Anderson Cooper BUSTED For Using Green Screen...

[paulitician]

As I said before, I don't know and don't much care.

If he used green screen, shame on him but this is so very commonplace in almost all modern media whether in the movies, on television, in advertising, and in newscasts.

If he was at the funeral in person, shame on him. In my opinion the media should not be interviewing mourners at a funeral.

Fair enough. I agree. And check out Cooper's CIA past when you get a chance. In my opinion, he's a CIA operative. The whole Network is a sham. But that's just my take. Check it out. Either way, it's very interesting.

I don't know whether he is a CIA former aqent or operative either. I did do a little--very little--research on that and could find no evidence of it on any legitimate bio I found for him and the only references to CIA connections have been on privately owned blogs. As we know, these tend to copy each other a lot, and a rumor can easily be planted almost anywhere on the internet and will be picked up and presented as fact by others until the lie is told so often it becomes part of the lore accepted as fact.

So I confess that I am a bit skeptical about Cooper Anderson or CNN being associated with the CIA.

He did serve in the CIA. It's fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fair enough. I agree. And check out Cooper's CIA past when you get a chance. In my opinion, he's a CIA operative. The whole Network is a sham. But that's just my take. Check it out. Either way, it's very interesting.

I don't know whether he is a CIA former aqent or operative either. I did do a little--very little--research on that and could find no evidence of it on any legitimate bio I found for him and the only references to CIA connections have been on privately owned blogs. As we know, these tend to copy each other a lot, and a rumor can easily be planted almost anywhere on the internet and will be picked up and presented as fact by others until the lie is told so often it becomes part of the lore accepted as fact.

So I confess that I am a bit skeptical about Cooper Anderson or CNN being associated with the CIA.

He did serve in the CIA. It's fact.

I accept that you are convinced of that. I simply have seen no evidence of that which I consider irrefutable. So for me, that remains an open question.

 

[Pogo]

Fair enough. I agree. And check out Cooper's CIA past when you get a chance. In my opinion, he's a CIA operative. The whole Network is a sham. But that's just my take. Check it out. Either way, it's very interesting.

I don't know whether he is a CIA former aqent or operative either. I did do a little--very little--research on that and could find no evidence of it on any legitimate bio I found for him and the only references to CIA connections have been on privately owned blogs. As we know, these tend to copy each other a lot, and a rumor can easily be planted almost anywhere on the internet and will be picked up and presented as fact by others until the lie is told so often it becomes part of the lore accepted as fact.

So I confess that I am a bit skeptical about Cooper Anderson or CNN being associated with the CIA.

He did serve in the CIA. It's fact.

Um yeah well after your recent gaping-hole gaffes on green screens and burning people alive, you may have a definition of "fact" that differs from that of the rest of us. I think you need some lessons in logic.

If you want to see a concentrated compendium of logical fallacies, visit this page where this wacko hysteria lives. It's hilarious.

 

[G.T.]

Paulitician might be the most naive conspiracy theorist on the internet, EVER.

 

[Foxfyre]

Paulitician may or may not be a conspiracy theorist. I don't know. I do know that some things warrant more investigation and transparency, and it is a common political ploy these days to accuse the opposition of being a conspiracy theorist. Large groups of people seem to demonstrate a huge lack of curiosity and unwillingness to know the truth about things these days. I still have too much investigative reporter in me to give up curiosity. And I think people of integrity would rather know the truth than accept a lie.

 

[G.T.]

Paulitician may or may not be a conspiracy theorist. I don't know. I do know that some things warrant more investigation and transparency, and it is a common political ploy these days to accuse the opposition of being a conspiracy theorist. Large groups of people seem to demonstrate a huge lack of curiosity and unwillingness to know the truth about things these days. I still have too much investigative reporter in me to give up curiosity. And I think people of integrity would rather know the truth than accept a lie.

He's a truther, a birther, a sandy hooker, and now this.

You be the judge.

There's a demon under every rock in his garden.

 

[Foxfyre]

Paulitician may or may not be a conspiracy theorist. I don't know. I do know that some things warrant more investigation and transparency, and it is a common political ploy these days to accuse the opposition of being a conspiracy theorist. Large groups of people seem to demonstrate a huge lack of curiosity and unwillingness to know the truth about things these days. I still have too much investigative reporter in me to give up curiosity. And I think people of integrity would rather know the truth than accept a lie.

He's a truther, a birther, a sandy hooker, and now this.

You be the judge.

There's a demon under every rock in his garden.

And even if all that is true, that is a problem for me, how?

 

[G.T.]

Paulitician may or may not be a conspiracy theorist. I don't know. I do know that some things warrant more investigation and transparency, and it is a common political ploy these days to accuse the opposition of being a conspiracy theorist. Large groups of people seem to demonstrate a huge lack of curiosity and unwillingness to know the truth about things these days. I still have too much investigative reporter in me to give up curiosity. And I think people of integrity would rather know the truth than accept a lie.

