Debunked: CNNs Fake News Broadcasts - Charles Jaco and the Fake Live Gulf War Reports

Credible theorist said:
My God.A Horse just flew through my kitchen window and pooped out a rainbow,provide evidence that it didn't.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JDM said:
Quite simply, if you "buy" the gas mask scene, you're fool. There's all the proof i need ... aside from the full examination of this done during the law suit that brought up "unexplainable" things like, oh i don't know, the receipts SIGNED by Jaco at a San Fran restaurant, dated to the day of the 2nd broadcast!!! That's right folks, there was a law suit, several in fact.
Click to expand...

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?

External Quote:


Last night we received this from Mr. Jaco himself:
I have just now come across a false and defamatory posting on your website from July 28, 2009 titled "Did Charles Jaco Fake a Desert Storm CNN Report". I'm adding your email and your website to the list being sent to my attorneys.
———————

Some of you have written me expressing concern (or as one friend put it "WTF?") about a video making the rounds purporting to show that our Gulf War coverage for CNN in 1991 was done in a studio, not in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. This email should fill you in as to what's going on.

Others have written me to accuse me of engaging in false news coverage, and a cover-up of the truth. Many of those same people have forwarded those false and defamatory emails to others, and have linked to a website purporting to show the false coverage. This email serves as notice of legal action.

First the facts of the case: our coverage was on the roof of a hotel and military facility near the intersection of the two main runways at the Dhahran Air Base, Western Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The playwood background was erected as a guard against sand and wind storms. The clowning around on the video is just that. We used black humor to deflect the tension of covering SCUD missile assaults.

Now to the impending action: my attorneys intend to act immediately against those of you receiving this who have sent and forwarded these emails accusing me of falsifying coverage. We are in the process of issuing subpeonas to ISPs for the real names and addresses of the senders. We shall then proceed with lawsuits against those parties.

In addition, letters are being sent to LiveLink and Google (owner of YouTube) and their attorneys demanding the videos be removed.
—————–

Charles Jaco
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? :)
 
JDM said:
go do some damned research and stop just believing what you read in some fake ass debunking forum
Click to expand...
What's stopping you from bringing that research here for people to assess themselves?

JDM said:
prove you "don't" take any "personal gains" in any way, shape, form or fashion by discrediting "conspiracy theorist"
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.


JDM said:
because i'm sure, given enough time, I can find evidence you do, and it won't be just simple speculation.
Click to expand...
Oh, and please do that. Post it here.
 
Credible theorist said:
admitting to controlling media.How any times have I got to say this?
Click to expand...

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:
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...
 
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.
 
AluminumTheory said:
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.
Click to expand...
Plus they'll just open a new thread on the topic if they cant comment here. : /
 
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?
 
Mitch Rapp said: said:
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?
Click to expand...
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/
 
Mitch Rapp said: said:
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?
Click to expand...
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:
SR1419 said:
Admits doing what? Faking the CNN broadcasts in question?? Interesting- please provide documentation of this admittance.
Click to expand...
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.

AluminumTheory said:
What you think and who you think is wrong is not evidence of CNN'S faking news coverage of the 1991 gulf war.
Click to expand...
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:
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.
 
AluminumTheory said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
TrueFiction said:
At the very least I think CNN staged the whole gas mask part. If they were really under SCUD attack the Saudi military would have forced them to cover as they did in 100s of other documented cases during the Persian Gulf War. Secondly if you actually are attacked why would you continue the recording, this is not a recording documenting what happened but a commentary that adds very little value by occuring while an attack happens. There are some huge problems with this behavior. Either this guy is an atypical hero reporter who loves reporting more than his sense of self preservation or he knew they weren't really under attack and badly over acted.
Click to expand...

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:
Libertarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SR1419 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
External Quote:
"So you're the official government spokesperson acting as if the entire program (doesn't exist) — pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." - Former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
 
Libertarian said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Libertarian said:
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:
External Quote:
"So you're the official government spokesperson acting as if the entire program (doesn't exist) — pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." - Former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
Click to expand...


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.
 
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 _________".
 
Libertarian said:
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 _________".
Click to expand...


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.
 
Libertarian said:
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:
Click to expand...

Obfuscatory misdirection...double speak. A claim was made, no evidence provided and all you can rebut with is metaphors.
 
Libertarian said:
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.
Like an aheist and a fundamentalist discussing God
Click to expand...
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.)
 
Libertarian said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Libertarian said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 
SR1419 said:
Obfuscatory misdirection...double speak. A claim was made, no evidence provided and all you can rebut with is metaphors.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Libertarian said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Libertarian said:
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.
Click to expand...
Absolute bullspizzle.
There was a reaction to warning of an attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Deeply Worried: Fake News, Lack of Critical Thinking
Replies
37
Views
4K
FatPhil
FatPhil
NorCal Dave
Claim: Nazca Mummy Maria Was a Living Non-Human Creature
Replies
5
Views
6K
Mendel
Mendel
Z.W. Wolf
Claim: Early Polling Is Meaningful and Useful
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
JMartJr
JMartJr
NorCal Dave
New Science of UAP Paper
2 3
Replies
112
Views
13K
Tezcatlipoca
T
cyblox
Aulis.com - Stanley Kubrick and Apollo by Mary Bennett and David S. Percy: Part One - DEBUNKED
Replies
13
Views
5K
cyblox
cyblox

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top