Fake CNN News Report

**Descensus** · 06-28-2013 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

CNN was the only 24 hour news network at the time. Other than them, we only had NBC, ABC, and CBS. Even if they didn't get together and say, "Hey, let's get the Saudis to say we can't film the damn war," CNN took advantage of the rule.

Did you see the other CNN fake news I posted? Do you understand what company we are discussing?

Attachment 5049

In case it messes up again, I am referring to the picture you posted early on of the CNN set. Just concentrate on the palm trees at the set. I want to see a clearly outside photograph of that scenery. In the pictures you and Alric have posted, there is a great deal of distance between the building and the closest palm tree.

1) Every reporter operated under the restrictions in place, not just CNN. I gave you a link earlier in thread about how CBS often had blue tents in the background of their reports: because the Saudi's wouldn't let them get certain shots. There's no rigorous argument for your case.

2) Since we know the media pool had a platform set up near the pool area of the DIH, this is about the best picture I can provide, which was linked earlier in this thread. At the top left, you can see bushes and palm-trees, along with the blue walls and windows, shown in the backgrounds of Jaco's reports. To me, it's rather difficult to tell how far away they are from the building, not only in that picture, but also his report. Your argument that they're impossible to squeeze behind is no point in favor of the broadcast being a hoax. They may have been moved in the 15-20 years between the report and whenever these pictures were taken. They may not have been. It's impossible to truly discern the distance by a grainy video or by pictures from far away.

But just to whet your appetite, here's a screenshot from the video where Jaco gets a shot of some city lights off in the distance. It's the same area. You can see the blue wall and a palm tree next to it. It looks far enough away to "squeeze behind."

This might be a better picture, which was also linked earlier in this thread. It shows the media platforms next to the hotel (note the blue walls, windows, and palm trees) that were built on top of a minigolf course.

It's soaked with war zone non-soldier party guys having just a good ole time.

Calmer, sure, but they were supposed to be in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. It wasn't really a time for reporters (not soldiers) to be acting like they were at a fraternity house.

They weren't broadcasting, they weren't under the threat of attack, they were at an international hotel. It could be a time for anything. I'm considering this topic of the discussion over since the evidence clearly isn't on your side and your expectations for how people should behave all the time in certain situations are so off-base.

The camera does slightly move. Look harder. Putting on a gas mask in a hurry is apparently pretty noisy, but I see the possibility that the camera man put on floaties or a hockey mask.

If your evidence for the broadcast being a hoax is that you couldn't hear a camerman who wasn't wearing a mic put on a gas mask (while Jaco was throwing his on while also dropping the mic while air raid sirens were blaring) then I think you have absurd expectations for what one should be able to hear. Again, this is just you being influenced by confirmation bias and relying on lofty expectations. Sorry, doesn't fly with me. Maybe infowars can help you out.

Oh, Jaco said that. I believe him because he's a trustworthy guy who works for a trustworthy network.

What should I call this? Argument from paranoia? I can tell you're out of arguments so we can drop this subtopic too.

What you have not answered here is why Carl saw Jaco's gas mask as a cue to put on his helmet. Does it really seem to make sense to you?

Are you kidding? I'd put on any form of protection I had too. Do you expect him to just stand there and accept his death? Ah, of course you would, because that would make sense over self-preservation in your mind.

They usually add some variety. What you are saying is plausible. It's just that usually the anchor will repeat the news story or replay the earlier live broadcast instead of getting the field reporter to give the same story again while standing in the same spot. I have never seen it done the way you are describing. When you take all of the other evidence into account, it really seems that they would have been doing multiple takes to get maximum quality.

Okay, let me properly analyze the 10-minute video you posted which allegedly shows multiple "takes." You say they usually add some variety? Let's take a look. I'll even refer to them as "takes" to appease you, following how the video labels them.

Take 1: Jaco mentions SKUD missiles being fired at Riyadh and being intercepted. No mention of a time-frame is given.

Take 2: Jaco says "two hours ago" the air raid sirens went off and the missiles were intercepted. He then refers to some footage of the interception. This "take" could have been a later follow up to the original report in Take 1.

