Anit_war picture was a fake

I had a change to check with the Chronicle reporter regarding that picture of the anti-war protester. Seems that the guy who covered the march never saw the poster. Looks like more right wing lies, any comments? Too bad they had to stoop to such low tactics. Here is his reply:

This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ]

Subject: RE: 03/15/2003 Peace March
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:42:37 -0800
From: "Hoge, Patrick" <PHoge@sfchronicle.com> | Add to Address Book
To: "Art Chambers" <arthurchambers@yahoo.com>




I don't know a thing about it.

Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: Art Chambers [mailto:arthurchambers@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:31 PM
To: Hoge, Patrick
Subject: 03/15/2003 Peace March


I have recently seen a photograph, which in sum and substance states: “We support our troops, when they shoot their officers” It is claimed that this sign

was posted at the SF 3/15/2003 demonstration. Since you covered the event, can you either confirm or deny the present of such a sign?



Thanks for your help.



Art Chambers



Art@ArtChambers

 

Bottom line: nobody there saw the sign. The reporter I quoted was the reporter who wrote the Chronicle article. If he didn't see it, and these other folks are attributing the sign to the chronicle, it's obviously a fake. Not one person that we know of can say they saw that sign. Not one. San Jose Mercury News guy says he got it from the Chronicle, the Chronicle reporter says he knows nothing about it.

Lies, and more lies. What people will do to push their agenda. By the way has anyone ready Richard North Patterson about the gun industry and politics in general.

Art

 

The only people who provide credence to this type of rumour are those who want it to be true, so they can bash those who disagree with them. I was opposed to the war, thought it was a war of conquest, and also thought that we would have a rough time of it, and it looks like I was right. However, I would never, ever support a poster like this, nor would 99.9% of those who opposed this war of conquest.

However, those who supported this war, supported killing 10s of thousands of Iraqis would like to attribute this immorality to those who opposed them. Given their paucity of morals themselves, they certainly could conceive of someone oppossed to them with this. Problem is, didn't happen. Psychologists call this transferance.

This types shouldn't be allowed to attempt to bring us to their low level.

Art

 

You bet I remember fragging. It usually happened when some 90 day wonder attempted to get their experienced troops killed, and they wouldn't listen. I don't think that's the case here. We do have a professional army now, not a bunch of unwilling drafees.

As to reality: The various sources attributed the "sign" to a rally in San Francisco, and the various sources, none of which had actually seen the "sign" attributed it to the Chronicle. Well, we got the report on the scene, and we've looked at the Chronicle: the "sign" didn't appear in the chronicle, and the reporter on the scene didn't see it. Given the explosive nature of the "sign", my opinion would have been that it would have been front page news in SF, but wasn't. The area where the march was, is rather small and someone covering the march would have seen it, had it been there.

So what we have is a phantom "sign" and claims that it existed. The balance of the comments appear to be made up. Let's see if we can find anyone, and I mean anyone, who claims that they actually, personally saw this sign. My bet is that we won't because this is another right wing frabrication, and they'll trash me, they'll trash the "protesters" and they'll trash everyone in their way, BUT THEY WON'T PROVIDE ANY PROOF, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY.

Straight up guys: where is your proof? If there isn't anyone, just admit that your hate, and dishonesty of the person putting this stuff out is what caused this to be shown, not that it existed.

Art

 

Art, you are full of crap. I posted reams of evidence, which you have chosen to ignore, instead believeing one lone Chronicle reporter. As you say, "Lies, and more lies. What people will do to push their agenda."

Indeed, Art, indeed.

Bottom line: that sign was seen by many, and its photograph was seen by millions. You wanna deny that reality? Well, I think the audience here can draw its own conclusions from that.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Dave:

I may be wrong, but not one of the posts you showed indicated the name, etc. of someone who had seen it. Not one. The sources you showed all indicated it came from either the Chronicle, or the San Jose paper. All of those indicated that the sign was in the San Francisco march, in March of 2003. Yet, the reporter covering the march said he didn't see it, the Chronicle didn't run the picture, and the other sources which you showed didn't indicate (at least to my reading) that the writer actually saw the sign.

