Fake CNN News Report

[Universal Mind]

Okay, what else has been faked?

[Descensus]

Do you even bother researching this stuff before posting it? They were at the Dhahran International Hotel.

[Universal Mind]

Do you even bother explaining what your point is? Did you even bother watching the video?

[Descensus]

Do you even bother explaining what your point is? Did you even bother watching the video? I did, in fact. Click the links. That's my point. The media had a platform set up at the Dhahran International Hotel (which is in Saudi Arabia).

[Universal Mind]

I did, in fact. Click the links. That's my point. The media had a platform set up at the Dhahran International Hotel (which is in Saudi Arabia). Yes, the studio looks like the Dhahran International Hotel. Does that mean they were there? I don't care if they were on the moon. They were in a studio. Notice how close the palm trees are to the building in the studio and how far away from the building they are at the actual hotel. Wouldn't the roots be messed up by the building if they were as close as they are supposed to be in the studio version? Can palm trees and bushes survive right next to each other? Why did they never move the camera away for any amount of time during all of that to show the frantic traffic, the people walking, or the sky? Why were they being so silly when scud missiles were all over the place? Were they auditioning for a Bruce Willis movie? Why did Jaco refer to his bosses as "down there?" Do they sell hamburgers at that hotel? Why was the camera still moving around while Jaco suddenly put on a gas mask and the other guy put on a helmet? Why don't we hear the camera person putting on one of the two? Does that honestly not look like a studio and a studio performance to you?

[Descensus]

Yes, the studio looks like the Dhahran International Hotel. Does that mean they were there? I don't care if they were on the moon. They were in a studio. No. The media had a platforms set up for reporting the events. They were outside, often with the background showing some part of the hotel (hence the blue walls and foliage). The video creator wonders why everything looks so bright if the report took place at 6AM. I can only imagine he hasn't heard of those things called "lights." I eagerly await your response, no doubt including some quip such as, "YEAH, LIGHTS. STUDIO. STUDIO LIGHTING. THEY WERE IN A STUDIO." My response will be that, no shit they used studio lighting at night time. Would you rather them shoot in the dark, or use poor quality lights? In case you still have any doubts, this recap of the reporting shows the platforms (and the blue domes of what I think are changing tents near the pool at the hotel in the background). And this report including the same reporter in the video you posted, this time showing the city lights in the distance, with the same blue walls directly behind him. Some shots of the pool area. A CBS report with a similar backdrop (~7:40). Either CBS and CNN were colluding or, you know, loads of media organizations were set up at that hotel. Or maybe ABC is colluding with them too, since they had a similar backdrop in one of their reports (~2:00). Notice how close the palm trees are to the building in the studio and how far away from the building they are at the actual hotel. Wouldn't the roots be messed up by the building if they were as close as they are supposed to be in the studio version? Can palm trees and bushes survive right next to each other? What the fuck are you talking about? Would the roots be messed up by the building...have you ever done landscaping? Talk about grasping at straws. Why did they never move the camera away for any amount of time during all of that to show the frantic traffic, the people walking, or the sky? Why were they being so silly when scud missiles were all over the place? Were they auditioning for a Bruce Willis movie? Why did Jaco refer to his bosses as "down there?" Do they sell hamburgers at that hotel? Why was the camera still moving around while Jaco suddenly put on a gas mask and the other guy put on a helmet? Why don't we hear the camera person putting on one of the two? 1) Jaco mentions some restrictions placed upon them. That seems to be supported by the fact that the Saudi military, who were probably using the Dhahran International Airport (right near the hotel), didn't allow them to get certain shots. Plus...the video footage itself has a temporary title. Did you see it at 0:50? "Cleared by Saudi Govt." 2) There were reports and warnings that they may have been/may be used. Hence the sirens and the gas mask and helmet. Jaco says he caught a whiff of something as well as a "thump," which is why he frantically put on the gas mask. He nervously apologizes immediately after because he knows nothing serious happened. You'll notice as well that he keeps smelling his hand and jacket, looking for that smell. If you're talking about the little outtakes reel at the end, it might seem odd given the seriousness and solid composure we see from reporters. But do we ever see much behind-the-scenes footage? No. Jaco himself said in an email that they used humor to "deflect the tension of covering SCUD missile assaults." 3) The camera is obviously on a tripod. 4) Carl Rochelle may not have had a gas mask on him - he only appears to have had a helmet. 5) Do cameramen often wear microphones? No. Does that honestly not look like a studio and a studio performance to you? No, since the evidence shows it wasn't.

[Universal Mind]

