1. My God.A Horse just flew through my kitchen window and pooped out a rainbow,provide evidence that it didn't.
     
  2. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    You see, this is the problem. You are committing the "Evidence of Absence" fallacy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

    You might wish to become better informed on the structure of evidence and argument (and logic and reasoning) by starting here:

    http://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fallacies-argumentation

    Also, you can just Google to learn a great deal more. It's very educational.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    So in lieu of actually providing any evidence you can only resort to a logical fallacy.

    try again:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

    (WW beat me to it :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  4. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    And how far did that lawsuit get? I remember the "signed receipt" nonsense from years ago. Seriously, think about it. Thousand of reporters, with many from rival networks, and nobody noticed that Charles Jaco wasn't there but acutally in San Francisco. Seriously! If that lawsuit with obvious faked evidence being presented was successful then how come Charles Jaco was still threatening legal action back in 2009?

    http://punchingkitty.com/2009/12/01/we-got-a-letter-from-charles-jaco-last-night/

    You'll be claiming next that there were no CNN reporters in the Al-Rashid Hotel, Baghdad when the bombing started. Were the likes of Peter Arnett, Bernard Shaw and John Holliman all sharing the same restaurant table with Charles Jaco back in San Francisco? :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    What's stopping you from bringing that research here for people to assess themselves?

    I take personal gain in educating myself on human nature by seeing people think they're taking on the forces of darkness because someone wrote something that contradicts something they've invested emotional energy in believing.
    How can anyone prove they don't take any personal gain in any way shape pro from, and why the hell should they? The facts speak for themselves, cocentrate on those and not your anti-authoritarian issues. Go on, prove you're not a bionic ferret typing from a bunker in a top-secret installation and bent on world domination. Go on, prove you're not thinking about elephants.
    Or instead, just actually address the evidence.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    I am really surprised how intensely people refuse to accept anything that debunks this idea of a fake broadcast - obviously it's a key belief in their worldview and they are really threatened by any attempt to provide context and fact to it.


    Oh, and please do that. Post it here.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    that doesn't sound very credible o_O
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Melbury's Brick

    Melbury's Brick Active Member

    Are you sure it wasn't a bull?
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  9. AluminumTheory

    AluminumTheory Senior Member

    Citing CIA ops and quoting random journalists are not proof that these broadcasts were faked. Did Amber Lyon work for CNN in 1991? This would be the exact equivalent of saying that Coca-Cola still contains cocaine because they admitted to cocaine having been an ingredient over 100 years ago. What has been (or said to have been) done in the past is not proof that it still occurs today. You need to provide some kind of evidence. The evidence that has been laid out in the first couple of pages here and has been here since before you became a member, and yet you have addressed none of it.
    We have;Newspaper documents and books from the time detailing the event, photos of the hotel with makeshift studios, recordings of other news correspondents in the same location, and historical facts that tell us that it was in fact a war zone at that time. You can't call something faked just because a real life crisis failed to meet your expectations of what it should be.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    I've been away longer than I thought if I missed this exchange. One point of information: only unicorns poop and fart rainbows. You really need to do your research.

     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. You're right,I'll check into that.Unicorns,give me a break!
     
  12. yeah I'm sure it didn't have any horns.
     
  13. Neither does CNN reporting facts.:rolleyes:
     
  14. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    the Credible News Network. ; ) I like it.
     
  15. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    I think this topic has been pretty well beaten into the ground... @Mick West , you pretty much cleared this all up in the second post. So far all the 'non believers' have been unable to bring any reasonable evidence to the table to suggest otherwise. Perhaps it's time to lock this thread?

    Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing new members pop in and bring up the CIA, black ops projects, so on and so forth, but usually there's little to no value added to the thread...
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  16. AluminumTheory

    AluminumTheory Senior Member

    I've been thinking that myself. In a way, I'd like to see the discussion remain open in case someone might have something new to bring to the table. But as you've said, this claim has been thoroughly debunked every which way possible thus leaving insults as the only thing left to debate with for the proponents of this claim.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Plus they'll just open a new thread on the topic if they cant comment here. : /
     
  18. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    If the thread gets locked I will be unable to post anymore photos :-(
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Mitch Rapp said:

    Mitch Rapp said: New Member

    The administrator, the fact that he claims that title is proof of his indifference in his perception of reality. The news is, was, and will be A: total bullshit B:up for the highest bidder.