He's a truther, a birther, a sandy hooker, and now this.

You be the judge.

There's a demon under every rock in his garden.

And even if all that is true, that is a problem for me, how?

"foxfrye, that is a problem for you"

Wow, you predicted that I'd say it was a problem for you. Nice!~

 

[Pogo]

Paulitician may or may not be a conspiracy theorist. I don't know. I do know that some things warrant more investigation and transparency, and it is a common political ploy these days to accuse the opposition of being a conspiracy theorist. Large groups of people seem to demonstrate a huge lack of curiosity and unwillingness to know the truth about things these days. I still have too much investigative reporter in me to give up curiosity. And I think people of integrity would rather know the truth than accept a lie.

I dunno Foxy -- when the theory leaves great big gigantic gaping logical holes in it, we have to conclude that there are wackos who will simply run with anything -- even after those holes have been demonstrated in detail.

Did you see the moon landing staged in your back yard? That's a more solid CT than this is.

 

[G.T.]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/271086-sandy-hook-a-hoax.html

 

[Foxfyre]

There are folks who claim the Holocaust was a hoax. That the moon landing was fiction and staged to fool us. Some claim what crashed near Roswell in 1947 was a weather balloon; others claim it was an experimental aircraft that our own government was using; others that it was an extraterrestial spacecraft. What really happened to Jimmy Hoffa? There are legitimate questions that can be asked re the Kennedy assassination; 9/11; Chappaquiddick; Obama's credentials that he won't allow to be seen; why there are no photographs or other conclusive evidence of the identify of Osama bin Laden that is made available to the public; and why the public is not allowed to see the security camera video of the shooter entering Sandy Hook. Etc.

That some draw more far fetched conclusions from these things than others do seems more credible to me than those who deny that there are any mysteries at all associated with these events. I see the ones who draw far fetched or unprovable conclusions re these things as less puzzling than those who have no curiosity about them whatsoever. To be willing to buy any lie fed to you and never questioning or challenging it to me is a far more dangerous thing than drawing wrong conclusions.

And to expose fraud, even when there is no harm and no foul, is a healthy exercise and probably a wise thing to do lest we lull people into being gullible about things that aren't so harmless too.

 

[G.T.]

aaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhahaha @ that first paragraph.



blackballed.

 

[Foxfyre]

aaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhahaha @ that first paragraph.



blackballed.

So be it. I find those curious about and willing to investigate the unanswered questions to be much more interesting than those who focus on ridiculing or belittling or insulting the messenger.

 

[G.T.]

aaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhahaha @ that first paragraph.



blackballed.

So be it. I find those curious about and willing to investigate the unanswered questions to be much more interesting than those who focus on ridiculing or belittling or insulting the messenger.

Problem : the questions aren't "unanswered."

They're not willing to find the answers, so that their loony theories can live on. It's immaturity, at its best.

It's trust but verify.

Not distrust distrust distrust. That's immature and leads one to being delusional, like the guy who shot gabby giffords.

 

[Pogo]

I see the ones who draw far fetched or unprovable conclusions re these things as less puzzling than those who have no curiosity about them whatsoever. To be willing to buy any lie fed to you and never questioning or challenging it to me is a far more dangerous thing than drawing wrong conclusions.

And to expose fraud, even when there is no harm and no foul, is a healthy exercise and probably a wise thing to do lest we lull people into being gullible about things that aren't so harmless too.

And that buying into any lie fed to one is exactly what's happening here. In this case the paranoid fantasists pretend to see green screen artifacts that are readily disprovable, and yet persist. In the other you have the same paranoid fantasists clamoring that a man was "burned alive" in spite of the undispwuted fact that the man in question had two ways out. When a CTer is ignoring the very definitions of words to hold on to an unsalvageable point, then we have left the realm of curious investigation and entered the woozy world of intentional hallucination.

In other words, "questioning" and being "curious" is exactly what these wacko theories need to be addressed with. That's why I did what I did at the beginning of this thread (post #2) to deconstruct and destroy this particular wacko theory. Curiosity applies to all stories, not just the ones we don't fancy.

 

[paulitician]

Many will ridicule and insult those who ask questions. But that's understandable, it's all most know. Ridicule has been a crucial tool used to silence those who dare to challenge. And unfortunately, it usually works. It is a proven winner. But some will continue asking questions. Because it's the right thing to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see the ones who draw far fetched or unprovable conclusions re these things as less puzzling than those who have no curiosity about them whatsoever. To be willing to buy any lie fed to you and never questioning or challenging it to me is a far more dangerous thing than drawing wrong conclusions.

And to expose fraud, even when there is no harm and no foul, is a healthy exercise and probably a wise thing to do lest we lull people into being gullible about things that aren't so harmless too.

