Video Fakery

[Laetrile]

The media are the most guilty of all the 911 perps.

What do you think?

[marky 54]

IMO the media sold the lie, the offical story and who did it to the general public moments after the second strike, in that sense yes i agree but do not believe any image faking went off.

the image faking went of after the attacks, and has since been promoted by people with the skills to add backgrounds or remove them, tamper with this or that etc.

there are many videos out there demonstrating their skills with video, the octopus backdrop being just one example in one video, if im wrong then im sorry, but it is really hard to believe in tv fakery when the group promoting it have demonstrated how it was done and that they are capable of doing the same themselves(and for all anyone knows could of made the original clip and then claimed FAKE!).

check out the end of this video to see what i mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NUNvQMhkiY

so its been proved the maker has the skill and know how to fake a scene using the octopus back drop in the final frames of the above video(seeing as though most of the clips claim backgrounds rotating or moving oddly, it fits very well). so what is being asked of people is to believe a capable faker that the clips have been faked by news channels rather than themselves. the baker baked the cakes in the bakers shop window, why would anyone think any differant?

their on the right track with the news reports being guided or staged to promote lies but with an eliment of disinfo with the visuals IMO.

also i'd like to remind people anyone can make a fake, just watch youtube for examples. faked u.f.o sightings, faked ghosts being the ones of the top of my head, some are nonsense but some are quite good, there are communities of fakers out there, they usually work in special effects and usually own a computer, but some have learnt via freetime and having the correct computer programmes.

so please tell me after considering all this why i should believe t.v fakery is'nt just disinfo?

in fact here is a free video showing you how to make a ghost video in 10 minutes for anyone wanting to make ghost plane videos , all you need is differant sized clips of the actual event, and a free programme you can download which is mentioned in the clip. i hope you all enjoy! happy faking everyone .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skXos1JPngk

much easier to do after the event once you have the footage, i'd imagine doing it live as the event is happening would be much harder.
how on earth you co-ordinate faking live to match each event as its happing is beyond me, you just have to decide which is more likely.

faking live on almost every angle and almost all footage or someone just doing it after the event as a form of disinfo to put people on the wrong track.

[Easy Rider]

Hi Marky

Have you checked out this website devoted to tv fakery?

http://www.911tvfakery.net/

[marky 54]

yes seen that stuff loads of times, they have a lot of stuff, that means a lot of faking on live shots if true, or a lot of faking has been done after the event.

i cannot see them faking all that material live, most of it is pointless to fake, someone is having you on.

[Easy Rider]

How do you explain the change of backdrops when the second impact was shown on evening tv?

That had to have been faked on the day itself

[telecasterisation]

This has been discussed many times here and on every occasion after much rhetorical interchange, this has culminated in a complete lack of any real core 'evidence'.

The point, or rather the question that needs addressing following such a thread/poll being started, is who are 'the media'? From my perspective, ‘the media’ is a huge machine of assorted people who deliver items of global and local note via visual and auditory vehicles.

To simply tar 'the media' with complicity is like labelling ‘The French’ as being responsible for their government’s actions when in actuality, ‘The French’ are just a few men in a room making decisions for the entire country.

So to add to this, I view ‘the media’ as mostly comprising average but often highly intelligent men and women doing a job to pay their mortgages and to add them to the conspiracy of 911 is simply nuts. If on the other hand, you cite ‘the media’ as being a tiny number of key members who are able to manipulate certain threads of information, then that is another matter entirely.

Something that is often quoted in response to my above points, is that the author of a piece who finds their work altered when published would say nothing so as to not compromise their employment. In other words, a subject is researched, detailed in print and/or captured on film, then appears totally differently when broadcast, yet the essayist says nothing so as to remain in work?

Having had this debate many times, we need to quantify exactly who we are discussing here. Broad brushstrokes that tar great swathes of people only made me vote ‘no’.

[Dogsmilk]

[marky 54]