TV Trained Minds

Propaganda and Photoshopped Photos

"there's a lot of 9/11 speculation that’s out there that is based on video footage - in some cases altered photographs - we have no way of knowing what the chain of custody was of that evidence to prove that it has not been tampered with"
-- Michael Ruppert
, February 14, 2005, interview on KZYX, “The Party’s Over”

The average American spends about one third of his or her waking life watching television. The neurological implications of this are so profound that they cannot even be comprehended in words, much less described by them. Television creates our reality, regulates our national perceptions and our interior hallucinations of who we Americans are (the best and only important tribe on the planet.) It schedules our cultural illusions of choice, displays pre-selected candidates in our elections, or types of consumer goods. It regulates holiday marketing opportunities and the national neurological seasons, which are now governed by the electrons of the illusion. We live within a media generated belief system that functions as the operating instructions for society. Anything outside of its parameters represents fear and psychological freefall to the faceless legions of within it.
Our civilization, our culture, in as much as it can be said to exist in any cohesive way, is based upon two things, television and petroleum. Whether you are a custodian or the President, your world depends upon an unbroken supply of both. So it is small wonder that we all watch a televised global war for oil.
-- Joe Bageant, The Simulacran Republic, December 24, 2005

"I like to watch."
-- Chance, the gardener from "Being There"
Act 2: From the Wilderness' Peak Oil Blog
"The Earth in Eight Verses"
Rice Farmer said...

The TV generation is enamored of photos and videos, and people disdain reading anything longer than a few paragraphs and thinking logically. People want to think they are professional image analysts, when in fact they don't know what to look for, and further, in many cases we don't know the provenance or chain of custody of the still images and videos. Many of them may be only as reliable as the CIA's UBL videos. This makes the physical evidence argument all the more unreliable.

Photo Fakery: Identifying falsified images can be straightforward if you know a few tricks.
Robert D. Fiete, ITT Industries

[note: most of the fake photos promoting hoaxes about 9/11 complicity have either been subtly modified - such as the "pod" photos - or merely misrepresented - such as photos from the Pentagon impact area that show Boeing debris yet are described as free of Boeing parts)


the internet can spread hoaxes
Snowball the Monster Cat

An image of an enormous cat (approximately the size of a large dog) being held in the arms of a bearded man began circulating around the internet in early 2000. The picture immediately attracted attention—how could it not?— because it didn't seem possible for a cat to be that large. But the chance that the cat was real couldn't be ruled out either. Like all the best tall tales, the monster cat balanced delicately on the razor's edge of credibility.

At first the picture stood alone without explanation, but by the time it was featured on NBC's The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and ABC's Good Morning America, someone had written an explanatory narrative that accompanied it. According to this narrative, the image showed 'Snowball,' a monster cat owned by Rodger Degagne of Ottawa, Canada. Mr. Degagne had supposedly adopted Snowball's mother (a normal-sized cat) after finding her abandoned near a Canadian nuclear lab. She later gave birth to Snowball, who proceeded to grow into the oversized, 87-pound cat which 'Mr. Degagne' was shown holding.

Both Snowball's story and her picture were fake. In May 2001 Cordell Hauglie, a resident of Edmonds, Washington, came forward to admit that 'Snowball' was actually his daughter's cat. The cat's real name was 'Jumper,' and it only weighed twenty-one pounds.

Hauglie had created the fake image by using widely available photo manipulation software and had then e-mailed the image to a few friends as a joke, never intending that it would pass beyond those friends. But a few months later the picture had spread worldwide. Hauglie only realized what had happened when the picture started appearing on TV shows, in newspapers, and in magazines. To his amazement, he had unintentionally become an internet celebrity simply by sharing a joke with a few friends.

The story of Snowball displayed the amazing power of the internet to rapidly disseminate information in a way that sidestepped the traditional media. The image spread in a viral fashion. As computer users received it in their e-mail and forwarded it to their friends, those friends then forwarded it to a few more friends. In this way the number of people receiving it increased exponentially the more it was forwarded. Soon millions of people had seen it, even though Hauglie himself had sent it to only one or two people. By the time the print and broadcast media got wind of the story, it had already spread worldwide.

