When a source is 'official' that is considered checking probably. Having to double-check every official statement may be good skepticism but would add so much extra work as to be impractical.
Which officials gave false information to the press? Why did CBC not check the claims for themselves? How could multiple officials all come to tell the same false story to the media absent collusion and an intention to mislead? W
It could have been a case of misunderstanding anywhere along the information chain, either on the news end or on the official's end - 'the place where the shooter was shot' becoming 'here are the bullet holes from the shooter being shot' being a fairly easy jump to make for anyone not totally familiar with all the facts.
I must have missed this part. what I read just said multiple sources. can you define 'official' as you are using it here and/or repost where you got this idea for me? thanks.
Just a tad embarrassing, but you guys'll get over it.
Now that we know the bullet-hole story was fabricated out of whole cloth, and we have CBC's claim that multiple sources confirmed the fabricated bullet-hole story, the appropriate skeptical questions have been asked, but over at the memory hole blog.
It’s certainly irrefutable proof that CBC did not have the details right. So who gave them those details? And have they apologized yet to their audience? And will they do any investigation into why they were given false information?
If the location of the alleged final shoot-out is still officially correct, the absence of new damage to the wall from the gun fight raises its own questions, of course.
The ‘correction’ raises its own questions.
CBC was fed a pack of nonsense by multiple officials and ran the story unchecked. Why did CBC not check the claims for themselves? How could multiple officials all come to tell the same false story to the media absent collusion and an intention to mislead? Why would officials invent and seek to propagate the ‘bullet-hole’ story unless they felt the need to add verisimilitude, somehow – and why should they feel the need to do that?
And is CBC even asking these reasonable questions- especially after they say they were misled into making false claims themselves?
I hope metabunk will try to get answers to these questions, just as guys over at the Memory Hole Blog are.
Hi Nick! Welcome!
I've read your 5 posts on this, but I'm still not sure what your point is... (my apologies, I'm not as patient as most of the Metabunkers...)
but is this going somewhere? Are you trying to subtly imply something that I'm missing?
I mean, I saw your big list o' questions, but what do you think they mean?
Are you saying that something significantly different happened than it appears...or are you just killing time?
The State Department's Flicker Account has a similar problem: Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Heyman Look at Repaired Bullet Holes in the Spot Where a Gunman Was Stopped in the Hall of Honour on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
It is the fact they are not bullet holes, but were identified as such by the media following information from multiple official sources, that is at the root of this controversy.
Pete Tar, I alone am responsible for the use of the word 'official' with regard to these sources. Of course they were officials, no-one else had access to the scene or could credibly tell the media about what happened. But yes, as I have said several times here, CBC must clarify exactly who it was who misled them. For as I have also said several times, one inevitably asks about this matter,
How could multiple officials all come to tell the same false story to the media absent collusion and an intention to mislead? Why would officials invent and seek to propagate the ‘bullet-hole’ story unless they felt the need to add verisimilitude, somehow – and why should they feel the need to do that?
You are assuming the CBC was deliberately mislead by official sources, then using that assumption to support a false flag conspiracy. You'll need to present some evidence of the government's deliberate deception and show how the reporting of bullet holes could not have been a simple error on the part of the parties involved.
The false bullet-hole story, and CBC's claim that more than one official confirmed it to them, are in themselves evidence of the deliberate misleading of the media, for,
"How could multiple officials all come to tell the same false story to the media absent collusion and an intention to mislead?"
If you and I both tell the police we were together playing poker at the time of the murder and that later proves false, the police have reason to suspect we were deliberately trying to mislead them (this is not controversial), but they do not have evidence that we were responsible for the murder (and I, correspondingly, have not mentioned a false-flag conspiracy).
Have not mentioned it, but just as the cops would ask themselves if the false poker alibi had something to do with the murder, everyone with a three digit IQ will understand why I ask,
"Why would officials invent and seek to propagate the ‘bullet-hole’ story unless they felt the need to add verisimilitude, somehow – and why should they feel the need to do that?"
they didn't. the only 'proof' you have that officials did is you (admitting to) making up that 'officials' were the source and making up what the 'sources' said.
Personally, while I believe its possible they got info from official sources and just confused the information they were given (assumed ALL holes were bullet holes), it seems odd to me CBC wouldn't SAY "official sources" to make them sound better IF the info was from 'official sources'.
Here in America reporters love to add "official sources" or "sources close to the investigation" but maybe Canada is different.
