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

JDM said:
...the receipts SIGNED by Jaco at a San Fran restaurant, dated to the day of the 2nd broadcast!!!
Click to expand...

Writing that here and making vague accusations isn't bringing evidence to back up the claims.

go do some damned research....
Click to expand...

That is the onus of the claimant. To "do the research" and then present the evidence so that all can assess its veracity.
 
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. go do some damned research and stop just believing what you read in some fake ass debunking forum where half the admins probably work for the NSA anyway ... Yeah, i'm call you admins out, prove you "don't" take any "personal gains" in any way, shape, form or fashion by discrediting "conspiracy theorist" ... because i'm sure, given enough time, I can find evidence you do, and it won't be just simple speculation.
Click to expand...

Please post some evidence to back your claims.
 
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. go do some damned research and stop just believing what you read in some fake ass debunking forum where half the admins probably work for the NSA anyway ... Yeah, i'm call you admins out, prove you "don't" take any "personal gains" in any way, shape, form or fashion by discrediting "conspiracy theorist" ... because i'm sure, given enough time, I can find evidence you do, and it won't be just simple speculation.
Click to expand...

I'm with you.All these "Debunkers" are the same people that said the NSA can't survey everyones phone calls and E-mails.But what do ya know they are.We know these people on here are going to say it is "debunked" from the get go.This is one big joke of a thread.

Oh and P.S. I'm glad the camera man wasn't phased by the attack.He kept filming through chemical bomb explosions in a very calm manner.I call B.S. but you guys can believe this junk if you want to.And Amber Lyon worked for CNN and she said they are paid to lie.
 
LoriQ said:
NO!! It does NOT look like people in the middle of a warzone! I agree with JDM. In my opinion this IS all completely fake! I cannot see where any intelligent person would or could say that this video is NOT fake. This video has the feel of a homemade movie inside somewhere.
Click to expand...


No offense...but if you want to be taken seriously (perhaps you don't) then you need to offer more than just your opinion. Did you come to your opinion through anything more than just going by how it "feels"? What is your experience of a war zone such that you can offer a relevant opinion as to how it should look? Did you honestly and deliberately review the entire thread and analyze the evidence presented?

The evidence presented in this thread is well presented, logical and based and facts and reason. Unless you can present evidence to the contrary, your opinion is not very compelling.
 
Credible theorist said:
And Amber Lyon worked for CNN and she said they are paid to lie.
Click to expand...

When you make a series of assertions (such as this one, for example) the burden is then on you to show the evidence that supports the claim.

Randomly stating something as a "fact" doesn't fly....that's not how it works. Perhaps if you know something about science, and the scientific method, that will help to understand the procedure. If you apply the same sort of stringent examination of actual fact to then reach appropriate (and accurate) conclusions.
 
WeedWhacker said:
When you make a series of assertions (such as this one, for example) the burden is then on you to show the evidence that supports the claim.

Randomly stating something as a "fact" doesn't fly....that's not how it works. Perhaps if you know something about science, and the scientific method, that will help to understand the procedure. If you apply the same sort of stringent examination of actual fact to then reach appropriate (and accurate) conclusions.
Click to expand...

Uuuuum Operation Mockingbird?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Come guys,you can do better than this.Oh wait no you can't.:D
 
Credible theorist said:
Uuuuum Operation Mockingbird?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Come guys,you can do better than this.Oh wait no you can't.:D
Click to expand...

Paranoia Overload.

From your Wiki source:

In February 1976, George H. W. Bush, the recently appointed Director of the CIA, announced a new policy: "Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station."
Content from External Source
Note the date.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Paranoia Overload.

From your Wiki source:

In February 1976, George H. W. Bush, the recently appointed Director of the CIA, announced a new policy: "Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station."
Content from External Source
Note the date.
Click to expand...

Yet with Operation Mockingbird they paid reporters under hand to lie.And hey look here recently what the FCC tried to do.:confused:

Paranoia is having all the facts.
 
deirdre said:
just because something can be done and perhaps was done at one time, doesn't mean it was done in this particular instance. you have to prove this particular video was faked.
Click to expand...

Well that doesn't mean they are not.Look at Amber Lyon for example.Media is controlled by corporations.Most of which the heads of meat at Bilderberg in secret.But hey I'm supposed to believe this stuff?You've got to be kidding me!
 
Credible theorist said:
And hey look here recently what the FCC tried to do.
Click to expand...

Well? What, exactly? Does what the "FCC tried to do" have something to relate to the topic here, of CNN? :rolleyes:

As stated before: YOU make the claim, then YOU back it up by presenting the evidence. Tossing vague comments lacking context is pointless, and inflammatory.
 
