Canadian_watcher wrote: no, that's about it. thank you.
Okay. Good. Because there is some subjectivity involved. I mean, don't take this the wrong way. But it's worth bearing in mind that you asked the same person to whom you addressed that "Last one ever, Miss Thing" post. Which, as you know, I don't like, but also don't receive as abusive, although there are other, less flagrantly hostile things that I do. Water under the bridge, though. It's not always cut-and-dried, is my point.
yeah but we've also done some private sister stuff since then so, you know, I thought it was safe.
nighty night, Miss Thing.
ps I'm glad you didn't see the original miss thing thing as abusive. not my intention.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
Canadian_watcher wrote:I'm probably not off base to assume that you haven't been a victim in a terrorist attack, right? neither have I. But I have been a victim of other sorts of attacks, and I've had to defend my mere existence in more than one of those circumstances. And I'm talking physical assaults here, not internet bullshit in case you're thinking that that 's what I'm alluding to.
It isn't pleasant, but you know what I learned? I can prove things by being open and honest. It didn't hurt to prove the things. What hurt was when I'd offer myself up and people would find ways around it. That did hurt. Those people were just jerks.
People of all political stripes love to bash 'entitlement' huh? Like I'm not entitled to the truth or something.
You definitely need to get some sleep. You are not entitled to demand that victims of the Boston Bombing prove to you their very existence. Sorry. No.
Canadian_watcher wrote:Part of empathy is weighing the benefit versus the cost to people. I think that if this is a faked event - even partly - that it is a greater service to prove that than it is to erroneously 'protect' victims who won't even know that I'm questioning them, and if they do who could easily, neatly and completely defend themselves and get a full and complete apology from me and likely anyone else interested in this topic.
They know. Of fucking course they know. What, do you think the victims here don't have internet access? Christ.
well then they ought to pipe up. I would.
I'd kill myself before I did that. And I'm not speaking figuratively, either.
That's also not a cut-and-dried thing. "What would I do in that situation?" is a good starting point. But it's only a starting point.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
Canadian_watcher wrote:I'm probably not off base to assume that you haven't been a victim in a terrorist attack, right? neither have I. But I have been a victim of other sorts of attacks, and I've had to defend my mere existence in more than one of those circumstances. And I'm talking physical assaults here, not internet bullshit in case you're thinking that that 's what I'm alluding to.
It isn't pleasant, but you know what I learned? I can prove things by being open and honest. It didn't hurt to prove the things. What hurt was when I'd offer myself up and people would find ways around it. That did hurt. Those people were just jerks.
People of all political stripes love to bash 'entitlement' huh? Like I'm not entitled to the truth or something.
You definitely need to get some sleep. You are not entitled to demand that victims of the Boston Bombing prove to you their very existence. Sorry. No.
Agree. You're not entitled to other people's personal truths, and can't unilaterally decide what will or won't hurt them, or how they should respond to attacks, or any of that stuff. That's not do-unto-others, unless you want strangers who have never met and know nothing about you to decide those things for you, according to their standards. Without giving you any choice. Whenever they feel like it might pay off. Because they don't know that it won't.
At a minimum, I'd say that to clear that bar, you'd need a complete coherent hypothetical scenario that you've made an effort to ensure is viable -- ie, that it would have been feasible for crisis actors to be introduced to the scene with props, make-up and effects in place using the real time and space available, etc. And....Well. Some other stuff. The complete, coherent, feasible hypothesis would be a start though. I mean, it's necessary anyway. Because if it's not feasible, you're just wasting your time.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
barracuda wrote:Otherwise, it's just total crazytalk.
Evidence shmevidence. I don't need no steenking evidence. I can just pretend you didn't ask and then complain that you dodge my questions. So much easier.
Btw, where is Max these days? I didn't know how good we had it back then, but now I miss him.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Its power is lessened tremendously by the sequels however.
As a stand alone movie, Dirty Harry has a great ending, maybe the greatest of all Crime films.
When Harry takes off his badge, throws it away and walks off into the distance, the message is clear: Harry had to go outside the Law to get Scorpio, and now that Harry has gone outside the Law he can't be a cop anymore.
Thus we come full circle from the movie's opening, a montage of names of officers sacrificed in the line of duty. Harry too has been sacrificed and the audience is left to wonder, "if all the good cops are pushed out like Harry is, then only bad cops will be left".
FourthBase wrote:it would still be useful, just in case, to have at least one thread where this crisis actor thing can be discussed rationally, with no emotional lashing out from any side of the discussion. A dialectic of facts and evidence. Rather than a dialectic of machismo and umbrage. Can we not drive this thread into the Fire Pit? Can we also discuss this improbable but still technically possible scenario? If there is any legitimate reason to suspect crisis-acting, let that be explored, rationally. If it turns out there is none, let it be contradicted, rationally.
