments) and for proceedings involving children, victims, or trade secrets.
Virginia: Cameras are allowed in criminal and civil cases, but prohibited in juvenile, adoption, divorce, and in-camera proceedings.
Jurors, witnesses (e.g., minors, victims), and attorney-client conferences are protected from coverage.
Illinois (7th Circuit): Cameras are prohibited in courtrooms, but video recording of oral arguments may be allowed upon a panel’s discretionary approval, with media requests submitted at least one week in advance.
Pending Federal Legislation:
Two major bills are under consideration:
Sunshine in the Courtroom Act (S. 643 / H.R. 4504): Grants presiding judges in federal courts (including the Supreme Court) discretion to allow cameras, with protections for jurors, witnesses, and due process. Includes a three-year sunset provision for congressional review.
Cameras in the Courtroom Act (H.R. 464 / S. 649): Requires the Supreme Court to allow television coverage of open sessions unless a majority of justices vote against it due to due process concerns.
General Principles Across Jurisdictions:
Judge’s discretion is central.
No coverage of jurors or private attorney-client discussions.
Equipment and personnel are strictly limited and must not distract or disrupt proceedings.
Media access often requires pre-trial application and review by the court.
These rules reflect a balance between public access, fair trial rights, and courtroom decorum.
Damn. If I get bored I may have to wearily dive into this one.
Times of Israel says:
"Rittenhouse’s first deadly encounter was with Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36 year old protestor with a troubled past. Rosenbaum had spent most of his adult life in prison. His history included homelessness, a suicide attempt, a sexual molestation offense, an assault against his fiancée, and use of methamphetamines and heroin."
Wow, finally see it and I watched it about 5 times before I caught it. Put some ketchup on that hot dog, would you. I prefer Heinz and maybe give me some of your Doritos too!
I should be clear that I am trying to "paint the corners" on the reality that we see.
It is stunning to think that we may actually be watching fakery on the global stage.
I am really not at all sure about this, but I am wondering if they were using 3D videography in the courtroom and software was involved to translate it to either flat for youtube, or 3D for future immersive experience. They were using 3D visuals in parts of the trial, for the jury, and I can just about imagine making the decision to shoot in 3D so that later on it could be an entire immersive experience.
In the very next camera angle, the wall trim behind Kyle is in double vision and it stays that way. There are other instances of double vision and it's always an object or person that's a certain distance from the focus points. Around 30 minutes, when the judge rips the prosecution (don't something me) both the prosecution and the judge are in focus but the court reporter's jawline is in double vision when she's in certain angles where the line of her jaw shows cleanly. And this looks like "early" tech merging of multiple cameras, to me.
But I really am only comfortable with still shooting not video. It just looks like that to me.
Whether this means AI was involved in fixing these guards who were possibly moving between cameras? That is a super diving board guess on my part not coming from knowledge. only from geometry and still camera behavior.
Something someone else said somewhere made me think, they might have shelved any 3D immersion experience plans if they had ever had them, which I don't know, when it turned out he was acquitted. Only because it makes retelling his story so much less fun. For some audiences. But I couldn't stop duckduckgo AI from telling me, it thinks courttv might use that sort of tech from time to time. But it's also in the evidence/ scene reconstruction production so... who knows if they film that way too. I don't.
We’ve been unknowingly watching it our entire lives. Btw Sage, apparently I’ve been banned as a subscriber, perhaps due to a post. Anyway, my yearly subscription is gone. I’ll be glad to send a yearly kofi, but need to prevent Substack from charging me again when my “subscription” expires. Substack is sending your emails, but demanding I update my profile, which it’s never done before. Do you know how they are working this and why it happened? Let me know, thanks.
Looks like you are paid until August 23, 2026.
When you say you are "banned as a subscriber" what does that mean from your end?
This place has turned into a prison. I was giving these assholes almost 900,000 views a month until I started covering 🇮🇱 and all manner of shitfuckery emerged like fake viruses
You were most def. not banned by me!
Substack is a predatory platform for both readers and content providers and is funded by all the usual suspects.
Let me check on your account right now.
Sage - might wanna look into "regulationz on cameras in courtrooms".
At one time it was " not a thing"....and then it was.
Q: "what regulations govern cameras in US courtrooms?"
"Federal Courts
The use of cameras in federal courts is governed primarily by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53, which generally prohibits the taking of photographs or broadcasting of judicial proceedings in federal trial courts.