By the way Dave, I thought you were better than that.

Art

 

One last item: anyone see the sign in the march? If not, then, why not? If this was such a big deal, why didn't someone who allegedly saw the sign make a comment about it. I think the sign is a photoshop creation, designed to throw a little mud on those who oppose the war.

Again: who saw it in the march. Obviously we've all seen it in the various "news" items.

Art

 

I appreciate Art's point of view because of his technical interpretation of human logic. I act in the same manner -- within reason, I simply do not believe anything anyone says. I would obviously like to state it's 100% possible that this banner was created and marched through the protest. I, however, also would not believe it just because there are a multitude of posts and articles on sites regarding it. We should all agree its human nature to easily be mislead with a little propaganda from either side of the field. One person posts an image...someone posts to someone else, and before we know it, the link is being sent back to us. It's a common feature to want to show the next guy something shocking that they probably don't know about. With a little research it should be fairly easy to get to the bottom of this I suspected. I searched google high and low...found TONS of refernces to the banner and TONS of that same picture. One thing I noticed right away that it was ALWAYS the same picture. I could not find any shots of the banner with ANY different angles, people in the background, etc.. I could only find replicas of the exact same still. I ended up making it to http://hometown.aol.com/ProudRepGirl/research_1.html

This claimed to have a link to 'footage' of the protesters responsible...it said it has the TRUTH. I started watching the movies, and found some interesting tactics! The first clip is not related...it's a long underground meeting......, NEXT. The second clip called "CRASHING THE PROTESTS" is the one that has the banner. This is a 7 minute movie showing the 'actual' protest. There are thousands of people, thousands of banners etc.. When it gets to the 'We support our troops, when they shoot their officers' part, it's FACT that they inserted it as a STILL in the movie. (they inserted a few other stills through the movie..probably copied from internet sites etc..) I paused the movie at the part and compared to the ONLY other known still image (exact same one on ALL the sites) and it is exactly that...a still of that same image. How could this protest with literally thousands of people NOT have at least one other shot or angle of this banner??

I'm not saying it's a hoax, but I must admit I find it very suspicious that there is only 1 picture in circulation....with all the people there taking pictures and video, how could that be?? All the articles reference the exact same picture. Hrm.

Without knowing any better, and not playing favorites on either side of the political playing field, I would be convinced under 2 conditions:

1. Find a different picture..different background scenery, angle, people etc.
2. Someone who's a reliable source that saw it first hand.

If these 2 conditions can't be met it's still probable that it could be legit, but I wouldn't bet my life on it -- would you?

Nick

 

True:

Thank you for the detailed analysis. However, my point isn't that it's a fraud. My point is that the conservatives who believe it to be true will attack anyone personally who disagrees with them. Look at their posts: all personal, none with reasoned logic.

What I'm getting at is that they've become what we all fear: someone who believes so strongly in their position, they'll discount the facts, and stand behind what they say, no matter how illogical, stupid, or wrong, just because it suits their ideas.

Because this site has some people with some influence, you would expect a more reasoned approach from them, but it's been sorely lacking. I'm reminded of the mind set for the inquisition, and the refusal of the church to allow independant thought while it was pending.

Art

 

Sunny:

I've not made it personal. The attacks upon me were personal, and I'm probably more stubborn than I should be. It would be easy to take a poster, in a march, and put your own language on it. Since Nick couldn't find any other photos, it sure looks like that was done.

The agenda is that since it was faked, it was obviously done for a reason: embarass those with a differing point of view. It speaks a whole bunch for those with a conservative point of view, that none of them, not one, has been able to point out why it isn't a fake, or if it is, why they should be embarassed. This is the same sort of crap used on McCain in the primaries: lies and slander: telling voters he co-operated with the Viet Cong while a prisoner of war. Conservatives didn't like him, and told awful untruths about him. Never heard an apology about that either.

The issue of this thread is to point out the above.

I believe that the point has been made, in spades.

Art