Bostonhook debunking the Hoaxers

Brown Bomber

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3zkgF19AyQ

The "CT" is that agents are intentionally pushing these absurd disinfo theories to discredit the legitimate questions that are being asked.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The "CT" is that agents are intentionally pushing these absurd disinfo theories to discredit the legitimate questions that are being asked.

Why do you think that it is less likely that these absurd theories are just the result of some people innocently coming to really faulty conclusion?

Why would these agents need to come up with this stuff when there are people who would come up with it anyway?

Why would the agents come up with theories that would convince some people and make the bombings look suspicious?

How do we distinguish between a disinfo theory, a theory that is just wrong and a legitimate theory?

Brown Bomber

:rolleyes:

The video has just shown you that for example with the Sandy Hook principle and a Boston victim called Donna somebody has intentionally attempted to deceive. They have manipulated seperate images.

Anynama141

So now we are resorting to a new conspiracy theory to explain away other conspiracy theories?

Much like the total absence of genuine terrorist bombings and mass shootings - every single one nowadays is a government conspiracy - we can also say goodbye to the good old-fashioned moon-bat theory?

A question: when was the last GENUINE mass-shooting or terrorist attack in the USA? It seems to me there hasn't been one that wasn't organised by the government for at least a decade.

Brown Bomber

Sandy Hook or Dormer. Whichever was most recent.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The video has just shown you that for example with the Sandy Hook principle and a Boston victim called Donna somebody has intentionally attempted to deceive. They have manipulated seperate images.

No it doesn't.
It does not show the picture in context, where it comes from or who did it originally. The video does not exclude the possibility that it was someone making a genuine mistake.
It could have been that they were trying to superimpose the image of the principal over the person from Boston to "prove" that they looked the same.
It could even have been a cock up from the news agency itself, confusing the names or going with a false report that the principal was there etc.

And even if the video did show that some one did do it intentionally to deceive, how do you know it's not just a troll who enjoys messing with CTers, or a dishonest skeptic who wants to show that CTers would buy anything?

And then we still have my other questions. The first image in the video was not manipulated, how do you know that it wasn't a case of some conspiracy theorists finding a guy who looked similar to a veteran with a missing leg and genuinely believed that they were the same person, thus proving a conspiracy?

Anynama141

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sandy Hook or Dormer. Whichever was most recent.

But that's just your view. Many in the CT new-age religion would say that they were both conspiracies too. Until Boston, the whole CT universe have been 'proving' that Sandy Hook was fake, within bare minutes of it happening.

I wonder if you did a survey on Infowars on each episode, how far back would you have to go until a majority agree that an event was NOT a false flag?

(I realise you don't represent anyone except yourself, least of all Infowars)

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sandy Hook or Dormer. Whichever was most recent.

So how do you know they they were genuine?
Why do some people believe they were staged? Were the conspiracy theories about them the result of the agents spreading disinfo?

Anynama141

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't.
It does not show the picture in context, where it comes from or who did it originally. The video does not exclude the possibility that it was someone making a genuine mistake.
It could have been that they were trying to superimpose the image of the principal over the person from Boston to "prove" that they looked the same.
It could even have been a cock up from the news agency itself, confusing the names or going with a false report that the principal was there etc.

And it could be that many people behind CTs don't mind lying and manipulating information that they KNOW to be wrong.

We saw here on the Boston Bombing thread that people kept repeating the lies about Craft International, days after it had been established that the guys in question were National Guards. Facts are less important that the story, and can be ignored if they get in the way.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't.
It does not show the picture in context, where it comes from or who did it originally. The video does not exclude the possibility that it was someone making a genuine mistake.
It could have been that they were trying to superimpose the image of the principal over the person from Boston to "prove" that they looked the same.
It could even have been a cock up from the news agency itself, confusing the names or going with a false report that the principal was there etc.

And even if the video did show that some one did do it intentionally to deceive, how do you know it's not just a troll who enjoys messing with CTers, or a dishonest skeptic who wants to show that CTers would buy anything?