First of all, I very rationally and somewhat dispassionately dissected McGowan's assertions down on page six, and they turned out to be nothing but bullshit. Those persons who favor the crisis actor theory, Canadian Watcher, conniption, et al, did what they always do, they ignored the gaping holes and complete misrepresentations of fact I pointed out and moved on to some new, equally ridiculous false data set to ponder, pretending nothing had been said about their hero's malarky. So it can go on like this indefinitely.
Secondly, if you wanna explore the idea, what is your methodology for doing so? Because looking cockeyed at a blurry snapshot you found on the interwebs and repeating the same fuzzy thinking that was present when the image was first presented as "evidence of a conspiracy" is fucking nonsense. Questions and statements such as:
Canadian_watcher wrote:And how is C Williams so clean in the photo? and why does the black girl look to be in pretty much the exact same state as she was in the earlier photos, but Williams is like, chillin'?
and this:
dbcooper41 wrote:i gotta ask, what is the guy in the grey hoodie doing to jeff b's leg in the attached pic? it looks to me like he's rolling on, or perhaps rolling off, a stocking.
and this:
dbcooper41 wrote:what's up with the guy running away with his pants torn to shreds and no apparent injury, as well as the guy with his pants torn away who seems to hurl himself on the ground.
...and so on, are nothing. No methodology, no attempt to look beyond the infinitesimal fraction of a second of the shutter click, complete thought-stopping wastes of time.
FourthBase wrote:Myself, a minuscule fraction of my curiosity is now piqued by the art direction career of Christian Williams.
Why? Are art directors now suspicious? When did art direction become a suspicious activity?
FourthBase wrote:Also, yeah, he does kind of seem a little nonchalant. I'm aware that all sorts of people react to trauma in all sorts of ways. I'm also a person who, learning from the pictures of Umbrella Man and Dark-Complected Man just...you know, chilling, on the sidewalk...tends to look at nonchalance with a presumptively suspicious eye. But, maybe there's a totally explicable reason.
And explicable reason for what? For the fact that in a moment captured at one one-hundreth of a second his posture seems to remind you of something? Do you listen to recordings of people speaking or singing backwards? Because that's the territory we're entering now.
Without a methodology for analyzing this shit, you're better off reading entrails.
Art direction as a career for the guy who happens to be suspected by the nearly-psychotic of helping to arrange a scene of Hollywood blood and prop limbs, well...look, I'm aware of how nearly-psychotic that speculation is...maybe even not so nearly...but...I learned the hard way that sometimes the seemingly-psychotic have a point...rarely, but occasionally. Again, just a fraction of my curiosity, a tiny fraction.
Yes, I know how cherry-picking a single frame or two out of context could make a totally-normal behavior look less normal. Then again, the same could be said of those two dudes just chilling at Dealey Plaza, captured in a single frame or two. So, just trying to be excessively inquisitive. Trying to be rational. As are you, of course.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight, that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
Go to 2:33 in the video below to see a less cropped version of the exact same moment. The object is a large red piece of fabric which is pulled off screen to the right by someone out of the frame. No video fakery.
brainpanhandler wrote:Btw, where is Max these days? I didn't know how good we had it back then, but now I miss him.
The dude turned out to be an oasis of sanity. He sure could whomp up a diagram, that fella.
FourthBase wrote:Yes, I know how cherry-picking a single frame or two out of context could make a totally-normal behavior look less normal. Then again, the same could be said of those two dudes just chilling at Dealey Plaza, captured in a single frame or two.
Yep, and fifty years later there are still folks staring cockeyed at those two dudes in the pictures, utterly convinced that the assassination was accessorized by shooting a self-melting paralyzation pellet from the tip of an umbrella while people walk blithely past statues to Allen Dulles, GHW Bush owns half of Paraguay, and every one of the conspirators has gotten away scot free.
Go to 2:33 in the video below to see a less cropped version of the exact same moment. The object is a large red piece of fabric which is pulled off screen to the right by someone out of the frame. No video fakery.
looks like you're right . thanks.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
Just putting this out there. It's possible that in the FEMA world, events where there are lots of people expected are always called 'mass casualty events' or something. I briefly looked yesterday to find some back up for that theory but couldn't.
There also isn't very much that is overtly questionable in the powerpoint that I've linked to below.
However, the presentation, written in 2008 by Richard Serino uses the Boston Marathon as it's example and includes maps of the route, etc, so it's a little more than a placeholder event might be, the plans are specific to that event. Serino is now a muckety-muck at FEMA, a promotion he earned shortly after putting together the package I've linked to. here's a bit about him from the FEMA web site:
Mr. Serino brings 35 years of state and local emergency management and emergency medical services experience to his position at FEMA. Prior to his appointment as Deputy Administrator, he served as Chief of Boston EMS and Assistant Director of the Boston Public Health Commission. In that role, he bolstered the city's response plans for major emergencies, including chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. He also led citywide planning for H1N1 influenza. Mr. Serino has served as an Incident Commander for over 35 mass casualty incidents and for all of Boston's major planned events, including the Boston Marathon, Boston's Fourth of July celebration, First Night, and the 2004 Democratic National Convention, a National Special Security Event.