"Why would officials invent and seek to propagate the ‘bullet-hole’ story unless they felt the need to add verisimilitude, somehow – and why should they feel the need to do that?"
You are claiming foul play based on the incorrect reporting of images that appeared to look like bullet holes. It's been shown to you that early reports of events often contain errors. In this case the reporter even made a mistake regarding the type of weapon used.
You seem to be asking many questions but providing very few answers. How about if you try answering your own questions and tell us the who, what, where, when and why. We're here to examine your evidence, not to trip over ourselves finding answers to appease the suspicions of someone who is just asking questions.
they didn't. the only 'proof' you have that officials did is you (admitting to) making up that 'officials' were the source and making up what the 'sources' said.
Personally, while I believe its possible they got info from official sources and just confused the information they were given (assumed ALL holes were bullet holes), it seems odd to me CBC wouldn't SAY "official sources" to make them sound better IF the info was from 'official sources'.
Here in America reporters love to add "official sources" or "sources close to the investigation" but maybe Canada is different.
Fair point, it could, technically, have been a bunch of guys down the pub who gave that information to Solomon <i>and</i> the office of the US Secretary of State. I'm jumping to conclusions. Me.
I haven't asked those questions. I've pointed out discrepancies discovered by Dario and perhaps others with the CBC story, and asked reasonable questions abouthose discrepancies, how they came about, and how they're being dealt with.
The false story was debunked, you should be pleased! [Please review the Posting Guidelines. Metabunk is about debunking specific claims of evidence, not arguing the merits of broader theories.]
But if false stories about terrorism matter, you should indeed also want to look into the who, what, where, when and why. Right now you just seem to want to bury the fact the false story was debunked! Let the skeptics win this fight first.
Fair point, it could, technically, have been a bunch of guys down the pub who gave that information to Solomon <i>and</i> the office of the US Secretary of State. I'm jumping to conclusions. Me.
Yes you are. Obviously they were told there were bullet holes in that wall, and there were. So what's the problem here?
Do you think some official source said exactly which marks on the wall were holes, and which were not? Of did you think they tried to up the ante by adding in some old repaired mounting holes for no apparent reason?
Or, just maybe, each person responsible for captioning or labeling photos in each case mistook the round bullet-hole sized marks as bullet holes, and missed the actual bullet holes?
I haven't asked those questions. I've pointed out discrepancies discovered by Dario and perhaps others with the CBC story, and asked reasonable questions abouthose discrepancies, how they came about, and how they're being dealt with.
The false story was debunked, you should be pleased! But if false stories about terrorism matter, you should indeed also want to look into the who, what, where, when and why. Right now you just seem to want to bury the fact the false story was debunked! Let the skeptics win this fight first.
The problem is that you're in a room filled with actual skeptics...who don't just believe whatever they see on YouTube.
I'm beginning to see why you chose not to answer my question (#44), about whether or not you had a point (eventually).
I do love this though: "I alone am responsible for the use of the word 'official' with regard to these sources. Of course they were officials, no-one else had access to the scene or could credibly tell the media about what happened."
Since we now all know that they absolutely were NOTcredible,
does it not follow--from your logic--that they could not have been "officials" ?
Yes you are. Obviously they were told there were bullet holes in that wall, and there were. So what's the problem here?
Do you think some official source said exactly which marks on the wall were holes, and which were not? Of did you think they tried to up the ante by adding in some old repaired mounting holes for no apparent reason?
Or, just maybe, each person responsible for captioning or labeling photos in each case mistook the round bullet-hole sized marks as bullet holes, and missed the actual bullet holes?
Your new information is potentially important, Mick. I agree it's very odd that they labelled every blemish on the wall a bullet-hole except the actual bullet-holes, which they did not appear to notice.
Do you think some official source said exactly which marks on the wall were holes, and which were not? Or do you think they tried to up the ante by adding in some old repaired mounting holes for no apparent reason?
Or, just maybe, each person responsible for captioning or labeling photos in each case mistook the round bullet-hole sized marks as bullet holes, and missed the actual bullet holes? But what are the odds?
Sorry, but I don't think "skeptics" is the word you are looking for here. There are better words to describe someone who suspects that any discrepancy in media reporting is due to deception by TPTB.
But if false stories about terrorism matter, you should indeed also want to look into the who, what, where, when and why. Right now you just seem to want to bury the fact the false story was debunked!