Exceptions exist only for:
Ceremonial proceedings (e.g., naturalization, investiture);
Presentation of evidence;
Perpetuation of the court record;
Security purposes;
Judicial administration;
Appellate arguments; or
Pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Each federal district court may adopt local rules that further restrict or permit camera use, and judges retain discretion to allow coverage on a case-by-case basis, especially in high-profile cases. The Supreme Court currently prohibits cameras in its courtroom, though bipartisan legislation like the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act and the Cameras in the Courtroom Act has been introduced to allow limited, judge-controlled coverage.
State Courts
State court policies vary widely. Some states, such as California and Virginia, allow cameras in courtrooms under strict guidelines, with judges having discretion to approve coverage.
Rules typically require:
Advance written requests (e.g., five court days prior);
Restrictions on equipment (e.g., no more than two cameras, no artificial lighting);
Prohibitions on covering jury selection, jurors, witnesses (e.g., minors, victims), or private attorney-client conferences;
Media pooling arrangements to limit courtroom presence.
Key Principles Across Jurisdictions
Judicial discretion is central—judges may permit or deny camera access based on fairness, security, and courtroom decorum.
Privacy and due process are prioritized—especially for victims, minors, and jurors.
No constitutional right to broadcast exists, per Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978), but states and federal courts may experiment with coverage.
Technical safeguards are often required—e.g., unobtrusive equipment, designated media areas, and no distracting lights or sounds.
For the most current rules, courts typically publish local policies online, such as through the U.S. Courts website or individual state court portals.
AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.
Q:"what regulations govern television cameras in US courtrooms?"
Federal Courts:
The use of television cameras in federal courtrooms is governed by a combination of Judicial Conference policy and pending legislation.
Currently, the Judicial Conference of the United States does not permit cameras in most federal trial courts, but allows limited exceptions:
Ceremonial proceedings (e.g., naturalization, investiture).
Appellate arguments, if authorized.
Pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference (e.g., in the Ninth Circuit).
Specific purposes: evidence presentation, record preservation, security, or judicial administration.
Judges retain discretion to approve coverage on a case-by-case basis, provided it does not interfere with the administration of justice.
State-Level Regulations:
States vary widely in their rules. For example:
New York: Cameras are permitted only with a presiding judge’s order, subject to strict rules on equipment, location, and timing.
Coverage is prohibited during witness testimony (except arraignments) and for proceedings involving children, victims, or trade secrets.
Virginia: Cameras are allowed in criminal and civil cases, but prohibited in juvenile, adoption, divorce, and in-camera proceedings.
Jurors, witnesses (e.g., minors, victims), and attorney-client conferences are protected from coverage.
Illinois (7th Circuit): Cameras are prohibited in courtrooms, but video recording of oral arguments may be allowed upon a panel’s discretionary approval, with media requests submitted at least one week in advance.
Pending Federal Legislation:
Two major bills are under consideration:
Sunshine in the Courtroom Act (S. 643 / H.R. 4504): Grants presiding judges in federal courts (including the Supreme Court) discretion to allow cameras, with protections for jurors, witnesses, and due process. Includes a three-year sunset provision for congressional review.
Cameras in the Courtroom Act (H.R. 464 / S. 649): Requires the Supreme Court to allow television coverage of open sessions unless a majority of justices vote against it due to due process concerns.
General Principles Across Jurisdictions:
Judge’s discretion is central.
No coverage of jurors or private attorney-client discussions.
Equipment and personnel are strictly limited and must not distract or disrupt proceedings.
Media access often requires pre-trial application and review by the court.
These rules reflect a balance between public access, fair trial rights, and courtroom decorum.
AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a jew.
Just sayanim...
Damn. If I get bored I may have to wearily dive into this one.
Times of Israel says:
"Rittenhouse’s first deadly encounter was with Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36 year old protestor with a troubled past. Rosenbaum had spent most of his adult life in prison. His history included homelessness, a suicide attempt, a sexual molestation offense, an assault against his fiancée, and use of methamphetamines and heroin."
Heh - Rosenbaum.
And then there's Huber, Grosskreutz, and Ziminski.
Four jews take center stage - what are the odds?
😮
What exactly are you trying to show in the video, I see nothing unusual.
The screenshot with the disappearing foot in the carpet didn't clear it up?
You want me to come to your house and push a hotdog through the keyhole so you can eat today too?
Wow, finally see it and I watched it about 5 times before I caught it. Put some ketchup on that hot dog, would you. I prefer Heinz and maybe give me some of your Doritos too!
😅 Coming right up! 🌭🌭