And then we still have my other questions. The first image in the video was not manipulated, how do you know that it wasn't a case of some conspiracy theorists finding a guy who looked similar to a veteran with a missing leg and genuinely believed that they were the same person, thus proving a conspiracy?

:pac::pac::pac:

What are you talking about ffs???

Both images are the same image of the same woman - the former principal of Sandy Hook who was killed there.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac:

What are you talking about ffs???

Both images are the same image of the same woman - the former principal of Sandy Hook who was killed there.

Yes, and if the news agency got a wrong name, they would use the same archive photo.
Or a conspiracy theorist who thinks that the same person was there would use the same photo.

Or it could have been a troll, or a dishonest skeptic, or an even more dishonest conspiracy theorist.
So how do you know that all of these explanations are all less likely than a government agent making a obviously transparent fake that is apparently so silly it is easily identifiable as the work of disinfo?

What about the first photo in the video which was not manipulated, was that the result of a disinfo agent?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and if the news agency got a wrong name, they would use the same archive photo.
Or a conspiracy theorist who thinks that the same person was there would use the same photo.

Or it could have been a troll, or a dishonest skeptic, or an even more dishonest conspiracy theorist.
So how do you know that all of these explanations are all less likely than a government agent making a obviously transparent fake that is apparently so silly it is easily identifiable as the work of disinfo?

What about the first photo in the video which was not manipulated, was that the result of a disinfo agent?

Lets keep this simple.

Are you saying that the disinfo photo disseminated online by unknown fraudsters which claims to be two screen grabs of broadcast media coverage showing the murdered Sandy Hook principal at the Boston attacks is actually taken from a real news program?

Please clarify.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Lets keep this simple.

Are you saying that the disinfo photo disseminated online by unknown fraudsters which claims to be two screen grabs of broadcast media coverage showing the murdered Sandy Hook principal at the Boston attacks is actually taken from a real news program (that made a mistake)?

I'm saying it's a possibility. One of several I have outlined that are all much more plausible and likely than it was created by a government disinfo agent.

Another possibility what they were showing photos of the victims of sandy hook while discussing it in relation to Boston, while the ticker was referring to some one who was actually in Boston.

You can't show that it was created to purposefully deceive. And even if you could, there are several other reasons why someone would create it for that reason before you can conclude that it was because of a government agent.

And then there's the picture from the start of your video which was not manipulated.

In fact the video you posted got the names wrong entirely.
The picture of the lady is of Dawn Hochsprung, the principal of Sandy Hook who was killed, not Donna Page as the video claims as she was an ex-principal who came out of retirement after the shooting to take over the school.
Donna Bruce was at the Boston Bombings and is probably the Donna referred to in the under bar.

So how did the video you posted get this wrong?

To me I think it was a case of Donna Bruce being interviewed on Fox with the underbar summarising who she was while they were also showing images of Dawn Hochsprung because they were perhaps making a point about her. Some conspiracy theorist caught a glimpse of this, didn't research it and just threw up the image thinking that they were claiming that it was the same person.

Can you point out what about this theory is implausible or less likely than it being the product of government disinformation?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I'm saying it's a possibility.

If it's such a "possibility" why hasn't anyone else noticed it? Why haven't the network issued a correction? Why didn't the person who noticed it - apparently the only person in the world - link to the videos that they supposedly took the images from?

Possibility my arse.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If it's such a "possibility" why hasn't anyone else noticed it? Why haven't the network issued a correction? Why didn't the person who noticed it - apparently the only person in the world - link to the videos that they supposedly took the images from?

Possibility my arse.

And how do you know that these things didn't actually happen?
Why didn't the guy who made the video not link to the original source of the image?

Or it could be any number of the other possibilities I suggested, for example:

To me I think it was a case of Donna Bruce being interviewed on Fox with the underbar summarising who she was while they were also showing images of Dawn Hochsprung because they were perhaps making a point about her. Some conspiracy theorist caught a glimpse of this, didn't research it and just threw up the image thinking that they were claiming that it was the same person.