I'm still not following your line of reasoning here at all.
False: Something that is in error, incorrect, inaccurate but in good faith.
Hoax: Something designed to deceive, a fabrication, a fiction.
So, is that some holes exist in the Canadian Parliament from a shooting, this was reported to the press, and when the media were given access they filmed every single blemish on all the walls and some were mislabeled?
Or 'someone' wilfully misled the CBC, added some obviously parallel and precise holes to the story, to add extra drama, (because, you know, a guy running around Parliament with a rifle shooting people just would not be dramatic enough, they just HAD to add the legacy repair work from way back when), in order to support (insert hidden agenda of choice)?
The CBC then corrected their reporting error, but you still smell a rat?
Nick, when a traumatic event happens, do you imagine the press, witnesses, government or police are going to get every detail perfectly correct and accurate first time?
I've pointed out discrepancies discovered by Dario and perhaps others with the CBC story, and asked reasonable questions abouthose discrepancies, how they came about, and how they're being dealt with.
That's not entirely accurate, is it Nick? You've done more than just point out discrepancies. You've accused officials of deliberately misleading the media. That kind of claim requires evidence. Evidence that you have not yet presented.
Yes it was debunked and I am pleased. It was debunked within 24 hrs by the CBC when they published their correction. I found that CBC retraction in a 3 minute Google search. Interesting to note that the CBC will retract it's errors when they discover them. Can we expect the same from Mr. Dario over at the Memoryhole blog, I wonder?
Hey there,
I've been reading along with interest, as I'm quite intrigued by this whole story. It seems to me that the whole story of Vickers taking out a wild gunman relies on the placement of that gunman in the alcove. After all, all of the facts of the gunman meeting his death are predicated on his placement in the building, really. Vickers couldn't have done what he did, the witnesses couldn't have seen what they saw, if in fact all of the action were to have taken place elsewhere.
So..
If the holes in the wall of the alcove are not bullet holes but are in fact patched repairs from a year or more before then someone - multiple someone's - are not telling the truth about what happened that day.
[... OT material removed, one claim of evidence per thread please ...]
Oh, to follow up to my post above, I forgot my question about the quote I inserted.
I was wondering how you came to the conclusion that the bullet holes that Kerry is looking at are not in the photo, and what evidence you have that he is looking down at them. Thanks.
Oh, to follow up to my post above, I forgot my question about the quote I inserted.
I was wondering how you came to the conclusion that the bullet holes that Kerry is looking at are not in the photo, and what evidence you have that he is looking down at them. Thanks.
do you have evidence that those are new holes caused by bullets from that day... where is that info coming from?
Also, why do you say Kerry is looking down?
thanks
do you have evidence that those are new holes caused by bullets from that day... where is that info coming from?
Also, why do you say Kerry is looking down?
thanks
They were not there in the Google Street View images. So maybe coincidently some bullet-hole shaped holes appeared after that, or they were all faked. But the fact remains there are what looks like bullet holes in the wall where they say that guy was shot.
If Kerry was looking at those bullet holes then he was looking down. You can't actually tell where he was looking.
But really the question here should be if you have any evidence that there are fake bullet holes. Because that's what this thread is about.
They were not there in the Google Street View images. So maybe coincidently some bullet-hole shaped holes appeared after that, or they were all faked. But the fact remains there are what looks like bullet holes in the wall where they say that guy was shot.
If Kerry was looking at those bullet holes then he was looking down. You can't actually tell where he was looking.
But really the question here should be if you have any evidence that there are fake bullet holes. Because that's what this thread is about.
No, I have no evidence that they are fake bullet holes - of course not! To my way of thinking that would mean that I'd have to show someone making the holes and I fully admit that I cannot do that. The Google Street view does prove that many of the holes reported as being bullet holes from that day were actually made earlier from some other repair or something. But I see that you contend that there is a new hole or holes near the bottom of the photo.
I don't know where that damage came from, or if that photo is legit. Do you happen to know the source of that picture by chance? I'd like to look more closely at the original.
I see that someone else already went through the 'where Kerry is looking' thing.. sorry to have made you repeat that.
I don't know where that damage came from, or if that photo is legit. Do you happen to know the source of that picture by chance? I'd like to look more closely at the original.
I'm not trying to dispute, I'm trying to verify.
I thought that that was what debunking was. Please correct me if I'm wrong - I don't want to aggravate a forum that I've just become a part of.
