Crisis Actors? Post your info & WTF moments here

[FourthBase]

and let me ask you the same questions in return, regarding any at all of the pictures that MSM puts up for you to swallow.

Gimme a break. The difference between watching mainstream media propaganda and YouTube videos centering on the Great Gene Rosen Conspiracy is so minuscule as to be non-existent. At least in terms of your personal political empowerment or understanding. In either case the viewer is assumed to lack all common sense and any ability to think for himself. I prefer not to be spoon fed patent absurdities set to spooky music, whichever side of the war on terror it happens to be coming from. As far as I can tell they both are symbiant parasites feeding off fear for the purpose of one sort of control or another. I say this in complete sincerity: please don't consider for a moment that watching the "Information surfaces that Sandy Hook witness Gene Rosen is FEMA" video and finding it "compelling" puts you in the slightest leg-up in terms of knowledge or power or broadmindedness regarding either the events in Newtown or the wider situation we are in. It is, on its face, an enfeebling influence, whether by design or error.

It took me about a minute to confirm that the man in the photo isn't Gene Rosen.

[Canadian_watcher]

and let me ask you the same questions in return, regarding any at all of the pictures that MSM puts up for you to swallow.

Gimme a break. The difference between watching mainstream media propaganda and YouTube videos centering on the Great Gene Rosen Conspiracy is so minuscule as to be non-existent. At least in terms of your personal political empowerment or understanding. In either case the viewer is assumed to lack all common sense and any ability to think for himself. I prefer not to be spoon fed patent absurdities set to spooky music, whichever side of the war on terror it happens to be coming from. As far as I can tell they both are symbiant parasites feeding off fear for the purpose of one sort of control or another. I say this in complete sincerity: please don't consider for a moment that watching the "Information surfaces that Sandy Hook witness Gene Rosen is FEMA" video and finding it "compelling" puts you in the slightest leg-up in terms of knowledge or power or broadmindedness regarding either the events in Newtown or the wider situation we are in. It is, on its face, an enfeebling influence, whether by design or error.

It took me about a minute to confirm that the man in the photo isn't Gene Rosen.

okay so let me get this straight then.. you're getting your information from the source?? I mean you just said you neither get it from the internet NOR from MSM so I'm struggling to find out where else you might be picking things up from.

I dunno do you have a teleportation device slash time machine!>>? !!! If you do I'll give you all the money I have to have one of my own. I have been waiting for that technology for.. well like, FOREVER!!

[Canadian_watcher]

aren't those clapping hands the BOMB?

[barracuda]

okay so let me get this straight then.. you're getting your information from the source?? I mean you just said you neither get it from the internet NOR from MSM so I'm struggling to find out where else you might be picking things up from.

I dunno do you have a teleportation device slash time machine!>>? !!! If you do I'll give you all the money I have to have one of my own. I have been waiting for that technology for.. well like, FOREVER!!

Get your "information" wherever you like. You're still gonna have to use that thing hanging limply between your ears to deal with it.

[Canadian_watcher]

Get your "information" wherever you like. You're still gonna have to use that thing hanging limply between your ears to deal with it.

where do you get your information???

[barracuda]

That depends. For example, I get recipes from people who cook.

[Canadian_watcher]

you can't answer it, because you know it would make you look like a moron.

[barracuda]

I can't answer it because your question is so vague and open-ended as to be essentially meaningless.

where do you get your information???

[Canadian_watcher]

I can't answer it because your question is so vague and open-ended as to be essentially meaningless.

where do you get your information???

Questions cannot be meaningless, for they are questions. The meaning would be derived from the answer, if one is offered.

The difference between watching mainstream media propaganda and YouTube videos .....is so minuscule as to be non-existent.

[/quote]

I agree with your statement, above. One must go between both and cross reference - one must dig. I think that most of us here do that.
Still, your haughty attitude and quick huff'n'puff dismissals of other people's points of view seems to indicate that you have sources to corroborate a "better" hypothesis. If so, what are these sources? If not, then why do you assert that your ideas are the only logical ones?