Can you point out what about this theory is implausible or less likely than it being the product of government disinformation?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

In fact the video you posted got the names wrong entirely.
The picture of the lady is of Dawn Hochsprung, the principal of Sandy Hook who was killed, not Donna Page as the video claims as she was an ex-principal who came out of retirement after the shooting to take over the school.
Donna Bruce was at the Boston Bombings and is probably the Donna referred to in the under bar.

So how did the video you posted get this wrong?

To me I think it was a case of Donna Bruce being interviewed on Fox with the underbar summarising who she was while they were also showing images of Dawn Hochsprung because they were perhaps making a point about her. Some conspiracy theorist caught a glimpse of this, didn't research it and just threw up the image thinking that they were claiming that it was the same person.

Can you point out what about this theory is implausible or less likely than it being the product of government disinformation?

Yes, that anyone "can catch a glimpse" of a still image on a live news broadcast of an interview that you can't even show exists.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, that anyone "can catch a glimpse" of a still image on a live news broadcast of an interview that you can't even show exists.

24 hour news outlets repeat segments. People have tivos and DVRs allowing them to pause live news broadcasts.
Is this implausible?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

24 hour news outlets repeat segments. People have tivos and DVRs allowing them to pause live news broadcasts.
Is this implausible?

How are they supposed to record something that hasn't been show to exist beyond your imagination?

Do tivos and DVRs record your imagination?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How are they supposed to record something that hasn't been show to exist beyond your imagination?

Do tivos and DVRs record your imagination?

Donna Bruce gave interviews http://msbusiness.com/businessblog/2013/04/16/donna-bruce-describes-boston-as-somber-day-after-marathon-bombing/
Is it impossible that she gave one to Fox?
Is it impossible that they were even just doing a short segment about her?
Is it impossible that during such an interview or segment they mention some victims of Sandy Hook?

Which of these things are less likely than a government disinfo agent?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Donna Bruce gave interviews http://msbusiness.com/businessblog/2013/04/16/donna-bruce-describes-boston-as-somber-day-after-marathon-bombing/
Is it impossible that she gave one to Fox?
Is it impossible that they were even just doing a short segment about her?
Is it impossible that during such an interview or segment they mention some victims of Sandy Hook?

Which of these things are less likely than a government disinfo agent?

So let's get this straight:

You haven't personally seen the supposed interview this still is supposedly taken from.
You don't know anyone who has seen it.
You cannot provide a single scrap of evidence to support it's existence beyond your own dreamworld.

............. I give up

---

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So let's get this straight:

You haven't personally seen the supposed interview this still is supposedly taken from.
You don't know anyone who has seen it.
You cannot provide a single scrap of evidence to support it's existence beyond your own dreamworld.

............. I give up

---

I'm postulating that the interview exists because it is the most likely explanation for the existence of the image.

Do you know which disinfo agent created it?
Do you know when or where he released it?
Do you have any evidence to show this disinfo agent exists?
The answer is no as it, like my explanation, he is postulated to exist to explain the existence of the image.

The difference is that my explanation is far far more likely.

But since you give up, perhaps you can explain then how you know that the first image from the video is disinformation instead of it being the result of bad research?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I'm postulating that the interview exists because it is the most likely explanation for the existence of the image.

Really? Your imaginary interview is more "likely" than photoshop? I look forward to your explanation.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really? Your imaginary interview is more "likely" than photoshop? I look forward to your explanation.

No, a very likely interview is more likely than a government agent intentionally spreading disinformation.

And again, you are postulating the existence of this agent from your imagination in exact same way you are mocking me for.

Can you show that this agent exists and is more likely than my explanation?

Penn

Both of you calm down. If you're at an impasse, draw a line under it and move on. Respond civilly or not at all.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No

So we're agreed that this supposed interview that you can't provide the merest scrap of evidence of even existing, that you can't provide even one name of anyone having witnessed is less likely than someone knocking it together in their home in 30 seconds on photoshop?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So we're agreed that this supposed interview that you can't provide the merest scrap of evidence of even existing, that you can't provide even one name of anyone having witnessed is less likely than someone knocking it together in their home in 30 seconds on photoshop?

