News

Anit_war picture was a fake

Discussion in 'Other Off Topic Forum' started by ART360, Nov 3, 2003.

  1. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    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
     
  2. Nibblesworth

    Nibblesworth Formula 3
    BANNED

    Nov 29, 2002
    1,756
    Southern California
    Full Name:
    BillyBoy
    LOL - Right wing conspiracy.

    Yeah, just like that radio transmitter in your fillings.

    Art - I've seen more than enough protestors with tasteless signs like that. It's not too hard for me to believe that it's real. In fact, there was a link to the website that originally hosted it (SF chronicle, right?) that even stated that they had removed it, but not because it was a fake.
     
  3. wax

    wax Four Time F1 World Champ
    Advising Moderator

    Jul 20, 2003
    42,493
    SFPD
    Full Name:
    Dirty Harry
    Oh, boy! (said like 12-year-old unwrapping presents)

    Seriously, folks...
    The only thing one reporter said was "I don't know a thing about it."

    How does that prove this was fake?

    Did this reporter have 360º see-through-building vision? After all, This wasn't the Rose Parade or Macy's Thanksgiving Parade - where there's pre-defined routes. This was a hyperspastic colon of a protest march - the current ebbed and flowed here, there and everywhere, beneath, between and behind.

    Nibbles - the "cut" was reported on a San Jose Mercury News Personal Blog Page...
    www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/weblog/5478753.htm

    On it you will find that author's name - that in turn will give you his email address. Folks - don't inundate him with requests for info. One request will suffice.

    A good reason why not to bug him: He doesn't claim he personally saw the banner - he mentions the photo being cut from one section of indy.org. However, the photo still resides on that site at the bottom of this page...

    Never mind, they took it off that one too. Smartasses must've gotten too many hits via sites that weren't "on their side" again.

    Bottom line: I believe that sign was very real and reflected the view of a very, very, very small minority of protestors.
     
  4. Kds

    Kds F1 World Champ

    That reporter must have taken "sound bite training" from the Clinton's.

    Considering the left wing sits that had the poster featured on their sites, it really makes you wonder just what the Chronicle's real objective was in their terse "no comment" reply to Art. There is lot's of stuff like this out there unfortunately.
     
  5. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    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
     
  6. Shadow DN8

    Shadow DN8 Rookie

    Nov 4, 2003
    23
    Fake or not, it is a sad state of affairs that such a sign could even be considered legitimite.
     
  7. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    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
     
  8. Shadow DN8

    Shadow DN8 Rookie

    Nov 4, 2003
    23
    Art, do you remember "fragging" in Viet Nam? That is what brings credence to the idea of the sign possibly being real.
     
  9. Kds

    Kds F1 World Champ

    "Denial of reality" is the strongest and most often used tool in the left wing handbag.

    The movement of the goalposts in this debate has been hilarious..........absolute proof..........of the type demanded by anyone who espouses these views, is often unobtainable, because once they bar has been leapt....it is merely raised again....and again....and again.....

    If the person in the ski-mask actually told Art355 that he was there and signed an affidavit attesting to same, he would probably be discussing the type of paper and ink used in the document as to whether or not the document was a valid affidavit.
     
  10. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    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
     
  11. maranelloman

    maranelloman Guest

    #11 maranelloman, Nov 4, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    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
     
  12. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    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
     
  13. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    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
     
  14. true

    true Guest

    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
     
  15. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    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
     
  16. JaguarXJ6

    JaguarXJ6 F1 Veteran

    Feb 12, 2003
    5,341
    Denver, CO
    Full Name:
    Sunny
    How was it a fake? Was it a photoshopped picture?

    Are they fake people with a fake sign during a real protest?

    That is what matters here. Right wing, left wing, or hot n' spicy chicken wings, there is no point to this thread except to continue a personal battle. You could have let it drop.

    Sunny
     
  17. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    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
     
  18. MarkPDX

    MarkPDX F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Apr 21, 2003
    10,963
    An internet classic...

    .
     
  19. JaguarXJ6

    JaguarXJ6 F1 Veteran

    Feb 12, 2003
    5,341
    Denver, CO
    Full Name:
    Sunny
    Art, point taken and thanks for the clarification.

    MarkPDX, hahaha!

    Sunny
     
  20. wax

    wax Four Time F1 World Champ
    Advising Moderator

    Jul 20, 2003
    42,493
    SFPD
    Full Name:
    Dirty Harry
    Art - thanks for clarifying your stance on what is personal - what is political and how quickly things get out of focus and control. I hope things smooth out between you and those whom you're having this debate with. I guess being a lawyer in NoCal makes you an easy target.

    I 'm sure I haven't gotten "personal" - either on this revived thread, or the original one. I wish I had more time to give a thoughtful reply (had one nearly done, but I closed 3 of 8 windows I had open - including the one with the reply - doh!) - I'm spending the majority of my F-Chat time in the Bug Section these days. To that end, I'm off to making tables on my Geocities site. The top of the page is giving numerous users fits.

    Folks - try not to kill each other over politics. No matter who the prez is, every 4 years, we all lose.
    Obligatory Clinton still sold this country out, though smarmy Comment
     

Share This Page