Photo purported to be obama and clinton seeing live assasination of Osama are fake!

Rds1989

http://www.infowars.com/staged-white-house-situation-room-photos-part-of-bin-laden-fable/

fontanalis

They're not fake; they weren't watching live footage. And as far as I know the white house never claimed the footage to be live.

jackiebaron

fontanalis wrote: »

They're not fake; they weren't watching live footage. And as far as I know the white house never claimed the footage to be live.

BULLSH!T

The White House released these pictures and stated that the president and his entourage watched the killing LIVE.

Stop trying to move the goalposts, buddy. You're not gasbagging your way out of this one:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Osama-Bin-Laden-Dies-President-Obama-And-Hillary-Clinton-Watch-Operation-That-Killed-Al-Qaeda-Chief/Article/201105115984215?f=rss

fontanalis

Sky News said it was live. The photos still aren't fake and footage was still being watched.

ician

jackiebaron wrote: »

BULLSH!T

The White House released these pictures and stated that the president and his entourage watched the killing LIVE.

Stop trying to move the goalposts, buddy. You're not gasbagging your way out of this one:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Osama-Bin-Laden-Dies-President-Obama-And-Hillary-Clinton-Watch-Operation-That-Killed-Al-Qaeda-Chief/Article/201105115984215?f=rss

"Mr Brennan said he would not reveal details "about what types of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there but it was - it gave us the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis"."

From your article. Provide quoted source that states that president "watched the killing LIVE".

jackiebaron

fontanalis wrote: »

Sky News said it was live. The photos still aren't fake and footage was still being watched.

Oh boy! Now you're really reaching. The White House TOLD the news media that they were watching the killing LIVE.

If a newspaper reports something erroneous they immediately correct the error next day in an announcement.

(1) Did the press issue a retraction stating that in fact they were not live but a rerun? No. And you want to know why? Because the news media didn't make a mistake. The White House said they were live.

(2) Did the White House contact the media and correct them for falsely reporting that the pictures were of staff watching reruns and not a live feed? No. Why? Because they're fcuked! They can't say now "Oh, folks, those pictures are of us watching a rerun, not live as you reported." because the media will say "but you told us they were live!"

Damning indeed.

ician

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh boy! Now you're really reaching. The White House TOLD the news media that they were watching the killing LIVE.

source? quote?

meep

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh boy! Now you're really reaching. The White House TOLD the news media that they were watching the killing LIVE.

That's not true.

I happened to watch all of that briefing (Jack Brennan?) as it went out live and he was at great pains not to divulge whether or not there was a visual feed.

All he would say was that the president could monitor events in real time.

He would not be drawn on whether the feed comprised visuals or audio only.

chuckliddell

Who gives a ****

mickoneill30

jackiebaron wrote: »

If a newspaper reports something erroneous they immediately correct the error next day in an announcement.

Or

If a newspaper reports something erroneous they print a small paragraph of a retraction buried inside the newspaper at the bottom of some column, several weeks later.

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh boy! Now you're really reaching. The White House TOLD the news media that they were watching the killing LIVE.

Nope, that did not happen, as was posted above, they went to great lenghts to not say they watched it live, they could monitor the situation in real time - a textbook politicians answer, anything beyond texting would fill that description.

Also the photo are usually described as the White House staff watching the operation that killed OBL.

ician

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh boy! Now you're really reaching. The White House TOLD the news media that they were watching the killing LIVE.

If a newspaper reports something erroneous they immediately correct the error next day in an announcement.

(1) Did the press issue a retraction stating that in fact they were not live but a rerun? No. And you want to know why? Because the news media didn't make a mistake. The White House said they were live.

(2) Did the White House contact the media and correct them for falsely reporting that the pictures were of staff watching reruns and not a live feed? No. Why? Because they're fcuked! They can't say now "Oh, folks, those pictures are of us watching a rerun, not live as you reported." because the media will say "but you told us they were live!"

Damning indeed.

You edit your post after people have replied and yet you still haven't shown a quote which says they watched it live!

To use your words "BULLSH1T" and "You're not gasbagging your way out of this one"

Dave!

Just provide a quote from the White House jackiebaron, and your theory will be verified. Easy.

jackiebaron

fontanalis wrote: »

They're not fake; they weren't watching live footage. And as far as I know the white house never claimed the footage to be live.

Why do you believe the bull****ters in the White House PR department but you don't believe Steve R. Pieczenik the spymaster who worked in 5 administrations when he says the pictures are a complete hoax?

fontanalis

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why do you believe the bull****ters in the White House PR department but you don't believe Steve R. Pieczenik the spymaster who worked in 5 administrations when he says the pictures are a complete hoax?

What do you mean by hoax; they're not in the white house, the peopel in it are photoshopped?

Di0genes

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why do you believe the bull****ters in the White House PR department but you don't believe Steve R. Pieczenik the spymaster who worked in 5 administrations when he says the pictures are a complete hoax?

Just provide the quote jackiebaron

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why do you believe the bull****ters in the White House PR department but you don't believe Steve R. Pieczenik the spymaster who worked in 5 administrations when he says the pictures are a complete hoax?

So you d'ont believe the photos that you have seen of the White House staff because they come from the corrupt White House... but you believe the SPYMASTER who worked for the same White House for decades?

BTW. Spymaster - coolest job title ever.

jackiebaron

Dave! wrote: »

Just provide a quote from the White House jackiebaron, and your theory will be verified. Easy.

