User Controls
Ohio shooting
-
2019-08-05 at 2:32 PM UTCnumber of demonstrable false flag attacks vs. regular old fag attacks.
again, hard evidence. 'inconsistencies' and open questions don't directly disprove the 'official' order of events. -
2019-08-05 at 2:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra I was more or less agreeing with you; a lot of these shootings have had questionable reports and suspicious data surrounding them but nothing that unequivocally demonstrates they were a 'false flag'.
in the absence of hard (ie. video, photos, audio etc) evidence or at least a concensus, we have to dismiss outlying reports describing multiple shooters and the like simply because panic and acute stress makes peoples' recollections unreliable.
I've read that most people hallucinate every single day - usually seeing an animal or a tree or something in the distance that isn't actually there, and it's usually the result of the mind filling in a 'blank' where they scanned over the landscape without constantly concentrating on what they were seeing.
The more I learn about memory, the less I trust memory. I tell everyone I have a bad memory but in truth I think I have an average memory but I'm just more aware of how unreliable my own memory is, and most people just fool themselves about what they remember.
When I hear about an eyewitness account, I mentally convert it into "moving blob format". I.e. anything they're describing about general gross movements in a scene, I generally think it's probably accurate.
Everything else is a straight toss up.
Even within your visual field, the focused center you can pay attention to is arounf the size of a postage stamp held at arm's length. So even if you were looking directly to the left of some shit, your brain is already starting to make stuff up and fill in the blanks, let alone anything happening in your periphery. Specific wording of sentences etc is also sketchy. -
2019-08-05 at 2:34 PM UTC
-
2019-08-05 at 2:49 PM UTC
-
2019-08-05 at 2:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra number of demonstrable false flag attacks vs. regular old fag attacks.
again, hard evidence. 'inconsistencies' and open questions don't directly disprove the 'official' order of events.
Thing is though you know they've spent billions on psychological studies.
All that tax money can't be going to infrastructure -
2019-08-05 at 2:52 PM UTC
-
2019-08-05 at 2:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator The "corporate sponsorship" you're talking about is advertising. They make money off their reader or viewership by selling their attention to advertisers.
Advertising makes money, it makes money like nothing else. Some of the biggest tech companies in the world are entirely driven by selling ads, and the ones that aren't, want to get involved with it.
Even Apple is pushing hard to enter the services space so they can advertise to you inside their ecosystem and keep all the money in their platforms, while touring the data security and privacy benefits of only letting Apple rape you.
Nobody is running these huge media outlets purely for propaganda, I know that game, shit does not work a d is unnecessarily expensive and inefficient. You use smaller outlets with strong regional reach.
do you actually believe this? I mean, of course they do not operate purely for the propagation of propaganda, but it's become so prolific that I have to question whether the things that aren't propaganda are disseminated to make the propaganda more credible.
How many major news groups air stories that run against US foreign policy? Crimea, for example - their referendum to return to Russia passed by over 90%, was authenticated as legitimate by around 20 foreign observers but decried as illegitimate only by the US... who did not send an observer. Or Syria, where Assad has been accused of 'gassing his own people' over 200 times... yet only ~5 instances were independently investigated and none were able to prove guilt.
What about the overwhelmingly negative coverage of Donald Trump? I remember reading that at least 70% of all coverage on the major networks was highly critical of him.
Or the constant chorus of 'Russiagate'? Even after the $32 million dollar investigation turned up nothing but a few thousand dollars worth of advertising and general social media shitposting coming from Russian IP addresses, they're still beating that dead horse to the absurd degree that Lindsey Graham, one of the original progenitors of it, has become a target:
point is the news industry is a highly politicised tool and often works in almost unanimity when the 'powers that be' have something to tell you.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-08-05 at 2:55 PM UTCTo a panicked middle aged housewife who has never even imagined being shot at, a guy wearing a jacket with a lotta pockets and carrying a gun basically has the same silhouettes as a SWAT cop with spots for trauma plates.
-
2019-08-05 at 2:57 PM UTCWe seen the unanimity of the news media here during the bank bailouts, when we had to watch BBC to figure out what was happening, and lately with the utter non-coverage of the French Gillets Jaune movement (but enthusiastic coverage of the Hong Kong protests).The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-08-05 at 2:57 PM UTCOn the very morning of 9/11, the feds were running "drill exercises", which involving flying passenger planes into the World Trade Center. The situation became so confusing that air traffic controllers and emergency responders didn't know if the events were part of the pre-announced drill, or the real thing. On the very morning of the London subway bombings, the feds were running "drill exercises", which involved simulating bombs on the London subway. On the very morning of the Parkland shooting, teachers and students were advised there would be a "drill exercise", which involved simulating a shooter in the school. They were advised not to be alarmed. On the very morning of the Sandy Hook attack, the feds were running a "drill exercise" in the school right next to the Sandy Hook school, just half a mile away, which involved simulating an active shooter in the school.
But, hey.. let's all jump on the Occam bus. Easier, less messy, not at all hard to handle.
"Robbie Parker", "father" of the little girl gunned down just the day before, dressed to the nines like an FBI agent, in a suit, perky, alert, eyes bright and clear, hair all done just right, smiling, giggling, getting into character for the cameras. Even the CNN anchor, Wolf Blitzer, didn't realize right away the guy laughing and smiling on camera was about to step up to the microphone as the father.