Boy I'm having a lot of trouble posting to this page... anyway I did a google image search for the picture and the only one that comes up is the one posted here. I guess 'that guy on reddit' took it down? Or maybe you forget where it came from. In either case there's not much to back it up. Nothing, in fact.
If the holes in the wall of the alcove are not bullet holes but are in fact patched repairs from a year or more before then someone - multiple someone's - are not telling the truth about what happened that day.
Hi Surrealiste, welcome to Metabunk. Don't worry, you ask reasonable questions so I don't imagine you have aggravated anyone.
I'm not following your line of enquiry here though- who is not telling the truth?
Are you saying that someone has deliberately been deceptive, or are you saying that rumours are reported as fact (happens a lot on 24hr, live, relentlessly, breathless, drama-queen journalists 'news'), or an MP or two couldn't resist telling reporters stuff using sentences that often start "I heard that....."?
Boy I'm having a lot of trouble posting to this page... anyway I did a google image search for the picture and the only one that comes up is the one posted here. I guess 'that guy on reddit' took it down? Or maybe you forget where it came from. In either case there's not much to back it up. Nothing, in fact.
Boy I'm having a lot of trouble posting to this page... anyway I did a google image search for the picture and the only one that comes up is the one posted here. I guess 'that guy on reddit' took it down? Or maybe you forget where it came from. In either case there's not much to back it up. Nothing, in fact.
Hi Surrealiste, welcome to Metabunk. Don't worry, you ask reasonable questions so I don't imagine you have aggravated anyone.
I'm not following your line of enquiry here though- who is not telling the truth?
Are you saying that someone has deliberately been deceptive, or are you saying that rumours are reported as fact (happens a lot on 24hr, live, relentlessly, breathless, drama-queen journalists 'news'), or an MP or two couldn't resist telling reporters stuff using sentences that often start "I heard that....."?
(firstly I'm not sure how to use the quote function, I would have liked to just have quoted BombDr here)
I guess I'm just looking for hard evidence of what really happened without having to rely on speculation, anonymous sources, and questionable photos. All I know is that this incident will likely have wide ranging implications for Canada, and the truth is necessary for a democracy to function.
In that regard I am concerned that we don't know what really happened and no one seems inclined to find out - ie if the account from Kevin Vickers is untrue then what *is* the truth?
Has Vickers given a first hand account anywhere or are we relying on reporters retellings? If so then that, to me, is unacceptable. Certainly we can see that reporters make gross mistakes when they do this. Also, two men are dead - had the shooter not been killed I assume there would be a trial and therefore these sorts of hyperbolic, unverified accounts would never stand. Are we to forget about needing proof just because the shooter is dead?
I guess I'm just looking for hard evidence of what really happened without having to rely on speculation, anonymous sources, and questionable photos. All I know is that this incident will likely have wide ranging implications for Canada, and the truth is necessary for a democracy to function.
Is it too much to expect to wait for a full investigation to occur or are you determined to know now? Sounds to me like an independent, unbiased and thorough investigation by the Police is the finest example of democracy in action....? Are you expecting the investigation to be performed in public?
In that regard I am concerned that we don't know what really happened and no one seems inclined to find out - ie if the account from Kevin Vickers is untrue then what *is* the truth?
Please state your claim about Mr Vickers - I'm still not fully understanding your concerns or where the discrepancy is. It seems to me that there will be several investigations or reviews that will answer the majority of your questions, but they might need more than a couple of weeks of detailed work before presenting their conclusions.
I'm speculating, but there will be a Police criminal investigation, there will be a coroners investigation for both of the deceased, I imagine the Department of National Defence will hold a separate investigation/review of security of military personnel on public duties and finally I imagine there will be a full Parliamentary investigation/review of the physical security of Parliament. These investigations will most likely be conducted by the most competent investigators of each department, who I am sure will be most inclined to 'know what really happened'. I also do not expect them to be particularly swift.
Also, two men are dead - had the shooter not been killed I assume there would be a trial and therefore these sorts of hyperbolic, unverified accounts would never stand.
What is alarming you? What are you reasonably expecting in terms of factual information and evidence to be made public in the immediate aftermath of an event?
Thanks,
I just read that thread. I see that other people there have questions about who the poster is and why he'd have those photos / access. Those are fair questions and the skeptic in me just cannot take an anonymous poster's word for something as evidence.
