You still don’t address the question.
You sound like one of those people who are using 2021 standards and applying them to things 100 years ago.
There is ZERO to be gained by doing this. No one has addressed that. Because doing what you suggest was done adds nothing to any narrative.
This sounds like Q shit. You are better off looking into where the money is going rather than coming off as seeing animals in clouds.
I've addressed it. From Post #170:
If you're asking me what this is all about, I'd say the most likely scenario is this: With all the growing coverage of how Biden's handlers have gone out of his way to avoid having him deal with the media in unscripted scenarios, they simply wanted to make an innocuous event like a helicopter departure seem like "live" media coverage..
It's probably this simple.
I would turn this around and ask YOU a similar question:
Leave aside the "green screen" issue and other questions that have surfaced here, I would ask: What was to be gained by having the White House issue a video to the Associated Press of an event that was clearly edited and was not presented using camera footage or audio from the individual media outlets that were allegedly covering the event?
I can’t explain why the media pulls any of the stunts they do. Certainly you’ve seen the footage of two network news casters on a satellite hook up standing right next to each other pretending they are not right next to each other.
“ZERO to be gained by doing this”
Au contraire. Several posters have posited this entire discussion is precisely what they gain by doing this. We took the bait and ran out hundreds of yards of line. Now they can use discussions like this as another weapon in the effort to create more right wing terrorists and create excuses to abridge more rights.