Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
I responded to that. It is as if you don't even read my posts. Even if the ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN were not behind the very convenient rule, CNN still took advantage of it.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
Key words: "may have"
You did prove that Jaco went to an outdoor place with a similar set up at least one time, and it might have been the hotel. However, if you look really hard at the exact look of the palm trees and the bushes, they do not match what was in the broadcast studio.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
Yeah, that's how regular folks act when they are in war zones and a scud missile attack could happen at any moment. They acted like high school boys at lunch time.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
Stop acting like any one of my arguments is meant to be the entire argument. You keep doing that. You have a lot of trouble with the concept of a big picture. Put it all together in your head at once. I know you can if you really try.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
What should I call this? Argument from paranoia? I can tell you're out of arguments so we can drop this subtopic too.
Paranoia? More like the entirety of everything I have said in this thread so far. You should try thinking about it for a moment.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
No, I think he should have put on his helmet so he wouldn't breathe in the poison gas Charles discovered. It's the same reason the camera man put on floaties.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
I discussed that. There was very little variety. Networks tend to use a good bit of variety in their repeats.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
I didn't mention a take 3. Maybe there was one. I don't see how what you said casts doubt on what I said about sending the footage to Atlanta, or somebody else in Atlanta, for a fake live broadcast.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
I responded to that. It is as if you don't even read my posts. Even if the ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN were not behind the very convenient rule, CNN still took advantage of it.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
Key words: "may have"
You did prove that Jaco went to an outdoor place with a similar set up at least one time, and it might have been the hotel. However, if you look really hard at the exact look of the palm trees and the bushes, they do not match what was in the broadcast studio.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
Yeah, that's how regular folks act when they are in war zones and a scud missile attack could happen at any moment. They acted like high school boys at lunch time.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
Stop acting like any one of my arguments is meant to be the entire argument. You keep doing that. You have a lot of trouble with the concept of a big picture. Put it all together in your head at once. I know you can if you really try.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
What should I call this? Argument from paranoia? I can tell you're out of arguments so we can drop this subtopic too.
Paranoia? More like the entirety of everything I have said in this thread so far. You should try thinking about it for a moment.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
No, I think he should have put on his helmet so he wouldn't breathe in the poison gas Charles discovered. It's the same reason the camera man put on floaties.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
I discussed that. There was no variety except in the wording. Networks tend to use a lot of variety in their repeats.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
I didn't mention a take 3. Maybe there was one. I don't see how what you said casts doubt on what I said about sending the footage to Atlanta, or somebody else in Atlanta, for a fake live broadcast.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
For #1, that footage is all over YouTube. For the others, you admit that FEMA was flat out deceptive and claim that the rest of the ones where you can clearly see false reporting were just matters of shitty reporting. That strangely shitty reporting element seems to be coming up a lot in our discussions about news broadcasts. If A news company reported that all Americans must turn their guns into their local police station immediately or else be shot, and it turned out that the story was supposed to be that a police officer was shot by a gun, you would call it shitty reporting. How do these world class reporters keep messing up such simple information, the reporting of which is so immensely important? What does it say about Jaco? It says that since he is a reporter who works for the mainstream media, specifically CNN, a company that is not very trustworthy, the idea that he put on a deceptive series of reports during the Gulf War is not so far fetched.
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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.
When stumped, go ad hominem.
|
|
Bookmarks