Background and motivation
So, I saw this question on a edited video of an interaction between journalist Jim Acosta and a White House intern:
I had originally added a couple comments pointing OP to a third-party forensic analysis of the video (qua a video, the video-as-an-artifact) by a sui generis forensic video expert on Twitter.
These comments have been removed¹, with a moderator note saying:
Removed answers and political opinions from comments.
So presumably these comments were removed as “material for answers, not comments”.
Relying principally on quoted material
Fair enough. I do think this analysis is a material and valuable response to the claim that the video is doctored.
But I — Dan Bron, the guy who would like to submit the analysis as an answer on Skeptics.se — am not a forensic video expert nor qualified to actually analyze video in any capacity. Nor am I in a position to validate or challenge the Twitter user’s analysis.
As such, my answer would be, for the majority, a recitation of the Twitter user’s analysis. That is, principally quoted material, which I am simply passing along to the community of Skeptics.se to make their own collective judgement of.
Is this acceptable? Is it desirable?
I ask because over on my main stack, ELU, we require answerers to supply their own expertise, supported and corroborated by quotes and citations of external authorities, but answers which are fundamentally simply quotes of third parties are promptly deleted.
I know from reading your Meta that Skeptics.se takes somewhat the opposite track of rejecting original research and synthesis, but I am new here, and have never contributed, so I want to ask before falling afoul of the rules.
¹ And I have absolutely no problem with that, and this question is not about the removal of comments, so answers addressing the removal of comments are misplaced on this Meta question.