In this way Cordell Hauglie and Jumper joined the company of other accidental celebrities of the internet such as Mahir Cagri (1999) and Touristguy (2001). But the picture of Snowball also recalled a far older American tradition of tall-tale photography. Lighthearted images of giant fish, whopper grasshoppers, and oversized farm animals of all varieties have been a staple of American culture ever since novelty picture postcards first became popular around 1905. Back then photographers had to painstakingly cut and paste images together to create the trick effect. Nowadays, as Cordell Hauglie can attest, all it takes is a click of the mouse.


Kris Millegan, Trine Day Press

in a response to "Money doesn't talk"

Kris Millegan said...

ThePistol44 said...
A quick note about the value of "sexy photos" and videos from the Pentagon and WTC collapses: it is much, much easier to introduce someone to the 9/11 Truth movement with visible evidence as opposed to discussions about insider trading and the nefarious history of the Bush/Cheney team. For better or worse, people believe their eyes.

Yes and the octopus through several of their arms have spent so much money on uncovering how we "tick" and "what buttons to push." They know and it is accepted science that people believe what they see. That is precisely why the false meme of no-Boeing at the Pentagon has the "legs" that it does. That is the why In Plane Site and other flash propaganda pieces are being used to sell that false meme. TPTB (The Powers that Be) knew that there would be Internet head scratching about 9-11, there has even been "trial-run ops" to get the lay of the land (TWA 800). The tactics learned and developed there were then planned for and used in response to 9-11 deconstruction.

Three basic false memes were developed to hang the "hats of contention" upon;

1. No Plane at Pentagon (Effect: To divide researchers and to make 9-11 conspiracy research look "nuts" to folks within the highly charged and very "influential" DC Beltway crowd.)
2. No Planes in NY (Effect: To upset folks in NY on 911 conspiracy research{that is where a big crime occurred-jurisdiction for justice} and thoroughly disgust any survivors' family members from adding their gravitas to uncovering truths)
3. The "Jews" did it. (Effect: A blanket tainting that repells many without any perusal of the issue and allows the "official" story to label its critics as anti-semetic bigots with and agenda not facts and reasoned argument, etc.)

Then these memes help to cover up obvious conspiratorial facts leading to countles hours of blather, emotion, etc. Personally, I am sure that that there was demolition, remote control technology and patsies involved in the op. And as with any large op, those with their noses in the right place or someone that directs them there, uses the op for their own personal purpose some maybe contrary to the ops planner. For with any action there is always possiblity. No chessmaster wins everytime. There are many editions of SunTzu, etc.And yes has Jeff said if you follow the money follow the drugs there are smoking guns aplenty. And if you read history you even find that some of the guns have been discovered before, covered-up and then erupt again, go away again, etc.
Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.

Kris Millegan


TV trained minds

Hoax-Mongering Videos
Of all the media used to disseminate misinformation and disinformation videos are perhaps the most effective. Whereas websites with disinformation can be critiqued by other websites which are easily located using the Web's search capabilities, a video is unlikely to occupy a shelf with another video critiquing it. Also, being a visual and passive medium, videos can persuade the viewer in ways that books cannot.


photoshopped photos of the Pentagon plane crash damage

This image has been digitally altered (see the repairs underway on the left lower side of the hole, the "cleaning up" of the area under the plane, the removal of the scorch marks that shows a wide fire area - and the apparent merging of multiple photos to create this image). If you look close, you can see some of the damage that the left side of the plane did on the ground floor.

This photo is NOT evidence for any of the "no Boeing" hoaxes, although several have tried to use it to justify them.


the "Pentagon Lawn" claim

Several websites have claimed that photos show a debris free lawn in front of the Pentagon, and therefore this proves major anomalies in the attack. However, those sites generally show either photos taken long after the fire has been extinguished or photos that show signs of having been digitally altered.


another photoshopped creation

from ( a right-wing populist site)
What Really Happened at the Pentagon on 9/11?
Analysis © by G. Edward Griffin
First published 2004 Sept 20. Updated 2004 September 28