    Anybody thinking or saying anything else is wrong. I don't care if he writes for a debunking website. "Reptilian" stuff is bullshit. Jay Z being "the king of the illuminati" is Wtf stupid. However, The government being inherently corrupt and sometimes flamboyantly evil is true. Think of The psychological profile of successful person with a personality that eventually brings them into politics on a federal level. Sound like an honest, well meaning guy? You mean the guy you elected, who has dedicated their lives to being in control of money lied to you!? Who could have seen that coming?
     
  20. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    This isn't a place to state your opinion, you are welcome to bring relative evidence that pertains to this thread topic though. I suggest reading the posting guidelines.
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. AluminumTheory

    AluminumTheory Senior Member

    We are not debating the veracity of mainstream media outlets. We're discussing individual claims. What you think and who you think is wrong is not evidence of CNN'S faking news coverage of the 1991 gulf war. None of the skeptics here at metabunk.org are making broad statements like "Everything you see on the news is true" or "The government is benevolent and aways has or best interests in mind" because any broad and absolute statement will most likely be proven incorrect. We're looking at evidence and evaluating individual claims based on that. Notice that there is no single instance in this discussion where we cite CNN's 'credibility' or 'fairness' as evidence to bolster our findings. Saying the news is BS, and then using that to support claims of faked news would show a clear sign of biased judgement.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    This rationale is like saying that because a magician never admits that his top hat has a trap door and that he is pulling the rabbit out of a box beneath it, that the rabbit didn't come from inside the box because it isn't admitted by the magician. Credible theorist is making the point that even though there isn't a blatant admission of the illusion by the illusionist, that it was nonetheless an illusion.

    I've read through this thread and there is multiple posts establishing the proof that this broadcast contained fakery. And yet the "debunkers" repeatedly ask for proof of it again and again as if it hasn't already been well established. They are only looking at the empty hat and the rabbit that "came out of it", while the assistant walks off the stage with the box.

    WeedWhacker refers to conspiracy theorists having a devotion or faith, as if conspiracy deniers do not. The conspiracy deniers' faith is very similar to the faith that children invest in a magician. He is like the citizen of Oz that believes that the wizard is real. The conspiracy theorist has looked behind a curtain or two, seen that at least some wizards are frauds, and so shifts his gaze towards looking for the man behind the curtain as a matter of course. It is not so much a religion as a seed of knowledge...He understands the hat trick and its' mechanics, and so can't help but see the trick. But his observations are not welcome by the audience of children, or by the magician. So he is laughed at and shown the door.

    Even in an absence of admission by the fellows doing the trickery, it is possible to establish that the trick occurred. This is simply dismissed by those who still believe that the rabbit came out of the hat. Their faith allows them to make this dismissal. That faith, combined with some slight of hand and use of smoke and mirrors by the fellow on the stage make for a very powerful combination.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2014
  23. AluminumTheory

    AluminumTheory Senior Member

    If the are multiple posts pointing out evidence; why haven't you pointed them out instead of making analogies? We can do that too. But it's much better to produce evidence to support arguments.
     
  24. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    The core of this issue was highlighted by Truefiction in post 26, after Mick had marked the "fake news" debunked in post 5 after establishing only that this fake crap originated in Saudi Arabia, and not having established in any way that the alleged SCUD attack to which they were pretending to respond had actually occurred.
    In fact it was established in later posts that there was NO SCUD ATTACK at the time of this filming. The only recorded attack had occurred 19-20 minutes earlier, and was miles away...which established categorically that the entire segment was a complete fake. But who cares about the facts, right? This was "debunked" 181 posts ago!

    This has all been said repeatedly. Why say it again and go round and round the merry-go-round? It will be like an atheist and a fundamentalist discussing God. Lots will be said, and both will leave the discussion with the same faith.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Not following your "logic". Credible Theorist claimed the government "admits doing this"- he claimed a blatant admission. If that were true, he would be able to provide evidence. He could or did not.
     
  26. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    CNN's illusion admitted itself. The kids can't see the trap door where the rabbit came from, but it is there in plain site, just like this fake news. In fact the government has admitted doing exactly this type of crap:
     
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But the veracity of the report does not depend on there being an actual scud attack, just that the reporter thought that there might be one. And it was clearly a very real possibility.