Some off the record footage....

Take 3: Jaco says the EXACT SAME THING as he did in the beginnning of Take 2. It then cuts to more off the record footage. This is not even a "Take 3." It's Take 2 replayed.

If anything the video casts even more doubt on your dubious claims that he was trying to get the best quality report before sending it off to CNN.

You made an argument, but you didn't dispell anything. I explained it some more above.

I (and even Alric) have provided ample evidence to support our claim while all you have provided is a confused analysis of the reactions of reporters in a warzone. And you made special mention of the fucking palm trees. You lose, sorry. No way around it.

You haven't addressed the other fake CNN broadcasts I posted. Did you watch any of them? They have been caught faking the news. It is something they do. Knowing that, why would they not take advantage of a rule that nothing can be shown except their film set when filming from a studio in Atlanta would keep them out of a war zone?

I'll go through the ones you gave to Juroara, if those are the fake broadcasts you're referring to.

#1: "Sandy Hook Where Everybody Nose Your name"

This video is pretty low quality it's impossible to tell if the upload was messed up or what. Clipping near the noses is hardly evidence that they were using a green screen. Again, more amateur (read: poor) analysis by you. Confirmation bias again.

#2: BBC reporting WTC7 falling before it actually fell.

This one has been thoroughly debunked. Information on the condition of WTC7 had been relayed to various media organizations by New York officials (such as the FDNY). People knew it was going to collapse. The most likely explanation is that "WTC7 will collapse" got lost in translation and turned into "WTC7 has collapsed" along the chain from officials, to producers, to reporters. Like I said in the Sandy Hook thread, information during tragedies spreads quickly, but not perfectly. There is also footage of a CNN broadcast where the reporter says "we're getting information now that one of the other building, building 7 in the world trade center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing."

The media reported something about a bomb going off on Capitol Hill too. Why don't we hear about that today? Was it because it was a coverup? No, it's because it never happened and the claim was the result of false reporting.

#3: "Fake" CNN interview between Anderson Cooper and some Syrian guy (and another anchor and yet another Syrian guy)

I don't speak Arabic so I have no idea if the English translation placed in the video is correct or not. I'm going to list this one as dubious. Not in the sense that it might be fake, but the claim that it is fake is dubious. There's nothing to go on. I don't follow the instructions of the video uploaded who already thinks it's fake before drawing my conclusion.

#4: Fox using footage of Greek riots in a report about Russian riots.

I'm not sure if this is a deliberate falsification or just shitty reporting. The most likely explanation is that, as we've seen constantly in the past, it's shit reporting. Misplaced footage is nothing new. Fox admitted it was a mistake and has pulled the footage.

#5: Fox using footage of two separate events while claiming them to be of the same event.

There's no doubt Fox fucked up on this one. Deliberate falsification or shitty reporting? Maybe both. Who knows. Does it bolster the case that Jaco's report was false? Not a bit.

#6: FEMA faking a news conference.

No doubt they faked a news conference. The next question is whether they had an agenda to push or if it was done with malintent. Doesn't seem like it. Even the DHS scolded them for it. Does it bolster the case that Jaco's report was false? Not a bit.

So yes, I have watched the videos. Do I think it's a case of them deliberately faking the news? Not really. Making mistakes such as airing the wrong footage? Of course. Even if I wouldn't put it past a company like Fox to hype a rally they support by showing footage of a much larger event, it doesn't support the claim that Jaco faked his report just so they wouldn't have to be in a warzone. Jaco (and loads of other journalists) were very clearly in Saudi Arabia covering the war. Similar backgrounds are seen in broadcasts from other journalists associated with other media companies.

That said, your impoverished analytical skills and confirmation bias have caused you to lose this argument, so I'm ending this. If you come back with some real evidence then I might take up the discussion again. I won't hold my breath.

**juroara** · 06-28-2013 06:29 AM

Woah woah woah woah wait a minute

World Trade Center Building 7 debunked? Its not even logical to debate that the events of WTC 7 makes logical sense, but you think its debunked?

Nothing to see here guys! Just look the other way!!

**Universal Mind** · 06-28-2013 08:15 AM