Credible theorist said:
Well that doesn't mean they are not.Look at Amber Lyon for example.Media is controlled by corporations.Most of which the heads of meat at Bilderberg in secret.But hey I'm supposed to believe this stuff?You've got to be kidding me!
Click to expand...
true. but it doesn't work like that on this site. this is a science based site.

Present a claim with supporting evidence. and either your evidence will support your claim thoroughly or the claim will be debunked.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Well? What, exactly? Does what the "FCC tried to do" have something to relate to the topic here, of CNN? :rolleyes:

As stated before: YOU make the claim, then YOU back it up by presenting the evidence. Tossing vague comments lacking context is pointless, and inflammatory.
Click to expand...

How are they vague?I'm giving you government history of them controlling media.And the FCC tried to stick people in news rooms.But yeah I'm tossing comments back and forth.I guess that is inflammatory.
 
deirdre said:
true. but it doesn't work like that on this site. this is a science based site.

Present a claim with supporting evidence. and either your evidence will support your claim thoroughly or the claim will be debunked.
Click to expand...

So this sight dictates what is real and what's not.With all this going on you're going to say nothing is up?That's not logical.And just because they don't admit to it therefore it is not real and this sight has automatically debunked it.Doesn't seem fair.
 
Credible theorist said:
How are they vague?I'm giving you government history of them controlling media.And the FCC tried to stick people in news rooms.But yeah I'm tossing comments back and forth.I guess that is inflammatory.
Click to expand...

Third time: Show the evidence. So far there was one Wiki reference (good, that is how it's done, for starters) but, that particular "proof" was shown to be inapt. Since that one good try (the Wiki link), there have been only accusations, no backing.
 
Credible theorist said:
Well that doesn't mean they are not.Look at Amber Lyon for example.Media is controlled by corporations.!
Click to expand...
ps. im not going to waste time looking up Amber Lyon. if you want to present her her then present her.

and I thought the cia was controlling media. now its the corporations?
 
Credible theorist said:
So this sight dictates what is real and what's not.With all this going on you're going to say nothing is up?That's not logical.And just because they don't admit to it therefore it is not real and this sight has automatically debunked it.Doesn't seem fair.
Click to expand...
its only debunked if you cant provide proof.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Third time: Show the evidence. So far there was one Wiki reference (good, that is how it's done, for starters) but, that particular "proof" was shown to be inapt. Since that one good try (the Wiki link), there have been only accusations, no backing.
Click to expand...

Operatio
deirdre said:
ps. im not going to waste time looking up Amber Lyon. if you want to present her her then present her.

and I thought the cia was controlling media. now its the corporations?
Click to expand...

Corporations control government.This stuff is nitted together like a spider web.And what I'm telling you is all facts and admitted by them not me sitting on a lap top.
 
JDM said:
Yeah, i'm call you admins out, prove you "don't" take any "personal gains" in any way, shape, form or fashion by discrediting "conspiracy theorist" ... because i'm sure, given enough time, I can find evidence you do, and it won't be just simple speculation.
Click to expand...
Do you have a time frame? I'd like to come back and see this proof.
 
Credible theorist said:
Corporations control government.This stuff is nitted together like a spider web.And what I'm telling you is all facts and admitted by them not me sitting on a lap top.
Click to expand...
Hon, that's great. but you cant just SAY it is a fact on this site. you have to SHOW it is a fact with links etc.

but remember this thread is about the OP video in particular. if youre going to get into broader theory you'll get tossed into Rambles section.


edit...oops forgot my link ; ) https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
 
deirdre said:
Hon, that's great. but you cant just SAY it is a fact on this site. you have to SHOW it is a fact with links etc.

but remember this thread is about the OP video in particular. if youre going to get into broader theory you'll get tossed into Rambles section.


edit...oops forgot my link ; ) https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
Click to expand...

Oh okay I get it.I've made you all look like fools and you deny facts.Operation Mockingbird is an admitted fact.You can't accept this so you want to throw me in a ramble section.I hope this thread wakes some people up.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Yes, now you have made a factually accurate and true statement.
Click to expand...


It's mocking you for not providing any statement to trump what I say.I give you people who work for CNN coming out,I give admitted facts that even they admit to,hell I give you documentation and you deny that.It's clear you are in denial at this point.Anyone (who doesn't have a closed mind like you people) can see that.
 
Credible theorist said:
I give you people who work for CNN coming out
Click to expand...

Still waiting, because in truth 'you' did not 'give' anything of substance to this thread as proof of assertions. Maybe if you took a bit of time to gather the evidence, and then post it. If it's about CNN it would (probably) be relevant and topical in this thread.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Yes. But, it's important to read very carefully the facts.