    The "faked" thing that was debunked though was more the idea that the entire thing was done in a studio. That was what I was debunking.

    If you are suggesting that the reporters played it up for the camera, then that seems like a very subjective interpretation. Not something you can "prove" with evidence. You also have to consider all the other reporters that were there.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's not the same thing all. Here the media (like CNN) was asking questions about the drone program, and the government was ignoring the questions.
     
  29. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    The government was pretending the drone program didn't exist even though it did. Conscious misdirection.

    Regarding the CNN fake news, your response adequately summarizes the Metabunk.org position with respect to the establishment vs the anti-establishment. Any anti-establishment must be 100% verified by indisputable fact. And the establishment can be digested wholesale provided the reporter might have "thought that there might be _________".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. AluminumTheory

    AluminumTheory Senior Member


    They were in a war zone. So it was entirely reasonable to be concerned and prepared for a possible attack. They were in Dhahran reporting live via satellite along with many other reporters. They were faced with threats of a possible scud attack. There is documentation to prove this that predates this claim.
     
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The government lies ALL THE TIME. It's called PR. Nobody here thinks the government is solely filled with selfless public servants. See:
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...government-and-think-everything-is-fine.2632/

    This thread is about if a particular CNN report was faked from a studio location. That's all.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  32. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Obfuscatory misdirection...double speak. A claim was made, no evidence provided and all you can rebut with is metaphors.
     
  33. Melbury's Brick

    Melbury's Brick Active Member

    If you were warned of an incoming attack in your area and missiles landed some (you don't specify how many) miles away, you wouldn't be at all nervous 20 minutes later? (The atheist would argue from evidence and the fundamentalist from belief. Sounds familiar.)
     
  34. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    what an inaccurate analogy. you do realize this is a DEBUNKING site. it doesn't matter if it's bunk the rabbit magically appeared in the hat.

    what matters is debunking the specific illusion, not the CONCEPT of magic tricks. if the "illusion" can't be proved, its not debunked.

    the OP has been debunked.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2014
  35. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    Athiests also have a metaphysical article of faith. Many don't know it at first...but once this is made clear to them they will often stop evangelizing like Jehovah's Witnesses. Ironically most Athiests are closet dualists...but that's for another time and place. :p
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  36. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    I'm not sure about the "time" part, but I can finally agree with you:
    Your "most Athiests (sic) are closet dualists" theory is definitely for another place. :p
     
  37. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    Yes, lots of hard evidence has been presented regarding the fakeness of the broadcast through this thread. It's just ignored by the regulars like kids ignore the box with the trap door where the rabbit comes from. The purported debunk relied only on a specific portion in the body of the first post, namely the notion that the fake news was taped somewhere other than where it was taped. My issue is that whether the fake news was taped in this or that place doesn't impact on the inherent fakeness of the news itself. This specific point has been made by multiple posters before...but it's all a variation on post 26.

    The best defence that I've seen from the regulars here is that the reporter might have been thinking X or Y, or statements like "wouldn't you be nervous 20 minutes later?" and this type of thing, which is exactly what none of the regulars would accept from someone else in defense of a conspiracy theory.

    To quote Soulfly, "This isn't a place to state your opinion, you are welcome to bring relative evidence that pertains to this thread topic though."

    The most relevant indisputible fact is that there was no attack whatsoever during the filming of a purported attack. Thus there can't have been a reaction to an attack, because there wasn't one. So by direct implication the reaction was faked.

    If you accept that there was no attack, and you hold yourselves to your own standards of proof, then you must accept that the news is fake.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    So, if a guy with an AK-47 walks into a room in which you're talking to a friend,
    as he appears to begin to fire, you dive under the table to escape a hail of bullets...
    later you realize that the guy was firing blanks to scare the Hell out of someone.
    By your definition, your "reaction was faked" because you weren't genuinely under fire the moment you dove?
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  39. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Absolute bullspizzle.
    There was a reaction to warning of an attack.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  40. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    I think this one didn't get enough discussion. The cameraman didn't react at all. That's because there wasn't anything to react to, of course...but, well, here we are, over two hundred posts in...

     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1