This is not what I said it is more likely than.

I said that it was more likely that it being the product of a government disinformation agent.

It's entirely possible that the image is the result of someone photoshopping it, like a dishonest skeptic or CTer. Are these not possibilities?

Can you provide what you are asking me for? Can you show any evidence at all for the existence of the government agent you are suggesting created this image?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

This is not what I said it is more likely than.

I said that it was more likely that it being the product of a government disinformation agent.

It's entirely possible that the image is the result of someone photoshopping it, like a dishonest skeptic or CTer. Are these not possibilities?

Can you provide what you are asking me for? Can you show any evidence at all for the existence of the government agent you are suggesting created this image?

I am afraid you did -

Originally Posted by King Mob
I'm postulating that the interview exists because it is the most likely explanation for the existence of the image.

"Most" excludes all else, including photoshop. So which is the "most likely explanation"? Photoshop or a authentic screenshot from an interview that nobody has seen (including you) and there is no evidence at all of existing?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am afraid you did -

"Most" excludes all else, including photoshop. So which is the "most likely explanation"? Photoshop or a authentic screenshot from an interview that nobody has seen (including you) and there is no evidence at all of existing?

I misspoke.
I think that it being from an interview is the most likely explanation.
I think that some random troll on the internet is likely, but I don't think it is as likely as I have not seen any reason to believe the image is photoshopped.

And both of these (as well as the many others I have suggested) are much much more likely than a government agent creating disinfo.
You have not given any reason for anyone to think otherwise.

Do you have any evidence for the existence of this government agent like you are asking me for?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I misspoke.
I think that it being from an interview is the most likely explanation.
I think that some random troll on the internet is likely, but I don't think it is as likely as I have not seen any reason to believe the image is photoshopped.

And both of these (as well as the many others I have suggested) are much much more likely than a government agent creating disinfo.
You have not given any reason for anyone to think otherwise.

Do you have any evidence for the existence of this government agent like you are asking me for?

So if I have this straight this is your theory?

Some unknown broadcast news channel interviewed a Boston marathon runner called Donna Bruce who by her account "didn't see or hear anything". While this interview was taking place this unknown news channel put up on the screen an edited photo that is in the public domain of the Sandy Hook principal who was killed?

While this was ongoing some unknown guy, presumably deaf and with a photographic memory, was recording this phantom interview -- for some inexcusable and uncertain reason and didn't understand it was an error took a screenshot and posted that rather than posting the video footage??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Anynama141

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So if I have this straight this is your theory?

Some unknown broadcast news channel interviewed a Boston marathon runner called Donna Bruce who by her account "didn't see or hear anything". While this interview was taking place this unknown news channel put up on the screen an edited photo that is in the public domain of the Sandy Hook principal who was killed?

While this was ongoing some unknown guy, presumably deaf and with a photographic memory, was recording this phantom interview -- for some inexcusable and uncertain reason and didn't understand it was an error took a screenshot and posted that rather than posting the video footage??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

And your theory is that the US government/the Illuminati/the Eternal Jew/whatever realised that there aren't enough ridiculous conspiracy theories, or that existing 'genuine' conspiracy theories are not silly enough, so they decided to set up a covert operation to generate some more?

OK.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So if I have this straight this is your theory?

Some unknown broadcast news channel interviewed a Boston marathon runner called Donna Bruce who by her account "didn't see or hear anything". While this interview was taking place this unknown news channel put up on the screen an edited photo that is in the public domain of the Sandy Hook principal who was killed?

While this was ongoing some unknown guy, presumably deaf and with a photographic memory, was recording this phantom interview -- for some inexcusable and uncertain reason and didn't understand it was an error took a screenshot and posted that rather than posting the video footage?

No that is not a fair description of the theory I suggested:

To me I think it was a case of Donna Bruce being interviewed on Fox with the underbar summarising who she was while they were also showing images of Dawn Hochsprung because they were perhaps making a point about her. Some conspiracy theorist caught a glimpse of this, didn't research it and just threw up the image thinking that they were claiming that it was the same person.