But, yeah.. let's all just on the Occam bus. Easier to handle. Less work. Makes a great cop-out. -
2019-08-05 at 2:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country We seen the unanimity of the news media here during the bank bailouts, when we had to watch BBC to figure out what was happening, and lately with the utter non-coverage of the French Gillets Jaune movement (but enthusiastic coverage of the Hong Kong protests).
that is an extremely good comparison actually.
"there is more evidence that Macron has been gassing his own people than that Assad ever did" -
2019-08-05 at 3:05 PM UTCAnd don't forget the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, which 17 intelligence agencies and every politician and every mainstream media goon swore on a bible were there. After the dust settled and thousands of innocent people and soldiers died, not one was found. Yeah, we better believe the official story. It's our only hope!The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-08-05 at 3:07 PM UTClol, yeah. or even before that, Saddam's troops 'throwing babies out of incubators', repeated by every major news outlet... the story came from a single anonymous source, who later turned out to be the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter. Or the 'Ghadaffi gives his soldiers viagra so they can be better rapists' line, though I don't think anyone actually believed thatThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-08-05 at 3:09 PM UTCAt this point, that anyone believes ANY official story is a sure sign of severe mental illness and a willful and deliberate desire to bury their head in the sand and wish it all away.
-
2019-08-05 at 3:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra do you actually believe this? I mean, of course they do not operate purely for the propagation of propaganda, but it's become so prolific that I have to question whether the things that aren't propaganda are disseminated to make the propaganda more credible.
How many major news groups air stories that run against US foreign policy? Crimea, for example - their referendum to return to Russia passed by over 90%, was authenticated as legitimate by around 20 foreign observers but decried as illegitimate only by the US… who did not send an observer. Or Syria, where Assad has been accused of 'gassing his own people' over 200 times… yet only ~5 instances were independently investigated and none were able to prove guilt.
What about the overwhelmingly negative coverage of Donald Trump? I remember reading that at least 70% of all coverage on the major networks was highly critical of him.
Or the constant chorus of 'Russiagate'? Even after the $32 million dollar investigation turned up nothing but a few thousand dollars worth of advertising and general social media shitposting coming from Russian IP addresses, they're still beating that dead horse to the absurd degree that Lindsey Graham, one of the original progenitors of it, has become a target:
point is the news industry is a highly politicised tool and often works in almost unanimity when the 'powers that be' have something to tell you.
You're reading too much coordination into what is effectively just another market acting like a market.
If you try to look at it through the propaganda lens, this is a coordinated effort to not report X but highlight Y and mischaracterize Z, and somehow this careful secretive dance is being maintained with the most delusional ideologues in the universe, newsroom journalists, across multiple media networks, across the country and the world.
If you look at it through the simple lens of selfishness, it is simply networks jumping on bandwagons and hyping shit up to get eyeballs for ads. That's what it has always been, that's what it will always be. What's the hot new subject? Then we move on to the next one.
In fact, no deliberate cooperation or collusion is even necessary: if you want to create a story, leak a spicy quote. If you want to kill that story, leak a different spicy quote.
Simple fact is, if this was some left wing nut then that shit would be plastered on Fox News.
Obviously news media is highly politicised but so is the mother shitting Daily Stormer, you want me to believe it is actually a fucking global conspiracy rather than the Daily Stormer bullshitting?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-08-05 at 3:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL And don't forget the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, which 17 intelligence agencies and every politician and every mainstream media goon swore on a bible were there. After the dust settled and thousands of innocent people and soldiers died, not one was found. Yeah, we better believe the official story. It's our only hope!
Which goes to support it wasn't a US setup...after all if they had wanted it to look legit they'd just have planted some WMDs right. I know I would. But the US gov instead owned up to it! That's something to be proud of right.
(even thought they did in fact find some chemical weapons which are classed as WMDs) -
2019-08-05 at 3:10 PM UTC
Anyone remember Osama's Mountain fortress?
On the right is his real (supposed) house. -
2019-08-05 at 3:13 PM UTC
-
2019-08-05 at 3:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator You're reading too much coordination into what is effectively just another market acting like a market.
If you try to look at it through the propaganda lens, this is a coordinated effort to not report X but highlight Y and mischaracterize Z, and somehow this careful secretive dance is being maintained with the most delusional ideologues in the universe, newsroom journalists, across multiple media networks, across the country and the world.
If you look at it through the simple lens of selfishness, it is simply networks jumping on bandwagons and hyping shit up to get eyeballs for ads. That's what it has always been, that's what it will always be. What's the hot new subject? Then we move on to the next one.
In fact, no deliberate cooperation or collusion is even necessary: if you want to create a story, leak a spicy quote. If you want to kill that story, leak a different spicy quote.
Simple fact is, if this was some left wing nut then that shit would be plastered on Fox News.
that doesn't explain the suppression of the other, better-supported viewpoints though. if it were truly a 'marketplace of ideas' as it's often claimed and as you insinuated earlier, it'd benefit a news outlet to go against the grain and prove all the others wrong - in many areas like those listed above though, it simply does not happen. the smaller outlets that do are reviled and their integrity is constantly attacked, with Assange being the extreme case of someone literally being imprisoned for decades for doing the job of an investigative journalist. -
2019-08-05 at 3:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra lol, yeah. or even before that, Saddam's troops 'throwing babies out of incubators', repeated by every major news outlet… the story came from a single anonymous source, who later turned out to be the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter. Or the 'Ghadaffi gives his soldiers viagra so they can be better rapists' line, though I don't think anyone actually believed that
Let's not forget that the Bush family often stayed with the bin Laden family while they were working out oil deals in the 1980s, or that the "Syrian Observatory on Human Rights" is just some britbong in a Manchester apartment