The Spanish Inquisition is also an admitted fact. Is it still in operation today? (That is but one extreme example)
Click to expand...

All you have to do is look at what media heads deny and divert from.At that point it's clear something is up.They just flip flop on issues and spout nonsense.
Look at this crap for the first 3 minutes of this:

Wow Hannity looks like you are a shill as well.Why should I trust people who do this?
 
Credible theorist said:
Here you go if you want it so bad:
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available




http://www.infowars.com/former-reporter-amber-lyon-exposes-massive-censorship-at-cnn/
Click to expand...


Well, this is rather dated isn't it? I also would use a huge pillar of salt whenever referencing, reading, or believing anything that comes from Alex Jones and his "infowars" site!

About Amber Lyon's credibility:

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...t-the-us-government-paid-cnn-to-control-conte

I could not find any mention of these allegations on Amber Lyon's own website.

Furthermore, the article referenced as a primary source for the claim makes no mention of anything besides the suspicion that the government of Bahrain influenced CNNi's decision to not air a specific documentary of Lyon's in its entirety.
Content from External Source
Always check when you are presented with questionable claims. And, the YouTube video is of a RT segment...they are about as bad as Fox "news" in their bias.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Well, this is rather dated isn't it? I also would use a huge pillar of salt whenever referencing, reading, or believing anything that comes from Alex Jones and his "infowars" site!


Always check when you are presented with questionable claims. And, the YouTube video is of a RT segment...they are about as bad as Fox "news" in their bias.
Click to expand...
whats an RT?
 
WeedWhacker said:
Well, this is rather dated isn't it? I also would use a huge pillar of salt whenever referencing, reading, or believing anything that comes from Alex Jones and his "infowars" site!

About Amber Lyon's credibility:

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...t-the-us-government-paid-cnn-to-control-conte

I could not find any mention of these allegations on Amber Lyon's own website.

Furthermore, the article referenced as a primary source for the claim makes no mention of anything besides the suspicion that the government of Bahrain influenced CNNi's decision to not air a specific documentary of Lyon's in its entirety.
Content from External Source
Always check when you are presented with questionable claims. And, the YouTube video is of a RT segment...they are about as bad as Fox "news" in their bias.
Click to expand...

Wow you people won't believe anything until it bites you in the behind will you?Besides like I said our own government admits doing this I'd say telling on yourself is credible enough.:p
 
Credible theorist said:
Here you go if you want it so bad
Click to expand...

Can you explain how this video brings evidence to bear on the idea that Jaco's clips were faked?

All she is complaining about is part of her documentary did not get aired...nothing about faking any news.

Also, do you not find it ironic that she is crying "propaganda" on Russia Today- a network funded by the Russian government??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

Why are you not equally skeptical of her comments and the source RT as you would be from another source?
 
Credible theorist said:
Wow you people won't believe anything until it bites you in the behind will you?
Click to expand...

No, when solid evidence is shown, then that is considered proof and part of comprehension.

Random and paranoid rantings of disparate allegations and "guesses" are insufficient for "belief". CTs (that's "Conspiracy Theorists") in general actually are the ones with "faith" (i.e., belief). Similar to a religious devotion to something that is asserted, but not shown by evidence.
 
Credible theorist said:
Besides like I said our own government admits doing this I'd say telling on yourself is credible enough.:p
Click to expand...

Admits doing what? Faking the CNN broadcasts in question?? Interesting- please provide documentation of this admittance.

..and yet, methinks you believe the government when its confirms or conforms to your beliefs yet claim its lying when it doesn't.
 
SR1419 said:
Admits doing what? Faking the CNN broadcasts in question?? Interesting- please provide documentation of this admittance.

..and yet, methinks you believe the government when its confirms or conforms to your beliefs yet claim its lying when it doesn't.
Click to expand...

admitting to controlling media.How any times have I got to say this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cybe
Aulis.com - Stanley Kubrick and Apollo by Mary Bennett and David S. Percy: Part One - DEBUNKED
Replies
13
Views
3K
cybe
cybe
Randis
Evidence showing both the thermal and the satellite footage are fake.
Replies
1
Views
3K
Mendel
Mendel
NorCal Dave
Claim: CIA Spy Planes Account for Over 1/2 of all UFO Reports in the '50s and '60s in the US
Replies
12
Views
3K
AF_Brat72
AF_Brat72
NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
3
Views
3K
Sheffinder
S
Mendel
Study: The Effect of watching CNN instead of Fox News
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
deirdre
deirdre

Latest posts

Back
Top