@Sklivvz -regarding the Greensboro conspiracy question - did you review the original YouTube video that the OP is asking about? The "hoax" conclusion is based on the premise that the phone screens do not match what is in front of them, and Hillary pointing up and behind her when done. I only needed one single link to answer both of those, and it was referenced and posted. Not sure why you think that is original research and opinion. It was not a fact-based question to start with.

@AndrewMattson Thanks for coming here and asking

I think the issue there is that you should normally find an expert doing that kind of analysis, or some other form of superior evidence.

Generally simply looking at the given evidence itself and giving an expert opinion on it, is not allowed on skeptics (but it's certainly allowed and encouraged on the network!)

More info in these meta questions

If you have any suggestion on how to make this more clear or more available to users, we are constantly trying to improve, so don't be afraid to speak up :-)

@Sklivvz - When the original sourced material/claims is based on armchair "analysis" and non-expert declarations, what "expert" is going to take the time to break that down in an authoritative way? If I posted my own YouTube video where I pointed this stuff out, and then referenced it, it seems like that would be accepted as some sort of valid citation. The nature of the claim made and evidence offered should make a difference. This seems like more of a semantic than logical issues.

"Answers are original research when they perform non-trivial analysis of available data and present a novel result which requires specialist expertise to review. It is acceptable to provide a collection of evidence, but not to apply non-trivial calculations that require a community of experts to evaluate. (This also includes the use of non-trivial Internet-based tools.)" None of my offered evidence requires any kind of non-trivial calculation or any kind of expertise.

Anyone can look at colors and shapes on the video screens, where the theorist queries "what is on their screens?" and can match those to the photo I offered of the wider view that includes the backdrop behind the stage. You don't need expertise to confirm that the TV cameras are at a higher vantage point. You don't need special calculations to understand that the cameras were pointing to the right of their position, initially.

You provided an alternate explanation, likely the right one. No one is disputing that! However you have provided no supporting evidence. There are 3 videos linked, and they all show the same angle. Maybe I'm simply missing what they are supposed to prove, however "And, given a reasonable explanation for what we saw, that I believe I have offered, it's simply not a plausible claim." is not an acceptable answer -- it's a judgement call based on what you find reasonable.

While that is all fair, it's not evidence.