How Absurd: 8 Crazy Reactions, Ridiculous Conclusions, and

[justdrew]

I think the best bet would be to investigate the crap out of the people pushing the hoax angle. Could bring some interesting results.

but that's not something I really have time/inclination/skill to do.

[FourthBase]

I think the best bet would be to investigate the crap out of the people pushing the hoax angle. Could bring some interesting results.

but that's not something I really have time/inclination/skill to do.

That also sounds like a good idea. May that also be done rationally.

[Canadian_watcher]

As much as I might personally loathe a person who came to Boston and, with utter certainty and with contempt for the identified victims, proclaimed the bombing a hoax...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. Myself, a minuscule fraction of my curiosity is now piqued by the art direction career of Christian Williams. 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.

wow.
thank you.
I really, really thank you.

[Canadian_watcher]

I think the best bet would be to investigate the crap out of the people pushing the hoax angle. Could bring some interesting results.

but that's not something I really have time/inclination/skill to do.

That also sounds like a good idea. May that also be done rationally.

Can I just point out that purely discrediting the messenger of any information is merely a tactic and not actually a source or conduit to truth? I mean, okay, discredit their opinions all you want (and that applies to anyone, really, not just people who you can link to bullshit), but to impeach primary evidence due to the associations/background of anyone who brings forward that evidence is pure chicanery and I hope we're above that.

please let us be above that.

[Canadian_watcher]

what is more plausible though, is that the government hires fake journalists to steer the narrative of the questioning of the official account. and also to discredit any such questioning by associating it with absurdly unlikely theories.

BUT HOW WOULD WE KNOW, THOUGH? It's not like there would be enough evidence to prove it, let alone write whole books on the subject. I'm just asking questions.

so the link to Bernstein's piece about the use of journalists to cover up whatever the CIA wanted covered up is meant to imply what, exactly?

Here's some snippets from that article:

In the field, journalists were used to help recruit and handle foreigners as agents; to acquire and evaluate information, and to plant false information with officials of foreign governments. Many signed secrecy agreements, pledging never to divulge anything about their dealings with the Agency; some signed employment contracts., some were assigned case officers and treated with. unusual deference. Others had less structured relationships with the Agency, even though they performed similar tasks: they were briefed by CIA personnel before trips abroad, debriefed afterward, and used as intermediaries with foreign agents. Appropriately, the CIA uses the term “reporting” to describe much of what cooperating journalists did for the Agency.

...From the outset, the use of journalists was among the CIA’s most sensitive undertakings, with full knowledge restricted to the Director of Central Intelligence and a few of his chosen deputies.

So this seems to demonstrate the way that information can be manipulated by covert agencies and that only a few people needed to know about it (minus all the journalists that for whatever reason never squalked)

If you are trying to counter my argument it seems to me that you're doing a shit job of it. It really proves my point, if you ask me. My point being that reportage of events is controlled and manipulated to serve covert agendas.

Edit: okay wait.. I see - you think that it's purely a matter of fake journalism, rather than fake victims. Okay, but in such an image heavy world, how do you account for the pictures if the journalism is fake?

[Wombaticus Rex]

Can we not drive this thread into the Fire Pit? Can we also discuss this improbable but still technically possible scenario?

I'd rather you didn't, myself. I assume you were asking errybody, and that's my lil' take.

If you are trying to counter my argument it seems to me that you're doing a shit job of it. It really proves my point, if you ask me. My point being that reportage of events is controlled and manipulated to serve covert agendas.

I was sharing a joke. The joke was about how the scenario that OP ED outlined was factual, operational truth, and well documented. The other joke is you, now, claiming your point is about media control when you were just asking "where's all the blood?"

Your point, in case you've lost track with the bluing fumes, is that the victims depicted in those photographs are all actors and it was not a real event. If you honestly think that assertion qualifies as something that should stand alongside a book like Into The Buzzsaw, I can merely observe that we have very different priorities and life contexts.

[compared2what?]

c2w thank you x1000 for that thoughtful reply. I have no time tonight (baking and painting mini tiles and not target practicing he he) but I will reply.

you are gracious and I thank you.

De nada. I might not be around, though.*** But as long as you don't reject the idea out of hand that I'm saying what I'm saying in good faith, you don't really need to have another response, as far as I'm concerned. Not that I'm not interested in what you have to say. I just mean: You don't owe me. So don't sweat it. And thank you.