No. The media had a platforms set up for reporting the events. They were outside, often with the background showing some part of the hotel (hence the blue walls and foliage). The video creator wonders why everything looks so bright if the report took place at 6AM. I can only imagine he hasn't heard of those things called "lights." I eagerly await your response, no doubt including some quip such as, "YEAH, LIGHTS. STUDIO. STUDIO LIGHTING. THEY WERE IN A STUDIO." My response will be that, no shit they used studio lighting at night time. Would you rather them shoot in the dark, or use poor quality lights? In case you still have any doubts, this recap of the reporting shows the platforms (and the blue domes of what I think are changing tents near the pool at the hotel in the background). And this report including the same reporter in the video you posted, this time showing the city lights in the distance, with the same blue walls directly behind him. Some shots of the pool area. A CBS report with a similar backdrop (~7:40). Either CBS and CNN were colluding or, you know, loads of media organizations were set up at that hotel. Or maybe ABC is colluding with them too, since they had a similar backdrop in one of their reports (~2:00). I said nothing about studio lights. Look at how close the palm trees are to the hotel in the studio. jaco hoax.jpgjaco.jpg Now show me a picture of a palm tree that close to the hotel in a picture where we can see that it's clearly the actual hotel. I don't see it in any such picture you have posted. The location has an indoors look to it, just like day time soap opera sets do, and the backdrop looks phony as a $7 bill. This is just one piece of the puzzle. What the fuck are you talking about? Would the roots be messed up by the building...have you ever done landscaping? Talk about grasping at straws. I guess I'm not enough of a landscaping expert yet to grow a tree that is almost touching a building. Is it a common practice? Attachment 5029 1) Jaco mentions some restrictions placed upon them. That seems to be supported by the fact that the Saudi military, who were probably using the Dhahran International Airport (right near the hotel), didn't allow them to get certain shots. Plus...the video footage itself has a temporary title. Did you see it at 0:50? "Cleared by Saudi Govt." 2) There were reports and warnings that they may have been/may be used. Hence the sirens and the gas mask and helmet. Jaco says he caught a whiff of something as well as a "thump," which is why he frantically put on the gas mask. He nervously apologizes immediately after because he knows nothing serious happened. You'll notice as well that he keeps smelling his hand and jacket, looking for that smell. If you're talking about the little outtakes reel at the end, it might seem odd given the seriousness and solid composure we see from reporters. But do we ever see much behind-the-scenes footage? No. Jaco himself said in an email that they used humor to "deflect the tension of covering SCUD missile assaults." 3) The camera is obviously on a tripod. 4) Carl Rochelle may not have had a gas mask on him - he only appears to have had a helmet. 5) Do cameramen often wear microphones? No. 1. They couldn't film the sky when scud missiles were flying? They couldn't film the streets when sirens were going off? They couldn't show anything except their little bitty area? Other reporters could. What a strange rule. Jaco told a very convenient lie. 2. The gas mask moment is laughable. I know an acting job when I see one, and Jaco and Carl were acting. They sucked at it. It looked like a clip from the Carol Burnett Show, except we know they weren't trying to be funny. However, when they weren't taping for CNN, Jaco was trying to be funny. He and the others were having just a good ole time. Do they seem like people in a war zone? I understand comic relief, but not having a party in a war zone. The idea is absolutely absurd. 3. The camera moves back and forth but keeps them in focus. 4. What was the helmet going to do for him? Did he see Jaco putting on a helmet? I thought Tim Conway was about to walk up and do something absurd. 5. Do cameras often have microphones? Yes. What about getting a hamburger and referring to station people as people "down there?" No, since the evidence shows it wasn't. False.

[Alric]

First off look at the bush next to the palm tree. The palm tree you see is not the tip of a really long palm tree next to the building. It is a two or three foot tall palm tree like the bush that is planted next to it, in the walkway. If you look at the picture blue posted (http://contrailscience.com/skitch/sk...210-094759.jpg) you will see the plants are planted behind the steps going up to the upper ledge, among them are palm trees. Next they are limited to what they were allowed to film, just like they said. They didn't want to push it so followed the rules, others may have tried to push the envelope and take riskier pictures, but that is up to them. Doesn't mean this was fake. One guy was nervous about gas, and the other about stuff falling on his head. They went for what they were most worried about. The helmet was probably the more practical choice but that doesn't mean it is fake. 3. The camera is probably on one of those sliding stands. So the camera man could slide it back and forth, but it remains focused. Plus he probably released the camera when he got his own helmet on, but it remained in focus because the stand kept it in place. 4. Stuff can fall on your head. Especially when you are standing next to a tall building, just common sense. 5. Cheap camera's have microphones. Professional news cameras don't. Have you never seen those huge microphones they attach to long poles before? They hang them up in the air just off screen to pick up sound? Also new anchors usually have their own microphones on their shirts. I highly doubt many professional news teams have a microphone on the camera. As for the comment about a hamburger, he was at a big fancy hotel, seems pretty likely he can get a hamburger there.

[Marvo]

Ham is pork. But pork is forbidden in Saudi Arabia. The plot thickens!

[Universal Mind]

First off look at the bush next to the palm tree. The palm tree you see is not the tip of a really long palm tree next to the building. It is a two or three foot tall palm tree like the bush that is planted next to it, in the walkway. If you look at the picture blue posted (http://contrailscience.com/skitch/sk...210-094759.jpg) you will see the plants are planted behind the steps going up to the upper ledge, among them are palm trees. Look at how far away from the building the palm trees are in the picture you posted. Where are the palm trees that are right next to the building? Can you find a picture of those? Next they are limited to what they were allowed to film, just like they said. They didn't want to push it so followed the rules, others may have tried to push the envelope and take riskier pictures, but that is up to them. Doesn't mean this was fake. That's a really weird supposed rule. This is a CNN news report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q8iAO-egjQ This is from the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIr6lC62ViM This is Gulf War footage of Saudi Arabia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfDUZZ6Yayw 3. The camera is probably on one of those sliding stands. So the camera man could slide it back and forth, but it remains focused. Plus he probably released the camera when he got his own helmet on, but it remained in focus because the stand kept it in place. It moves vertically and horizontally, but it stays focused. 4. Stuff can fall on your head. Especially when you are standing next to a tall building, just common sense. That doesn't explain why Carl put the helmet on when he did. He was standing right by Charles Jaco. Could he not tell that the thing Charles had ready was a gas mask and not a helmet? Where was Carl's gas mask? Where was his helmet when he walked up for the interview? 5. Cheap camera's have microphones. Professional news cameras don't. Have you never seen those huge microphones they attach to long poles before? They hang them up in the air just off screen to pick up sound? Also new anchors usually have their own microphones on their shirts. I highly doubt many professional news teams have a microphone on the camera. Then why can you hear the workers who weren't there to appear on television? As for the comment about a hamburger, he was at a big fancy hotel, seems pretty likely he can get a hamburger there. In Saudi Arabia? Possibly. It's not typical Saudi food. At the beginning of this, Charles Jaco claims that he is reporting "live from Saudi Arabia," but he is shown doing another take. Is that not proof of deception? This video probably makes the deception clearer than the first one I posted.