I don't have to provide a quote...the White House PR department's silence is proof enough. At this point in time they're probably frantically trying to dream up another story to get out of this fcukup and aren't answering the phones.
Use your intelligence and logic.....if the White House never said that they were live then the press would have issued a statement saying they got it completely wrong but the press know what they heard and now they are waiting for the White House's next move. Think about it (very slowly for some of you). You don't need quotes to deduce what has happened here.

If the White House told it like the way many of you think, it would have gone something like this on Tuesday when the images were released:

PR Guy: "OK press people here are some photos for you. These are photos taken last sunday of the president and his entourage watching footage of the killing of Bin Laden."

Press Guy: "Are these shot of the president actually watching the operation LIVE??"

PR Guy: "No. These shots are of the president watching footage from the mission at a later stage"

Press Guy: "OK, thanks"

Now WHAT fcuking journalist or reporter would get that so wrong and print in SKY that the were in fact watching "live" footage???

And if such a cretin does exist (and is demoted to the mail room by now) why hasn't SKY issued a retraction?


Here's how it really panned out:



PR Guy: "OK press people here are some photos for you. These are photos taken last sunday of the president and his entourage watching footage of the killing of Bin Laden."

Press Guy: "Are these shot of the president actually watching the operation LIVE??"

PR Guy: "Sure are!"


It then comes to light that they couldn't have been watching live

PR Guy: "eehhhh...emm....wtf do I do now....Mom!!!"

Press Guy: "I can wait all day for an explanation!"

jackiebaron

clever_name wrote: »

So you d'ont believe the photos that you have seen of the White House staff because they come from the corrupt White House... but you believe the SPYMASTER who worked for the same White House for decades?

BTW. Spymaster - coolest job title ever.

I don't believe their PR department or their Press secretary.

Dave!

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't have to provide a quote...

Stopped reading after that

</thread>

fee fi fo fum

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't have to provide a quote...the White House PR department's silence is proof enough.

Groan

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't believe their PR department or their Press secretary.

Yes thats what I said, you d'ont believe the white house PR because the white house is corrupt but you have no problem believing a "SPYMASTER" who worked in the same corrupt white house for decades?

fontanalis

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't have to provide a quote...the White House PR department's silence is proof enough. At this point in time they're probably frantically trying to dream up another story to get out of this fcukup and aren't answering the phones.
Use your intelligence and logic.....if the White House never said that they were live then the press would have issued a statement saying they got it completely wrong but the press know what they heard and now they are waiting for the White House's next move. Think about it (very slowly for some of you). You don't need quotes to deduce what has happened here.

If the White House told it like the way many of you think, it would have gone something like this on Tuesday when the images were released:

PR Guy: "OK press people here are some photos for you. These are photos taken last sunday of the president and his entourage watching footage of the killing of Bin Laden."

Press Guy: "Are these shot of the president actually watching the operation LIVE??"

PR Guy: "No. These shots are of the president watching footage from the mission at a later stage"

Press Guy: "OK, thanks"

Now WHAT fcuking journalist or reporter would get that so wrong and print in SKY that the were in fact watching "live" footage???

And if such a cretin does exist (and is demoted to the mail room by now) why hasn't SKY issued a retraction?


Here's how it really panned out:



PR Guy: "OK press people here are some photos for you. These are photos taken last sunday of the president and his entourage watching footage of the killing of Bin Laden."

Press Guy: "Are these shot of the president actually watching the operation LIVE??"

PR Guy: "Sure are!"


It then comes to light that they couldn't have been watching live

PR Guy: "eehhhh...emm....wtf do I do now....Mom!!!"

Press Guy: "I can wait all day for an explanation!"

Exactly it.

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

if the White House never said that they were live then the press would have issued a statement saying they got it completely wrong but the press know what they heard and now they are waiting for the White House's next move.

You have a very high opinion of the press.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Think about it (very slowly for some of you). You don't need quotes to deduce what has happened here.

You dont need a quote to deduce what happened, you need a quote to know what happened.

jackiebaron

fontanalis wrote: »

Exactly it.

There are only two scenarios, fontanalis. Try to just analyse the situation for a second.

Situation 1
The White House PR stated that the photos weren't live.

Situation 2
The White House PR stated that the photos WERE live.

Are you with me so far? If Sitaution 1 were the case (as you believe) then why would SKY say that the WERE watching live?

jackiebaron

clever_name wrote: »

You have a very high opinion of the press.



You dont need a quote to deduce what happened, you need a quote to know what happened.

I admit, cn, that I can't say I know what happened but it's the most obvious scenario.

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

There are only two scenarios, fontanalis. Try to just analyse the situation for a second.

Situation 1
The White House PR stated that the photos weren't live.

Situation 2
The White House PR stated that the photos WERE live.

Are you with me so far? If Sitaution 1 were the case (as you believe) then why would SKY say that the WERE watching live?

Jaysus!

You are saying that you trust SKY!!!:eek:

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

I admit, cn, that I can't say I know what happened but it's the most obvious scenario.

Please allow me to post the question again.

clever_name wrote: »

you d'ont believe the white house PR because the white house is corrupt but you have no problem believing a "SPYMASTER" who worked in the same corrupt white house for decades?

Abelloid

I heard they were watching "The Pet Goat" DVD.

fontanalis

JustinOval wrote: »

I heard they were watching "The Pet Goat" DVD.

Think they were watching a premiere of a new film.

jackiebaron

clever_name wrote: »

Jaysus!

You are saying that you trust SKY!!!:eek:

They can't ALL be lying or incompetent:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-03/us/29499055_1_bin-laden-barack-obama-video-camera