Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Professor Buzzkill

Crisis actors in news interviews ?

158 posts in this topic

and let's hope those promoting the conspiracy angle take heed of this bit...

Secondly, please consider what it is appropriate to say when discussing a sensitive subject such as the Boston bombings. Some of the conspiratorial concepts being proposed were extremely insensitive and simply not something we want to be seeing on the boards. Spare a thought for those who have been affected by these events and keep the comments civil and respectful in future.

.

Absolutely right. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thers a bit more to the OP's post, and recent threads - than perhaps you realize. Best to bear that in mind...

You'll have to spell out exactly what you're talking about ....... otherwise it's impossible to 'bear that in mind'.

So, is there a point you are trying to subtly get at, seeder?

The use of the word 'subtly' in this context made me laugh! Come on seeder, don't be shy, spell it out for us and then we're 'all on the same page' so to speak.

If I was one of those two women I would deem the video extremely offensive...(and illegal)

Because it is defamation of character insinuating that they are the same person and in essence are aiding and abetting

(mass) murder, mutilation and mayhem.

But they're not being accused of 'aiding and abetting (mass)murder, mutilation and mayhem' in this thread! ..... posters here are simply wondering why apparently/possibly the same woman is being interviewed at two different sites concerned with the Boston bombings(and possibly Sandy Hook too)

Strictly from a personal point of view, if I was unfortunate enough to be at the scene of a bombing like this, and someone on a forum or other media started making accusations that I was at other 'scenes of crimes', and playing a role etc....i'd start immediate legal action against them.

Bit of an over-reaction ....... couldn't you just contact them and say look, this is not true and I can prove it, please remove the insinuations? And then if they don't, think about suing.

but the video maker is insinuating that those women are part of an (imaginary) cover-up....that they are not real people reporting what they saw or knew.

Could you give us proof that it's 'imaginary', please?

No doubt this thread will be closely monitored after what happened in the last one... that was (understandably) removed.

It's such a shame that the 'last one' wasn't closely monitered and misdemeanours acted on quickly and repeat offenders banned from the thread. Such a shame that the entire thread was closed down because just one or two people wouldn't behave :( ..... almost seemed to work actively towards getting the thread closed ..........

Just logged on. And rest assured those who addressed me personally will all be answered.... shortly

I'm curious: why do you always feel the need to tell us 'just logged on', 'just going off to watch my favourite 'soap'/film', 'just going to work'?

Yes and Ive just PM'd you

:lol:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see the authoritarian enemies of free speech are out in force after succeeding in closing down the last thread.

here's my suggestion - go to another part of the forum and swap favourite colours instead of telling people what they can and cannot think.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're only on page 4 and the bickering is back already, doesn't bode well does it!

I really would recommend people stick to the topic and not anything else.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it incredible that to a select few here, the grossly offensive images and views being put forward in the previous thread were apparently perfectly fine; yet those who dared to be offended by it and the moderators who spent their free time attempting to address these issues are now regarded with the utmost contempt.

Free speech to offend whoever one wants, it seems, is now valued far above ethics, morality and common decency.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just Watch John Stewarts show from thurs ! CNN really bbit the Big-One !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Live from Saudi Arabia ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpxKyyh8SME

.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see the authoritarian enemies of free speech are out in force after succeeding in closing down the last thread.

here's my suggestion - go to another part of the forum and swap favourite colours instead of telling people what they can and cannot think.

I think you miss the point on what free speech is, actually. It's not that you can say whatever you want without consequence, it's that you can say whatever you want but to break existing laws (or in this case, forum rules) in what you say can mean consequence.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this interesting.......

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if anyone here is a fan of Joe Rogans podcast, but I listened to one where he had a girl on there who was a ex-journalist for CNN.

She was talking about all the messed up stuff they made her *NOT report on.

The things that we should genuineally see, like reports on Bahrain and Sri Lanka.

I wish I could remember the episode number, I think you guys would find it very interesting.

just go on YouTube and search for "Joe rogan experience Amber Lyon".

She also did an interview with Alex jones I think.

Yep. You can find both of these on Youtube.

Here's on clip I thought I'd post:

This was brought up in the Boston thread (which for unknown reasons was deleted instead of editing out the offensive material) and i found it quite compelling. An eyewitness at the boston bombings, watertown shootout and Sandy Hook (not quite an eyewitness, but a "friend" of the Lanza family) was interviewed by CNN at every crime scene.

Dispite the obvious visual simularities, if you listen to the watertown and sandy hook interviews it is quite clearly the same woman speaking with the same distinctive S's sounds. Durring the Boston Bombing interview she clearly has more adrenaline in her blood, which is understandable if you witnessed a bombing or its aftermath.

Was this woman interviewed by other networks? If not, then i would suggest that CNN is faking eyewitnesses.

<---- Edit. This video has uploaders comments in regards to similar speach patterns etc.

for a longer version:

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkHVuTL6v7Y[/media]

I would appreciate any comments including debunkers. If i am wrong, i would like to know about it.

EDIT again: Please refrain from posting graphic or offense material. I will report anything to the mods that could be deemed offensive

Wow. Looks like the same woman to me. She even talks with the same type accent! This is definitely strange... :huh:

But, this wouldn't be the first time CNN has done something like this...

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see the authoritarian enemies of free speech are out in force after succeeding in closing down the last thread.

here's my suggestion - go to another part of the forum and swap favourite colours instead of telling people what they can and cannot think.

This comment is great .