[Descensus]

I said nothing about studio lights. Look at how close the palm trees are to the hotel in the studio. jaco hoax.jpgjaco.jpg Now show me a picture of a palm tree that close to the hotel in a picture where we can see that it's clearly the actual hotel. I don't see it in any such picture you have posted. The location has an indoors look to it, just like day time soap opera sets do, and the backdrop looks phony as a $7 bill. This is just one piece of the puzzle. I've given you links of other reporters in the same location, nevermind the fact that it's known history that people reported from the DIH during the Gulf War. They're using studio lights at night on platforms set up specifically for the media. Of course it will look like it's indoors. If your arguments continue to be "oh well it looks weird to me based off of what I'd expect, therefore fake," then I'm done here. I can't argue with somebody like that. Well, I can, but there's no point. It's the sign of a mind who wants it to be fake instead of one that does 20 mins of research before jumping to conclusions. I guess I'm not enough of a landscaping expert yet to grow a tree that is almost touching a building. Is it a common practice? They can be placed fairly close to buildings, but what's your point? You're saying it was a hoax because the trees are placed oddly? 1. They couldn't film the sky when scud missiles were flying? They couldn't film the streets when sirens were going off? They couldn't show anything except their little bitty area? Other reporters could. What a strange rule. Jaco told a very convenient lie. The link I gave you regarding the Saudi military not allowing certain shots wasn't from Jaco, for one. It was from Catherine Upin from CBS. The DIH is placed between the runways of the Dhahran International Airport which was being utilized by the Saudi military at the time. Certain shots weren't allowed, hence why Jaco's broadcast included "Cleared by Saudi Govt." 2. The gas mask moment is laughable. I know an acting job when I see one, and Jaco and Carl were acting. They sucked at it. It looked like a clip from the Carol Burnett Show, except we know they weren't trying to be funny. However, when they weren't taping for CNN, Jaco was trying to be funny. He and the others were having just a good ole time. Do they seem like people in a war zone? I understand comic relief, but not having a party in a war zone. The idea is absolutely absurd. Were they under the real threat of having a SKUD missile land in the general vicinity in the outtake reel at the end? No. Were they during the actual broadcast? Yes. Consider soldiers in war zones. When they're not under attack, what do you think they're doing? They're oftenblowing off steam and having some fun. 3. The camera moves back and forth but keeps them in focus. Ok? What's your point? Cameras can move but maintain focus. The quality of your questions is degrading significantly. 4. What was the helmet going to do for him? Did he see Jaco putting on a helmet? I thought Tim Conway was about to walk up and do something absurd. Protect him from the possibility of falling debris? Are you trying to conjure up an argument by analyzing the nervous reactions of television reporters during a live broadcast covering a war? 5. Do cameras often have microphones? Yes. No, you don't get to sidestep my question. Are cameraman (for news reports, specifically) often wearing microphones? You asked why we couldn't hear the cameraman. The answer is because they're not wearing microphones (because they're not the ones doing the talking). Do you know the difference between using external microphones on cameras and using a camera's microphone itself? You hook up either a boom or regular microphone (or one clipped to the shirt) to the camera in such a way that only sound from the microphones will be recorded. What about getting a hamburger and referring to station people as people "down there?" [Your reply to Alric]: In Saudi Arabia? Possibly. It's not typical Saudi food. Do you know what it means to be an international hotel? Are you honestly going to tell me that hamburgers simply don't exist in Saudi Arabia? Especially at an international hotel, with non-Saudi guests? False. Your "facts" are contained in a conspiracy video posted on YouTube. So no, you lose. You don't get to dip some observations about a news broadcast in preexisting paranoia and call them facts.

[Alric]

First off there is 114 McDonalds in Saudi Arabia. You can pretty much get western food any where you want in the world today. Second off as blue pointed out, it is an international hotel. Next, they weren't inside the hotel, they were outside next to the hotel, probably next to the pool area. I am not sure that is where they were exactly but if they were on that upper area, up the steps on the pool picture, they would of been right next to the trees and bushes. In fact the windows there have the blue screens over them. So you have the blue screen, windows, and palm tree in both the photo and the video. They is actually pretty conclusive that they are indeed there. One person was worried about poison gas because it is insanely painful, the other was worried about falling debris. One went for a gas mask, the other a helmet. If you actually in a dangerous spot everyone always protects them self first, then worry about the next guy. In the video, after he has the gas mask on he offers to give another gas mask to the other guy. That is pretty much what you would expect. First you protect your self, then help the other person. Just because there is confusion on the bigger danger, doesn't make it fake.

[Alric]

I highlighted it in red. If they were standing up in that area, against the wall of the building, there is the blue screen covering the windows, which you can even see the windows in the video, and the palm trees all right next to them. skitched-20130210-094759.jpg

[Universal Mind]