It was not "some unknown broadcast news channel" it was Fox.
Donna Bruce gave interviews to other outlets.
It's entirely possible that at some point during the interview they could have said something about "brave actions of people in Boston" and compared it to the "Brave actions of Dawn Hochsprung" and put up an image of her to illustrate the point. (Or something similar.)

And we have dozens of examples of conspiracy theorists picking random bits out of interviews that they believe prove a conspiracy even though the context of that bit makes it exceedingly clear that it does no such thing. (One in particular being the infamous "pull it" from Larry Silverstien).
Further, it's not impossible or unlikely for some conspiracy theorists to be keeping an eye on and recording the mainstream news for clues to back up the conspiracy theory about the bombings.

Could you please outline your theory and provide the evidence for the government agent you are suggesting exists?

Brown Bomber

Anynama141 wrote: »

And your theory is that the US government/the Illuminati/the Eternal Jew/whatever realised that there aren't enough ridiculous conspiracy theories, or that existing 'genuine' conspiracy theories are not silly enough, so they decided to set up a covert operation to generate some more?

OK.

Anynama141

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I thought of your theory too.

Brown Bomber

King Mob,

So this phantom person "catching a glimpse" of this phantom interview is deaf then? That is they couldn't hear what was happening in the phantom interview that has zero evidence of ever actually happening?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

King Mob,

So this phantom person "catching a glimpse" of this phantom interview is deaf then? That is they couldn't hear what was happening in the phantom interview that has zero evidence of ever actually happening?

It could have been same way the person who originally distributed the Larry Silverstien thing ignored the context of the video he took it from.
Or it could have been a case of someone posting up the snapshot for another reason entirely (like perhaps complaining that Fox is using Sandy Hook to get a cheap emotional reaction etc) then some one else missed the context entirely.

And again, you are refusing to accept the possibility of my theory because of a lack of evidence while at the same time suggesting your own theory about an agent you cannot provide any evidence for at all.
Why do you believe in this government agent, but not my explanation?

Penn

Thread closed as it's been a clusterf*ck from the start. If anyone wants to start a thread on the same topic, feel free. Warning to all to remember that this is a conspiracy theories forum and to keep in mind the recent additions to the forum charter. Even if there is little or no evidence for a theory, or that the interpretation of some facts can vary from person to person, there is no cause for mocking and sly digs.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac:

What are you talking about ffs???

Both images are the same image of the same woman - the former principal of Sandy Hook who was killed there.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If it's such a "possibility" why hasn't anyone else noticed it? Why haven't the network issued a correction? Why didn't the person who noticed it - apparently the only person in the world - link to the videos that they supposedly took the images from?

Possibility my arse.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So let's get this straight:

You haven't personally seen the supposed interview this still is supposedly taken from.
You don't know anyone who has seen it.
You cannot provide a single scrap of evidence to support it's existence beyond your own dreamworld.

............. I give up

---

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really? Your imaginary interview is more "likely" than photoshop? I look forward to your explanation.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

While this was ongoing some unknown guy, presumably deaf and with a photographic memory, was recording this phantom interview -- for some inexcusable and uncertain reason and didn't understand it was an error took a screenshot and posted that rather than posting the video footage??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Anynama141 wrote: »

And it could be that many people behind CTs don't mind lying and manipulating information that they KNOW to be wrong.

We saw here on the Boston Bombing thread that people kept repeating the lies about Craft International, days after it had been established that the guys in question were National Guards. Facts are less important that the story, and can be ignored if they get in the way.

Anynama141 wrote: »

And your theory is that the US government/the Illuminati/the Eternal Jew/whatever realised that there aren't enough ridiculous conspiracy theories, or that existing 'genuine' conspiracy theories are not silly enough, so they decided to set up a covert operation to generate some more?

OK.

Anynama141 wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I thought of your theory too.

Brown Bomber and Anynama141 both banned for one week for repeated uncivil posts both before and after mod warning.