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it incredible that to a select few here, the grossly offensive images and views being put forward in the previous thread were apparently perfectly fine; yet those who dared to be offended by it and the moderators who spent their free time attempting to address these issues are now regarded with the utmost contempt.

Free speech to offend whoever one wants, it seems, is now valued far above ethics, morality and common decency.

i don't think you were following the thread. I was not saying free speech is free speech to offend, nor was i advocating putting up pictures of the injured. those pictures should have been deleted under the rules of the forum.

those of us that were looking at the conspiratorial angle of the boston bombings never put up any offensive images or promoted the notion that the injured were actors. it was one provocateur poster in particular, who is a self confessed conspiracy-denier, that continually put those images up and pretended that is what we were discussing, and i would say he did so in order to shut down reasonable discussion which he succeeded in doing, because he did not want discussion and the entire thread was deleted due to his actions.

for the record i do not support the notion of fake injured, nor would i ever put up a gore image on this site. on other forums i have been on, it is the offender who broke the rule that is sanctioned.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

but the video maker is insinuating that those women are part of an (imaginary) cover-up....that they are not real people reporting what they saw or knew.

and when it comes to the so-called actors who are supposed to have played the part of the Boston victims...purleeese...

what do they do at Crisis Actor HQ.....put out a call for anyone who doesn't mind breaking the law and aiding and abetting murder etc

:hmm:

.

As I mentioned, I do not personally know any person who has done this, but I do know they exist. Humans are a perverse lot.

As for the notion of sensitive subjects and 'conspiratorial' thoughts or actions, what is so special about the Boston bombings? How are the deaths and injuries there qualitatively different than similar events around the world?

Everybody wished it did not happen, but while and since, many other humans have been killed and injured. Sadly, many of them children at the hands of US drone operators.

Edited by Babe Ruth
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think you miss the point on what free speech is, actually. It's not that you can say whatever you want without consequence, it's that you can say whatever you want but to break existing laws (or in this case, forum rules) in what you say can mean consequence.

I know what freedom of speech is.

I never claimed it was "say whatever you want without consequence or disregard for law or rules".

please examine your assumptions.

Edited by Little Fish
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do i have a feeling this will get closed in time?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reporters Sue FOX TV-Inside Story

"Fox managers and their lawyers ordered us to distort, twist, and slant a story and threatened us with immediate dismissal if we would not broadcast material we knew to be false and misleading."

http://www.informati...article1212.htm

why is it so outlandish to suggest that CNN would make up fake witness interviews to create a story or reinforce a narrative to push an agenda?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoNN news. :P

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neo CoNN news :)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't trust any of them.

Idiots.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I even heard some dimwit reporter on the radio today being interviewed about the Jodi Arias trial and she started talking about how we need to be discussing mental health issues more. Guess what she dove right into with no more talk about mental health issues? Right. Gun control. All of these morons have agendas.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those of us in the news biz, the headline on a new Gallup survey was dispiriting, to say the least: “U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High.”

“Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60 percent saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly,” Gallup reported Friday. “Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.”

That’s a far cry from the 1970s, when Gallup asked the question three times and found trust in the media as high as 72 percent.

It also means that “negativity toward the media is at an all-time high for a presidential election year,” according to Gallup, which is “particularly consequential at a time when Americans need to rely on the media to learn about the platforms and perspectives of the two candidates vying to lead the country for the next four years.”

There’s a definite political tilt to such findings.

Trust in the media – defined as having a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust – is very low among Republicans (26 percent) and Independents (31 percent), considerably higher among Democrats (58 percent). Paradoxically, Republicans are the partisan group most likely to be paying close attention to news about national politics, Gallup finds.

How have things changed since the media’s relative glory days in the 70s and earlier?

Back then, most Americans relied on local newspapers and such much-admired TV broadcasters as Walter Cronkite and Howard K. Smith, whose veracity was rarely questioned. When Mr. Cronkite ended his broadcasts with his signature “and that’s the way it is,” most of us believed him.

Vietnam and Watergate changed that to some extent. (It changed Cronkite, who publicly turned against the Vietnam War.) So did the civil rights movement and the push for gender equality. Establishment thinking and policies came under greater scrutiny, and conventional beliefs were challenged.

Taken from http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/polls-most-americans-dont-trust-media

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a freelance cameraman. He's worked on a show in the UK called 'most haunted' and was repeatedly asked to film fake ghost activity. He's seen people paid to talk about something they haven't witnessed, he's been asked to use archive footage to get a shot they couldn't get live.

Here's a fairly famous bit of footage... You miss a sandstorm? Just kick sand about and lie...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I know a freelance cameraman. He's worked on a show in the UK called 'most haunted' and was repeatedly asked to film fake ghost activity. He's seen people paid to talk about something they haven't witnessed, he's been asked to use archive footage to get a shot they couldn't get live.

Here's a fairly famous bit of footage... You miss a sandstorm? Just kick sand about and lie...

Most haunted is a totally fake entertainment show anyway. Maybe you didnt know that perhaps and believed they found ghosts at every old pub and managed to film/record them?? Talk about total overacting....

Edited by Saru
Removed copyrighted video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Live from Saudi Arabia ???

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpxKyyh8SME[/media]

.

That is SO embarressing! Are you sure it isn't a skit? At one point the guy on the left says 'the props are shaking' under his breath!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is SO embarressing! Are you sure it isn't a skit? At one point the guy on the left says 'the props are shaking' under his breath!

TBH I am not too sure, that is one of the reason's why I posted it, to see what other member's think of it...

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.