Alric, this is for you too. I've given you links of other reporters in the same location, nevermind the fact that it's known history that people reported from the DIH during the Gulf War. They're using studio lights at night on platforms set up specifically for the media. Of course it will look like it's indoors. If your arguments continue to be "oh well it looks weird to me based off of what I'd expect, therefore fake," then I'm done here. I can't argue with somebody like that. Well, I can, but there's no point. It's the sign of a mind who wants it to be fake instead of one that does 20 mins of research before jumping to conclusions. You know my arguments go beyond it looking weird. If you are going to be intellectually dishonest, I'm done with you. I don't want to argue with somebody like that. Did you see the videos I posted of Saudi Arabia news reports, including one from the Gulf War? They didn't look like a sitcom. You can see the sky, people, moving weapons, etc. Well, did you see them? Congratulations to any other reporters who filmed in a studio. They can be placed fairly close to buildings, but what's your point? You're saying it was a hoax because the trees are placed oddly? Yeah, that's my entire argument. Nice work. Look at the pictures of the studio and notice how close the palm trees are to the building. You wouldn't even be able to squeeze behind them. Now show me one picture of those palm trees that was clearly taken outside, meaning you can see the sky. Can you do that? The link I gave you regarding the Saudi military not allowing certain shots wasn't from Jaco, for one. It was from Catherine Upin from CBS. The DIH is placed between the runways of the Dhahran International Airport which was being utilized by the Saudi military at the time. Certain shots weren't allowed, hence why Jaco's broadcast included "Cleared by Saudi Govt." CBS is such an honest news organization too. Did you see the videos I posted of the Saudi Arabian great outdoors? Were they under the real threat of having a SKUD missile land in the general vicinity in the outtake reel at the end? No. Were they during the actual broadcast? Yes. Consider soldiers in war zones. When they're not under attack, what do you think they're doing? They're oftenblowing off steam and having some fun. There was supposed to be combat going on, and that is not so predictable. They would have always been under threat of scud missiles. People do sometimes crack jokes in deadly situations, but they are soldiers, not those circus clowns working for CNN. When soldiers play around in a known battle zone, it's with a certain degree of charge and danger facing excitement. They are still showing some fear. The CNN clowns were laid back as Hell and acting like they were at a party. They were completely relaxed. Ok? What's your point? Cameras can move but maintain focus. The quality of your questions is degrading significantly. I am not sure if the camera man put on a gas mask or a helmet. Whatever it was, the camera kept doing what it was doing. Do you think the camera man put something on his head during the big moment? If not, why not? Protect him from the possibility of falling debris? Are you trying to conjure up an argument by analyzing the nervous reactions of television reporters during a live broadcast covering a war? Falling debris? Jaco put on a fucking gas mask!!! No, you don't get to sidestep my question. Are cameraman (for news reports, specifically) often wearing microphones? You asked why we couldn't hear the cameraman. The answer is because they're not wearing microphones (because they're not the ones doing the talking). Do you know the difference between using external microphones on cameras and using a camera's microphone itself? You hook up either a boom or regular microphone (or one clipped to the shirt) to the camera in such a way that only sound from the microphones will be recorded. Oh, I don't get to sidestep your question? Please Daddy, let me. Okay, as a gift, I will more directly answer the question I already cleared up. No, camera men do not often wear microphones. I know that boom and body microphones are used for news reports, but you can hear other people in the studio pretty well. There is music in the first video I posted, but you can easily hear what's going on in the last video I posted. Make sure you check that one out. It shows Jaco doing at least one more take of a "live" broadcast. How do you explain that? Do you know what it means to be an international hotel? Are you honestly going to tell me that hamburgers simply don't exist in Saudi Arabia? Especially at an international hotel, with non-Saudi guests? It was 1991, and I know that hamburgers were not common in Saudi Arabia then. It was never a major tourist attraction for Americans. It's possible that they served hamburgers right there at that hotel, but it's more weirdness. Your "facts" are contained in a conspiracy video posted on YouTube. So no, you lose. You don't get to dip some observations about a news broadcast in preexisting paranoia and call them facts. That is more dishonesty from you. I started with a video of the actual broadcast and some outtakes. Since that post, I have posted other videos, plus photographs, plus many points. Tell the truth, son.

[Descensus]