____________________

***Confidential to Munchkins: Come out, come out, wherever you are.

[Canadian_watcher]

I'm still missing it - what is the common mistake?

Losing sight of their humanity.

Losing sight of the humanity of the victims, you mean? If so then this:

In the case of Abu-Ghraib the soldiers were the primary victimizers. They actually inflicted wounds and pain and degradation onto people and laughed about it. and took photos! There is no doubt as to their guilt.
In the case of McGowan examining the photos of the Bostom Bombing he is questioning whether or not the people in them are actually victims in the first place. There is no delicate way to do it, but it must be done. If it weren't done then every violence complaint ever brought in the history of time would be found in favour of the alleged victim. I'm sorry, it's awful, but it's true.

Speaking of which...

Incidentally, that tyrant thing is exactly what Zimbardo hypothesizes leads to situational evil -- ie, it's enabled by that kind of alteration to the power dynamic

I do not follow.

I don't blame you.

What I meant by both that and the "even more so" thing that you also queried a little further on was something that's really a part of my argument, not Zimbardo's. Feel free to disregard it.

[/quote]

this part is now so convoluted that it would be impossible for you to explain it, seeing as you left out part of the context (which I'm not saying is bad, I'm just sayin').. so fine, we'll forget it, but ftr I do not support tyranny and I don't think McGowan does, either.

What I'd like to know, though (and this is important) is how can we question such things, then?

I don't know how to answer that. "Do unto others" should always be somewhere in there, imo. But I'm sure you think that too. I really don't know. As honestly as you can? Maybe? I don't know, C_w. I'm not the boss of you. This is way too much pressure for me. It's up to you.

I think we question them in the very way that they are being questioned. And, quite seriously, if I were a primary witness (ie victim or first responder or doctor etc) involved in this and knew that people were very concerned about the truth of the matter, I'd make a public appearance and explain. I mean why wouldn't I? Part of what makes this so inflammatory and confusing is that 'authorities' refuse to answer direct questions. They are our servants, and we want answers. it isn't outrageous to expect them to listen to us and to tell us the truth.

Do you allow for the possibility that the government or some agency would ever use actors in these situations?

I allow that it's possible that there are situations in which a person or entity with enough resources to do it might. Including the government or some agency. I don't see why it should be limited to them, though. That'd just be inviting all the other bad actors to run amok.

Well yes, true - it could be a number of actors. But I think the government must be involved, at least in a cover up capacity, if a deception of such a magnitude were afoot.

As to the rest, I'd like to tell you that you are shaming me and others - most obviously Dave McGowan.

No, I'm not. Has nobody on this board ever heard of "me" statements? Besides Willow? As in: "I feel shamed when...." rather than "You are shaming me when...."

Have you never heard of validating the person experiencing the experience? (trick question) I'm right here, I know how I feel, I see the manipulation. I haven't once read a post by you explaining away photographic or video oddities, so I'm left to the conclusion that you are appealing to base emotion.

By failing to address the substance of his writing and choosing instead to associate him verbally and visually with horrors that have happened in the past you shame not only McGowan, the writer,

Oh, like hell. The crisis-actor hypothesis is politically, intellectually and morally central to the substance of his writing. And I'm addressing it.

umm, yeah, but how is showing photos of dehumanized prisoners in any way related to the substance? Unless you are claiming that those prisoners were crisis actors? What about the lack of blood on the people tangled up with Jeff Baumann then?

Did you miss the part of the thread where I not only practically begged conniption to come back and disagree with me, but also all but wrote an outline draft disagreement for him to use or discard as he wished?

evidently, but if you begged him to come back while simultaneously conflating this issue with abu-ghraib then I don't blame him for not reappearing. not all of us are so immune to the facile judgments of others.

I left a few things out because of the length. I wouldn't want either of us to hate ourselves.

[Canadian_watcher]

If you are trying to counter my argument it seems to me that you're doing a shit job of it. It really proves my point, if you ask me. My point being that reportage of events is controlled and manipulated to serve covert agendas.

I was sharing a joke. The joke was about how the scenario that OP ED outlined was factual, operational truth, and well documented. The other joke is you, now, claiming your point is about media control when you were just asking "where's all the blood?"