And that buying into any lie fed to one is exactly what's happening here. In this case the paranoid fantasists pretend to see green screen artifacts that are readily disprovable, and yet persist. In the other you have the same paranoid fantasists clamoring that a man was "burned alive" in spite of the undispwuted fact that the man in question had two ways out. When a CTer is ignoring the very definitions of words to hold on to an unsalvageable point, then we have left the realm of curious investigation and entered the woozy world of intentional hallucination.

In other words, "questioning" and being "curious" is exactly what these wacko theories need to be addressed with. That's why I did what I did at the beginning of this thread (post #2) to deconstruct and destroy this particular wacko theory. Curiosity applies to all stories, not just the ones we don't fancy.

Nevertheless, if you have ever been on a complicated investigation, you know that there is nothing less reliable to get the whole truth than questioning a group of incidental eye witnesses. If you have ever dealt with politics or advertising in any form, you know that the best possible face is always put on what is being promoted, and that can result in some dishonesty by withholding pertinent information. If you have ever been involved in an unfolding news story, you know that conclusions are ever changing as more information is uncovered.

So I say bless the conspiracy theorists, however wrong or crackpot their conclusions may be, for at least raising the questions and arousing curiosity. If they inspire curiosity in serious investigators, they have served us well and we have a far better chance of being fully informed than we otherwise would have. Only the most gullible among us choose to accept the assigned verdict or conclusion or rationale hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Pogo]

Many will ridicule and insult those who ask questions. But that's understandable, it's all most know. Ridicule has been a crucial tool used to silence those who dare to challenge. And unfortunately, it usually works. It is a proven winner. But some will continue asking questions. Because it's the right thing to do.

And some will continue asking the same questions over and over, even when they've been given the answer in post #2.

That's the intellectually kinky part.

 

[Foxfyre]

Many will ridicule and insult those who ask questions. But that's understandable, it's all most know. Ridicule has been a crucial tool used to silence those who dare to challenge. And unfortunately, it usually works. It is a proven winner. But some will continue asking questions. Because it's the right thing to do.

And some will continue asking the same questions over and over, even when they've been given the answer in post #2.

That's the intellectually kinky part.

But is it not intellectually arrogant to expect people not to question the evidence you provide as an answer to the question? To accept it simply because you put it out there? Should the White House Press Corp. accept Jay Carney's explanations as gospel in the morning briefings? If President Obama says it, then we must believe it is true? How about if somebody in the loyal opposition says something different? Must we automatically accept that? Or dismiss it as partisan propaganda?

I have some expertise in some areas, as we all do, that helps inform my opinions and I know I am on very solid ground when I express them. But none of you here at USMB know me from any other person on the street. Why should you accept what I say just because I said it and provided some official looking links to back it up? Most especially if I have used sources that we don't all agree are credible?

I don't expect anybody to accept what I tell them and never challenge it. In a debate, I like to be challenged and have to defend my opinions. If I can't defend them, they aren't worth holding. I only have problems with those who think valid debate is attacking me because I hold an opinion or draw a different conclusion or embrace a different point of view.

 

[Pogo]

Many will ridicule and insult those who ask questions. But that's understandable, it's all most know. Ridicule has been a crucial tool used to silence those who dare to challenge. And unfortunately, it usually works. It is a proven winner. But some will continue asking questions. Because it's the right thing to do.

And some will continue asking the same questions over and over, even when they've been given the answer in post #2.

That's the intellectually kinky part.

But is it not intellectually arrogant to expect people not to question the evidence you provide as an answer to the question? To accept it simply because you put it out there? Should the White House Press Corp. accept Jay Carney's explanations as gospel in the morning briefings? If President Obama says it, then we must believe it is true? How about if somebody in the loyal opposition says something different? Must we automatically accept that? Or dismiss it as partisan propaganda?

I have some expertise in some areas, as we all do, that helps inform my opinions and I know I am on very solid ground when I express them. But none of you here at USMB know me from any other person on the street. Why should you accept what I say just because I said it and provided some official looking links to back it up? Most especially if I have used sources that we don't all agree are credible?

I don't expect anybody to accept what I tell them and never challenge it. In a debate, I like to be challenged and have to defend my opinions. If I can't defend them, they aren't worth holding. I only have problems with those who think valid debate is attacking me because I hold an opinion or draw a different conclusion or embrace a different point of view.

Nothing got "attacked" here except the silly premise and its presentation. That premise was presented with a swiss cheese array of logical holes and no documentation whatsoever, and was deconstructed accordingly. Frankly it's a lot more arrogant to use videos of "Laugh In" from 1968 and declare that it's somehow evidence of something that is never explained. It's patently insulting.

Face it Foxy, a hoax is a hoax is a hoax. Once it's been debunked it's not susceptible to spin. And trying to compare the science of chrmoakeying with the statements of a political spokesman is apples and orangutans. Doesn't work.