You know my arguments go beyond it looking weird. If you are going to be intellectually dishonest, I'm done with you. I don't want to argue with somebody like that. Did you see the videos I posted of Saudi Arabia news reports, including one from the Gulf War? They didn't look like a sitcom. You can see the sky, people, moving weapons, etc. Well, did you see them? Congratulations to any other reporters who filmed in a studio. I'm going to go through the three videos you posted in your response to Alric. #1, the video from CNN. This video doesn't look like it's from the Gulf War. That's because it isn't. In fact the video was uploaded to YouTube in 2011, a good 20 years after the Jaco report we've been discussing. A good 20 years after any restrictions were in place while Saudi Arabia was busy dealing with Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. So this video, in my opinion, is entirely irrelevant. #2, the video from the BBC. Again, not at all from the Gulf War era. It's from a documentary released this year about a reporter's return to the country since he was shot in Riyadh in 2004. Irrelevant. #3, the video of Gulf War footage in Saudi Arabia. The video and video description doesn't tell us what organization obtained the footage of the Battle of Khafji. It also isn't a recording of a live broadcast. Did you misunderstand by what Alric and I meant by restrictions placed upon the media at the DIH? Yeah, that's my entire argument. Nice work. Look at the pictures of the studio and notice how close the palm trees are to the building. You wouldn't even be able to squeeze behind them. Now show me one picture of those palm trees that was clearly taken outside, meaning you can see the sky. Can you do that? They look far enough away to walk behind to me. But to answer your question, yes, I can - post #6 in this thread. CBS is such an honest news organization too. Did you see the videos I posted of the Saudi Arabian great outdoors? Dismissed above. There was supposed to be combat going on, and that is not so predictable. They would have always been under threat of scud missiles. People do sometimes crack jokes in deadly situations, but they are soldiers, not those circus clowns working for CNN. When soldiers play around in a known battle zone, it's with a certain degree of charge and danger facing excitement. They are still showing some fear. The CNN clowns were laid back as Hell and acting like they were at a party. They were completely relaxed. Supposed to be combat going on -- In the immediate area, during the times when they were goofing around? Evidently not. Could have always been under threat -- Could have, but does that stop people from goofing off between broadcasts? Evidently not. On soldiers (and reporters) in warzones -- During their [soldiers'] downtime they can organize football games. If they're not under immediate threat of attack (or know of any), do they act totally serious the whole time? No. They goof off. Did the CNN team do that between broadcasts when they weren't under threat (or knew of any)? Evidently. I am not sure if the camera man put on a gas mask or a helmet. Whatever it was, the camera kept doing what it was doing. Do you think the camera man put something on his head during the big moment? If not, why not? I have no idea dude. The cameraman was, you know, behind the camera. If he kept doing what he was doing, maybe he felt safe enough to forego protecting himself. Maybe he realized nothing was really going on. Maybe he already had a helmet on. Here's the thing: we don't know for sure. How can you possibly deduce that the whole broadcast was faked based on what somebody you can't even see allegedly DIDN'T do? It makes no sense. Edit while posting - I watched the part of the video where Jaco and Carl throw on their gas mask and helmet. If you notice, the camera hardly moves for what I counted as 10 solid seconds of the video. That was enough time for Jaco and Rochelle to get their gas mask and helmet on and stand there for a few moments. Why couldn't that be enough time for a cameraman to do the same? Edit while posting 2 - Go to fucking 2:50 and listen closely to what Jaco is saying to Rochelle. He says at maybe 2:57 that "a lot of people have their respirators on just in case." Falling debris? Jaco put on a fucking gas mask!!! It's clear from the beginning of the video he was worried about poison gas. Maybe the other guy wasn't, but was instead worried about a missile landing nearby. Furthermore, we don't even know where the other guy came from. He just shows up on screen. Maybe he just came from an area that was more dangerous. Jaco states he "just came up" when he shows up on screen. If he was traveling to the hotel from another place, it'd make total sense for him to have a helmet. Again, we don't know. So I ask again, are you trying to argue that it was a hoax based on your amateur analysis of the nervous reactions of television reporters during a live broadcast covering a war? Oh, I don't get to sidestep your question? Please Daddy, let me. Okay, as a gift, I will more directly answer the question I already cleared up. No, camera men do not often wear microphones. I know that boom and body microphones are used for news reports, but you can hear other people in the studio pretty well. There is music in the first video I posted, but you can easily hear what's going on in the last video I posted. Make sure you check that one out. It shows Jaco doing at least one more take of a "live" broadcast. How do you explain that? In the first video, I hear nothing but Jaco, Rochelle, and the anchor speaking, along with air raid sirens and maybe somebody speaking over a loudspeaker at some point near the beginning of the clip. I hear no music except for when it starts at 3:20. Onto the second video. Yes, I hear people in the background, so I'll amend my argument to say that you can hear people behind the scenes if they're talking. Does this mean your observation that we couldn't hear the cameraman talk or shuffle around for a mask or helmet because it was faked and he was in no real danger is a proper one? No. I imagine it's hard to hear much of anything except for what's closest to the microphone (in this case, Jaco and Rochelle) when there are air raid sirens going off. To your obnoxious blue text: how are you sure they were multiple takes of a live broadcast and not separate live broadcasts taken at different times? Are you relying on the quick titles placed in the video defining the cuts as "takes?" Who put those in the video, and how can you be sure it wasn't the person who uploaded the video, who, judging by the video title, had preconceived notions of the quality of Jaco's broadcasts? That's how I explain it. It was 1991, and I know that hamburgers were not common in Saudi Arabia then. It was never a major tourist attraction for Americans. It's possible that they served hamburgers right there at that hotel, but it's more weirdness. I don't know if they were common or uncommon either, but it's an international hotel. The Middle East has always been a popular news subject - is it unreasonable to assume that the hotel, or surrounding restaurants would offer hamburgers to people covering the major events in the Middle East? That hotel may have been accustomed to a more Western audience. That is more dishonesty from you. I started with a video of the actual broadcast and some outtakes. Since that post, I have posted other videos, plus photographs, plus many points. Tell the truth, son. Two of your videos included the identical footage, except one was longer. The other two had nothing to do with the topic at hand, as I explained in the beginning of this post. You posted ONE photograph. Your points are dripping with confirmation bias.

[juroara]

that was a really good movie, please entertain me some more

[Universal Mind]