[FourthBase]

Here's the big reason to use (note: not accept unquestioningly) only halfway-reputable sources or better: Because that's what they use. Relying on iffy underground sources or worse, is like trying to buy a gallon of milk with an unorthodox currency note produced by the Democratic Republic of Your Buddy Whose Hobby is Making Amateur Currency. Accept the truth from whichever source it comes, sayeth Maimonides. But the truth as an instrument is only useful as far as it can be traded in a commonly-accepted currency. It may not be the whole truth, that which is given to us. Duh. It may be packed with lies. Duh. But it can still be impeached on its own terms.

[compared2what?]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHZ-y4Gmqdc

gene rosen with FEMA as an actor? This one was pretty convincing.

Edit:
Video shows compelling evidence that GR at a FEMA event of some kind in Harlingen, TX. I haven't seen it debunked.

thanks for this, hadn't seen it. It is compelling, naturally, and obviously (in my universe) people ought to look into it, question it. Is it proof? I dunno

I do. It's not. Also, person who was interested in asking questions would look at ALL the evidence for and against Gene Rosen's authenticity questioningly, and not just at a tiny little, pre-selected sampling of it that tells them what to ask and how to answer.-

does law enforcement rely on grainy security cam imagery to make arrests when they've already got a suspicion about someone based on circumstance? Yes. They do

Assuming that they're not framing that someone: No, they don't. Or not in a way that's equivalent to relying on that video. If the suspect is identifiable on video to a standard not set by them but by forensic science, that's an identification. And if not, not.

And if there's any boundary line separating which hardball tactics you're okay with using and which not, "techniques for framing the innocent" is pretty damn clearly on the wrong side of it...

fwiw I thought Gene Rosen's witness account of Sandy Hook was very very weird. But clearly that's basically neither here nor there.

I don't agree. Your real response, unmediated by videos and MSM both, is worth a lot more attention than either, I mean, "you, Canadian_watcher," in this case. But also, "you, everyone."

[Canadian_watcher]

does law enforcement rely on grainy security cam imagery to make arrests when they've already got a suspicion about someone based on circumstance? Yes. They do

Assuming that they're not framing that someone: No, they don't. Or not in a way that's equivalent to relying on that video. If the suspect is identifiable on video to a standard not set by them but by forensic science, that's an identification. And if not, not.

I shouldn't have said "arrested" I should have said detained / brought in for questioning.
But how fascinating! What's the forensic scientific threshold of for positive suspect ID on grainy security camera footage in your state? I can't find it written down anywhere in Canadian Law.

And if there's any boundary line separating which hardball tactics you're okay with using and which not, "techniques for framing the innocent" is pretty damn clearly on the wrong side of it...

guess what - I can't frame anyone. I have no authority. If you seriously think that my debating something on the internet - something as innocuous as "doesn't that guy look like Gene Rosen!>?" is DANGEROUS, then let me tell you lady, you're living in the right country at the right time.

fwiw I thought Gene Rosen's witness account of Sandy Hook was very very weird. But clearly that's basically neither here nor there.

I don't agree. Your real response, unmediated by videos and MSM both, is worth a lot more attention than either, I mean, "you, Canadian_watcher," in this case. But also, "you, everyone."

if I read that right, then yes - I agree - our immediate responses to these things are valuable. However, it seems to me that we can get the shit kicked out of us for sharing what those reactions are 'round these parts. I submit as evidence the untouchable status accorded St. Robbie Parker some months back

[compared2what?]

This one was pretty convincing.

I'm not sure what's driving you to that conclusion. Ask yourself some questions:

[list]What is the source of the photo? I don't mean Wikimedia, but the original publication source.

How is the image captioned on that page? (I'll throw you a bone on that one.)

It's from the FEMA site. And Gene Rosen's name was evidently added to it later by the videomaker or someone else with similar aims.

Because it's absolutely not there on the original.

How is it that con artists run their games again?

[barracuda]

^It's the Old Switcheroo.

Questions cannot be meaningless, for they are questions. The meaning would be derived from the answer, if one is offered.

Is that so?

your haughty attitude and quick huff'n'puff dismissals of other people's points of view seems to indicate that you have sources to corroborate a "better" hypothesis.

Really?

..why do you assert that your ideas are the only logical ones?

Did I do that?

[Canadian_watcher]

^It's the Old Switcheroo.

Quite. You are avoiding answering this question: from where do you get your information pertaining to the details of current events if it is not from mainstream media or from the internet?
Will you answer that question?