Your point, in case you've lost track with the bluing fumes, is that the victims depicted in those photographs are all actors and it was not a real event. If you honestly think that assertion qualifies as something that should stand alongside a book like Into The Buzzsaw, I can merely observe that we have very different priorities and life contexts.

ha ha ha! how can you on the one hand be so savvy wrt media manipulation and corporate/agency control of information and then on the other hand not think it has evolved since the time of Carl fucking Bernstein???

think about it! How old are you, I thought you were under forty, at least.

And do NOT presume to tell me what my point is. It is OBVIOUS that 2 somethings exploded at this year's Boston Marathon. I just seriously doubt the pictures of the 'event.'

Please watch Steve Silva's man on the scene video and ask yourself WTF went wrong with his perception that he thought to make so much footage of the windows, street and flags rather than the people. I mean come the fuck on. Dude rarely stops for more than two seconds on any one thing in the scene, and yet he pauses for 8 or 9 whole seconds on a blown apart thing on the ground, vaguely resembling a blown up backpack but not the one the autorities eventually used as their smoking gun.)

AND.. where is all the footage of the second bomb scene? Where, from the 'hundreds of cameras' is the footage, or the still pictures?

seriously my moderator (and thanks for visually suggesting you and others band together and fucking shoot me, by the way. some moderator we've got on our hands, wtf was THAT?? IanEye has already threatened physical harm and you're egging him on?)

[compared2what?]

I think the best bet would be to investigate the crap out of the people pushing the hoax angle. Could bring some interesting results.

but that's not something I really have time/inclination/skill to do.

That also sounds like a good idea. May that also be done rationally.

Can I just point out that purely discrediting the messenger of any information is merely a tactic and not actually a source or conduit to truth? I mean, okay, discredit their opinions all you want (and that applies to anyone, really, not just people who you can link to bullshit), but to impeach primary evidence due to the associations/background of anyone who brings forward that evidence is pure chicanery and I hope we're above that.

please let us be above that.

If there's a real conflict-of-interest or other hidden agenda, it's a real factor. "Investigating the crap out of people" is probably not the best way to put it. Or think about it. But it's perfectly legitimate to want to know what someone's affiliations/allegiances/obligations are. A good idea, even.

ON EDIT: Strangers, candy. Same rules.

[Wombaticus Rex]

seriously my moderator (and thanks for visually suggesting you and others band together and fucking shoot me, by the way. some moderator we've got on our hands, wtf was THAT?? IanEye has already threatened physical harm and you're egging him on?)

I....what?

[Canadian_watcher]

I think the best bet would be to investigate the crap out of the people pushing the hoax angle. Could bring some interesting results.

but that's not something I really have time/inclination/skill to do.

That also sounds like a good idea. May that also be done rationally.

Can I just point out that purely discrediting the messenger of any information is merely a tactic and not actually a source or conduit to truth? I mean, okay, discredit their opinions all you want (and that applies to anyone, really, not just people who you can link to bullshit), but to impeach primary evidence due to the associations/background of anyone who brings forward that evidence is pure chicanery and I hope we're above that.

please let us be above that.

If there's a real conflict-of-interest or other hidden agenda, it's a real factor. "Investigating the crap out of people" is probably not the best way to put it. Or think about it. But it's perfectly legitimate to want to know what someone's affiliations/allegiances/obligations are. A good idea, even.

ON EDIT: Strangers, candy. Same rules.

gussy it up however you want, if it's a FACT, it's a FACT. I don't care if the devil himself brought it to me spiked to a flaming fucking pitchfork.

[Canadian_watcher]

seriously my moderator (and thanks for visually suggesting you and others band together and fucking shoot me, by the way. some moderator we've got on our hands, wtf was THAT?? IanEye has already threatened physical harm and you're egging him on?)

I....what?

there was a lot more to my post than just that. you want to ignore it, then I'll take it that you can't answer it, and everyone else reading who is smart enough will get the same message. you makes you bed, you lie in it.

[barracuda]

I....what?

Welcome to my world.

[Canadian_watcher]

I....what?

Welcome to my world.

of avoiding questions and being a smartass. Believe me B, you ain't alone there. I estimate there's about 5 billion of you living on the continent.