I'm going to go through the three videos you posted in your response to Alric. #1, the video from CNN. This video doesn't look like it's from the Gulf War. That's because it isn't. In fact the video was uploaded to YouTube in 2011, a good 20 years after the Jaco report we've been discussing. A good 20 years after any restrictions were in place while Saudi Arabia was busy dealing with Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. So this video, in my opinion, is entirely irrelevant. #2, the video from the BBC. Again, not at all from the Gulf War era. It's from a documentary released this year about a reporter's return to the country since he was shot in Riyadh in 2004. Irrelevant. #3, the video of Gulf War footage in Saudi Arabia. The video and video description doesn't tell us what organization obtained the footage of the Battle of Khafji. It also isn't a recording of a live broadcast. Did you misunderstand by what Alric and I meant by restrictions placed upon the media at the DIH? I know that. I was illustrating the absurdity of the rule claim. Either it was not a rule or the networks got the Saudis to make the rule. They're in a war zone but are limited to where they can't film missiles or even the sky? But it wasn't a rule in other Saudi battle situations? The CNN clowns were not live. I showed you a second take of that Jaco segment. They look far enough away to walk behind to me. But to answer your question, yes, I can - post #6 in this thread. I still don't see it. I am talking about exactly this: Attachment 5048 Get a very close look at that part of the hotel. Can you show me specifically that in a photograph in which the sky, the ground, or another building is showing? Shorter tree very close to hotel, right next to a bush. Supposed to be combat going on -- In the immediate area, during the times when they were goofing around? Evidently not. Could have always been under threat -- Could have, but does that stop people from goofing off between broadcasts? Evidently not. On soldiers (and reporters) in warzones -- During their [soldiers'] downtime they can organize football games. If they're not under immediate threat of attack (or know of any), do they act totally serious the whole time? No. They goof off. Did the CNN team do that between broadcasts when they weren't under threat (or knew of any)? Evidently. I explained that. Soldiers have an aggressive and wired up way of giving themselves entertainment in the face of pending battle. It's not the same kind of laid back silliness Jaco and the gang were into. They acted like they were backstage after a concert. They were in a city where they knew there would be combat, right by the airport... supposedly. But evidently not really. I have no idea dude. The cameraman was, you know, behind the camera. If he kept doing what he was doing, maybe he felt safe enough to forego protecting himself. Maybe he realized nothing was really going on. Maybe he already had a helmet on. Here's the thing: we don't know for sure. How can you possibly deduce that the whole broadcast was faked based on what somebody you can't even see allegedly DIDN'T do? It makes no sense. Edit while posting - I watched the part of the video where Jaco and Carl throw on their gas mask and helmet. If you notice, the camera hardly moves for what I counted as 10 solid seconds of the video. That was enough time for Jaco and Rochelle to get their gas mask and helmet on and stand there for a few moments. Why couldn't that be enough time for a cameraman to do the same? Edit while posting 2 - Go to fucking 2:50 and listen closely to what Jaco is saying to Rochelle. He says at maybe 2:57 that "a lot of people have their respirators on just in case." They show the camera man. He's a smiling young guy playing around with Jaco. He's not wearing a helmet or a gas mask when they show him. The camera moves some in that ten seconds. It doesn't have to move much, but it moves. You can hear the two clowns putting on their completely different types of gear (what a great action drama idea!), but you can't distinctly hear the camera man putting on anything although you can later hear the good time studio crew making noises without boom or body microphones. Obviously the camera guy wasn't putting anything on (what would his protection of choice be, knight armor?) because the camera kept moving. This is professional fucking wrestling. It's clear from the beginning of the video he was worried about poison gas. Maybe the other guy wasn't, but was instead worried about a missile landing nearby. Furthermore, we don't even know where the other guy came from. He just shows up on screen. Maybe he just came from an area that was more dangerous. Jaco states he "just came up" when he shows up on screen. If he was traveling to the hotel from another place, it'd make total sense for him to have a helmet. Again, we don't know. So I ask again, are you trying to argue that it was a hoax based on your amateur analysis of the nervous reactions of television reporters during a live broadcast covering a war? Okay, so Charles Jaco is worried about poison gas but not shrapnel, and Carl is worried about shrapnel but not poison gas, and the rest of the studio is worried about nothing? And when Jaco put his gas mask on, that told Carl it was helmet time? But the camera man just kept moving the camera while they took their respective forms of safety measures? I told you, it's just one more piece of the puzzle. Look at the big picture. Put it ALL together at once in your mind. It's absurd. Onto the second video. Yes, I hear people in the background, so I'll amend my argument to say that you can hear people behind the scenes if they're talking. Does this mean your observation that we couldn't hear the cameraman talk or shuffle around for a mask or helmet because it was faked and he was in no real danger is a proper one? No. I imagine it's hard to hear much of anything except for what's closest to the microphone (in this case, Jaco and Rochelle) when there are air raid sirens going off. You would be able to hear something. He was right by them. Jaco put on a gas mask, and Carl put on a helmet. Doesn't that mean it was time for the camera man to put on a life jacket or something? Maybe he was already wearing floaties. To your obnoxious blue text: how are you sure they were multiple takes of a live broadcast and not separate live broadcasts taken at different times? Are you relying on the quick titles placed in the video defining the cuts as "takes?" Who put those in the video, and how can you be sure it wasn't the person who uploaded the video, who, judging by the video title, had preconceived notions of the quality of Jaco's broadcasts? That's how I explain it. Same outfit, same spot, same story. So I guess he wasn't really live. I don't know if they were common or uncommon either, but it's an international hotel. The Middle East has always been a popular news subject - is it unreasonable to assume that the hotel, or surrounding restaurants would offer hamburgers to people covering the major events in the Middle East? That hotel may have been accustomed to a more Western audience. It's possible. This isn't exactly a smoking gun issue. Two of your videos included the identical footage, except one was longer. The other two had nothing to do with the topic at hand, as I explained in the beginning of this post. You posted ONE photograph. Your points are dripping with confirmation bias. The second video made the studio party audible and showed the second take of the same story. The Saudi Arabia videos show that people have been able to film the sky and the ground there even when there was battle going on. I posted two pictures. Even though you don't agree with my points, I have made them. that was a really good movie, please entertain me some more Oh, there's lots of this stuff on YouTube. I'll give you a good one concerning another issue I've gotten into lately-- Sandy Hook. First, this is what a green screen does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key Using a green screen can cause parts of objects to disappear from view when they are in certain positions. Now check out this video at 2:09 and 4:39. Here's an old classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI A few more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOzRwwtk7q8 (CNN again-- Apparently this crew wasn't allowed to film weapons either. At least they could film the ground and the sky.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6ONQO0FDQQ (Hey, look what network this is!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FwvQYLKK98 (CNN and Fox using fake footage. CNN admits it.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1NWYV1i_E (More fake footage from Fox, and Hannity admits it.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiq-o8fMHn0 (FEMA faked a news conference.)

[Alric]

I don't know why you ignored the image that shows the exact location the video was supposed to have been shot in, which is nearly identical to the background in the video. Which basically proves that they were there.

[Universal Mind]

I don't know why you ignored the image that shows the exact location the video was supposed to have been shot in, which is nearly identical to the background in the video. Which basically proves that they were there. I didn't ignore it. I told you that my responses to BLUELINE were for you too. Did you read what I wrote? The picture you posted does not show the scene of the filming. The trees are much taller and farther away from the building. Where are the bushes? The studio set was cheap imitation of the hotel. Did you watch the other CNN fake news videos I posted? They admit to using false footage in one of them. There's a clue.

[Alric]

No they are not, they are right up against the building. I am not going to measure the tree to see if they are the exactly the same size or not, since I don't know the exact time of both photos, so it could change in that time, but it looks pretty much identical.

[Universal Mind]

Do you think Charles Jaco's head could be above any of the leaves of any of those trees? Where are the bushes? You can drive an 18 wheeler between the building and the closest palm tree. Get another look at the palm trees in the studio. Look at how close they are to the building. Like I said, the studio set is a cheap imitation of the hotel. Did you watch any of the other fake CNN news I posted? Make sure you see the one where the reporter admits that they used false footage in a segment. They showed footage of a riot and said it was footage of a protest that took place at a different time. I know that's not 100% proof, but it says something about how CNN operates.

[Alric]

Look at the picture I posted with the red box. The tree on the far left looks to be about a foot from the wall of the building, which is exactly where the tree is at in the video you posted. Seeing as how that video is from like 20 years ago and I don't know when that other photo is from, it is entirely possible the palm tree grew a little in the time between. If you want to say the major news networks are scumbags, I would agree with you. I know they lie about a lot of stuff. However, in this case all the evidence seems to suggest they were really there, right where they said they were.

[Universal Mind]

That closest palm tree is at least 10 feet away from the building. CNN obviously has a history of faking their news.

[Descensus]

I know that. I was illustrating the absurdity of the rule claim. Either it was not a rule or the networks got the Saudis to make the rule. They're in a war zone but are limited to where they can't film missiles or even the sky? But it wasn't a rule in other Saudi battle situations? The CNN clowns were not live. I showed you a second take of that Jaco segment. I've dispelled that second take nonsense, so you can kindly drop it. That there were restrictions placed on reporters during the Gulf War but not during other conflicts is not surprising nor is it scandalous, nor is it anything new, nor is it indicative of falsified journalism. Media coverage of the war operated under a pool system which was criticized as being too restrictive. The pools of reporters were constantly under the watch of military supervisors who would restrict and censor certain things. Now, most of the coverage came out of Saudi Arabia. Based on how the US military would restrict journalists from its own country, it is both likely and reasonable that Saudi Arabia would do the same. Only a small amount of journalists were allowed broader access to military operations and events, and even those were restricted. I still don't see it. I am talking about exactly this: Attachment 5048 Get a very close look at that part of the hotel. Can you show me specifically that in a photograph in which the sky, the ground, or another building is showing? Shorter tree very close to hotel, right next to a bush. Your attachment doesn't work. I explained that. Soldiers have an aggressive and wired up way of giving themselves entertainment in the face of pending battle. It's not the same kind of laid back silliness Jaco and the gang were into. They acted like they were backstage after a concert. They were in a city where they knew there would be combat, right by the airport... supposedly. But evidently not really. The DIH is placed between the runways of the Dhahran International Airport, so there is no "supposedly." The facts I've provided prove they were there. I'm dismissing your woefully amateur analysis of their off-the-record behavior as a non-argument, because that's what it is. It's soaked with paranoia and confirmation bias instead of evidence. You're not being logical in any sense of the term. They show the camera man. He's a smiling young guy playing around with Jaco. He's not wearing a helmet or a gas mask when they show him. The camera moves some in that ten seconds. It doesn't have to move much, but it moves. You can hear the two clowns putting on their completely different types of gear (what a great action drama idea!), but you can't distinctly hear the camera man putting on anything although you can later hear the good time studio crew making noises without boom or body microphones. Obviously the camera guy wasn't putting anything on (what would his protection of choice be, knight armor?) because the camera kept moving. This is professional fucking wrestling. Are you having trouble understanding the difference between the report done when not under immediate threat of an attack (i.e. when Jaco is wearing his yellow shirt and tan jacket) and the report done when they were under threat of an attack (i.e. when Jaco was wearing his black jacket)? Let me spell this out very clearly so it doesn't get lost and misinterpreted, which seems to be a common theme in your replies. During the report where he's wearing the black jacket (has the gas mask, speaking over air raid sirens, etc.), the cameraman is never shown. He is shown during the outtake reel (which is during a completely different time than the one where Jaco had a gas mask), yes, but the whole situation is calmer and there is not express threat of an attack. Why would he have a gas mask on in that setting? He wouldn't. Enough comparing apples to oranges. The camera does not move much in the 10 second between Jaco throwing on his gas mask and realizing that nothing bad has happened. I repeat myself, as you glossed over the statement and question: That was enough time for Jaco and Rochelle to get their gas mask and helmet on and stand there for a few moments. Why couldn't that be enough time for a cameraman to do the same? With most of the sound coming through Jaco's microphone (him speaking, the air raid sirens, the shuffling and subsequent DROPPING OF THE MIC when he put his gas mask on), you would not expect to hear someone behind the scenes putting on their gas mask either. Don't ignore the timestamp I gave you. Go to 2:50 and listen closely to what Jaco is saying to Rochelle. He says at maybe 2:57 that "a lot of people have their respirators on just in case." My argument, so you can follow it and give a proper reply: Either the cameraman preapplied his protection, as Jaco says at around 2:57, or he put it on just as quickly as Jaco did, which explains the lack of camera movement within that 10 second span. Okay, so Charles Jaco is worried about poison gas but not shrapnel, and Carl is worried about shrapnel but not poison gas, and the rest of the studio is worried about nothing? And when Jaco put his gas mask on, that told Carl it was helmet time? But the camera man just kept moving the camera while they took their respective forms of safety measures? Go to 2:50 and listen closely to what Jaco is saying to Rochelle. He says at maybe 2:57 that "a lot of people have their respirators on just in case." The crew was not "worried about nothing." Don't ignore what I said in my reply: Jaco knew there may have been a threat of gas, hence the gas mask. We don't even know where the other guy came from. He just shows up on screen. Maybe he just came from an area that was more dangerous. Jaco states he "just came up" when he shows up on screen. If he was traveling to the hotel from another place, it'd make total sense for him to have a helmet. He's a member of the press, and members of the press were often accompanied by military escort (see the links I've attached above). Are you now finished with your piss-poor analysis? Because I'm not enjoying repeating myself anymore. I told you, it's just one more piece of the puzzle. Look at the big picture. Put it ALL together at once in your mind. It's absurd. I am, and the evidence isn't showing me any absurdities except for your blatant disregard for them in favor of paranoia. You would be able to hear something. He was right by them. Jaco put on a gas mask, and Carl put on a helmet. Doesn't that mean it was time for the camera man to put on a life jacket or something? Maybe he was already wearing floaties. Cute flippancy, but I've dispelled this nonsense above and in my last reply. Same outfit, same spot, same story. So I guess he wasn't really live. Do you expect him to change shirts for every separate broadcast in a single day? Do reporters have a tendency to repeat their reports during certain hours of the day for those who missed earlier reports? Don't ignore the rest of my reply, as you've done with so many others. How are you sure they were multiple takes of a live broadcast and not separate live broadcasts taken at different times? Are you relying on the quick titles placed in the video defining the cuts as "takes?" Who put those in the video, and how can you be sure it wasn't the person who uploaded the video, who, judging by the video title, had preconceived notions of the quality of Jaco's broadcasts? It's possible. This isn't exactly a smoking gun issue. Then drop it, since you have no valid information to run on except that native Saudi's probably didn't eat hamburgers in the early 90s, which is not at all relevant to whether an international hotel would cater to the needs of international (often Western) journalists. The second video made the studio party audible and showed the second take of the same story. The Saudi Arabia videos show that people have been able to film the sky and the ground there even when there was battle going on. I posted two pictures. Even though you don't agree with my points, I have made them. Dispelled earlier in this post. I don't want to have to repeat the same topic twice in one post.

[Universal Mind]

I've dispelled that second take nonsense, so you can kindly drop it. That there were restrictions placed on reporters during the Gulf War but not during other conflicts is not surprising nor is it scandalous, nor is it anything new, nor is it indicative of falsified journalism. Media coverage of the war operated under a pool system which was criticized as being too restrictive. The pools of reporters were constantly under the watch of military supervisors who would restrict and censor certain things. Now, most of the coverage came out of Saudi Arabia. Based on how the US military would restrict journalists from its own country, it is both likely and reasonable that Saudi Arabia would do the same. Only a small amount of journalists were allowed broader access to military operations and events, and even those were restricted. 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. The DIH is placed between the runways of the Dhahran International Airport, so there is no "supposedly." The facts I've provided prove they were there. I'm dismissing your woefully amateur analysis of their off-the-record behavior as a non-argument, because that's what it is. It's soaked with paranoia and confirmation bias instead of evidence. You're not being logical in any sense of the term. It's soaked with war zone non-soldier party guys having just a good ole time. Are you having trouble understanding the difference between the report done when not under immediate threat of an attack (i.e. when Jaco is wearing his yellow shirt and tan jacket) and the report done when they were under threat of an attack (i.e. when Jaco was wearing his black jacket)? Let me spell this out very clearly so it doesn't get lost and misinterpreted, which seems to be a common theme in your replies. During the report where he's wearing the black jacket (has the gas mask, speaking over air raid sirens, etc.), the cameraman is never shown. He is shown during the outtake reel (which is during a completely different time than the one where Jaco had a gas mask), yes, but the whole situation is calmer and there is not express threat of an attack. Why would he have a gas mask on in that setting? He wouldn't. Enough comparing apples to oranges. 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. The camera does not move much in the 10 second between Jaco throwing on his gas mask and realizing that nothing bad has happened. I repeat myself, as you glossed over the statement and question: That was enough time for Jaco and Rochelle to get their gas mask and helmet on and stand there for a few moments. Why couldn't that be enough time for a cameraman to do the same? With most of the sound coming through Jaco's microphone (him speaking, the air raid sirens, the shuffling and subsequent DROPPING OF THE MIC when he put his gas mask on), you would not expect to hear someone behind the scenes putting on their gas mask either. 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. Go to 2:50 and listen closely to what Jaco is saying to Rochelle. He says at maybe 2:57 that "a lot of people have their respirators on just in case." The crew was not "worried about nothing." Don't ignore what I said in my reply: Jaco knew there may have been a threat of gas, hence the gas mask. We don't even know where the other guy came from. He just shows up on screen. Maybe he just came from an area that was more dangerous. Jaco states he "just came up" when he shows up on screen. If he was traveling to the hotel from another place, it'd make total sense for him to have a helmet. He's a member of the press, and members of the press were often accompanied by military escort (see the links I've attached above). Oh, Jaco said that. I believe him because he's a trustworthy guy who works for a trustworthy network. 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 now finished with your piss-poor analysis? Because I'm not enjoying repeating myself anymore. I am, and the evidence isn't showing me any absurdities except for your blatant disregard for them in favor of paranoia. Cute flippancy, but I've dispelled this nonsense above and in my last reply. Oh, okay. That's convincing. Do you expect him to change shirts for every separate broadcast in a single day? Do reporters have a tendency to repeat their reports during certain hours of the day for those who missed earlier reports? Don't ignore the rest of my reply, as you've done with so many others. How are you sure they were multiple takes of a live broadcast and not separate live broadcasts taken at different times? Are you relying on the quick titles placed in the video defining the cuts as "takes?" Who put those in the video, and how can you be sure it wasn't the person who uploaded the video, who, judging by the video title, had preconceived notions of the quality of Jaco's broadcasts? 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. Then drop it, since you have no valid information to run on except that native Saudi's probably didn't eat hamburgers in the early 90s, which is not at all relevant to whether an international hotel would cater to the needs of international (often Western) journalists. It's just another brick in the wall of the Twilight Zone. Dispelled earlier in this post. I don't want to have to repeat the same topic twice in one post. You made an argument, but you didn't dispell anything. I explained it some more above. 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?