First, we must take a hard look at the proposition that there were no aircraft pieces to be found. It is true that photographs taken at a distance do not reveal any debris that looks like it came from a Boeing 757. There are numerous photos on the Internet that show closeups of portions of the long shots, and these, too, seem to confirm the absence of debris. Initially, I was impressed by these photos, but when I finally took the time to examine them in detail, it became apparent that some of them had been altered. I am familiar with programs like Adobe PhotoShop and Corel PhotoPaint and I have become fairly proficient with the use of cloning tools. They are used to remove unwanted blemishes or objects from photographs or to insert objects that are not in the originals. Once I began to seriously examine these photographs, I recognized the pattern repetition, particularly in the roof detail, and I realized that parts of them had been cloned.
On one widely circulated photo, which shows the roof still intact, you see the same collection of rubble and scorch marks repeated in the center, side-by-side. In this same photo, there is a crane at the right that disappears about half way down. There is another version of the same photo showing the crane in its entirety, but the one with the disappearing crane shows that the artist combined two photos taken at different times to produce this effect. One was taken before the roof collapsed, and the other afterward. That explains why the center section is partly obscured with gray smoke, while everything around it is in normal color. When I first saw these pictures, I thought the gray section was colored to dramatize the impact zone, but now I realize we are looking at a composite of two photos, and the reason the crane disappears is that it was not present in the earlier one. Cranes were not brought to the site until after the roof had collapsed and the fires had been extinguished.

In 1988, the Sandia National Laboratories conducted a test to determine the ability of reinforced concrete to protect a nuclear reactor from the impact of a jet aircraft. The plane was an F-4 Phantom with two engines, the same type flown by Col. McClain. It was traveling at 480 miles per hour upon impact. The test established that “the major impact force was from the engines.” Video of the test shows that the entire aircraft disintegrated upon impact, leaving no recognizable parts behind. The video and still photos can be viewed at the Sandia web site.


unknown video won't be popular for long

Why the bogus efforts have some traction ...

I will credit the fact that at some subconscious level many people "know" that there is something fishy about 9-11. "In Plane Site" and similar far-out memes play into that knowledge by attempting to present a neatly tied little package of evidence that confirms people's worst fears... the trouble is, it is poor quality evidence, it is outright fraudulent in some respects ("That wasn't an American Airlines plane!" is heard on the sound track), and it promotes the very facets of 9-11 that our political opponents (Chip Berlet, Robert Baer, et al) attack first. And their attacks are quite effective, because of the poor quality of the evidence.
Promotion of "In Plane Site" and no-plane-Pentagon theories is demonstrably LOUSY strategy
- we've already been there, seen that play out a couple of times. And until the "In Plane Site" and similar folk give equal weight to other, better, provable, mainstream evidence - say, the other nine chapters in "The New Pearl Harbor"....
The pod and missile portions of "In Plane Site," however, are crap. No one has convinced me of an operationally valid and compelling reason why a missile would have been needed, and no clear-thinking member of the public is going to believe video of unknown provenance for very long. What we tend to get from no-Boeing and "In Plane Site" proponents is repetition, which should not be confused with quality evidence.

Another view

"In Plane Site" is exactly the type of material that turns off most common folks. Both stylistically and substantively, it is an embarrassment. ....
To think that we can just put out a mix of legitimate info and unproven assertions and convince people of 9/11 truth is foolish.

Equally foolish, I believe, is [the] line, "There's also the simple fact of market feedback: what works?"
Just because something is selling does not mean it is "working"!! Please! There is a niche audience of conspiracy consumers out there who will buy the crazy shit; it is still a tiny tiny percentage of the general population, when our hope of reaching critical mass, IMHO, lies in the lack of air defense, War Games, Bush's inactions, the unknown whereabouts of key government officials, massive forewarnings, obstructions of FBI investigations...
We need to simplify and mobilize around the strongest areas of evidence and challenge people on their assumptions.
.... I envision standard film screening-flyers where we utilize our most recognizable symbol, the Deception Dollar, and ask the simple question, "Was 9/11 an Inside Job?" or something to that effect. I also think we should mass-produce simple one-page flyers with actual information on them (I have a decent one). Mass grassroots outreach now.
Plus cultivating relationships with key reporters and media outlets and keep working for a big story break, as some of us are. And staying away from pods and holograms and the like.


TV trained minds don't think


The scene: A college classroom at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. The subject: Writing the newspaper column. The question: "Can any of you name a columnist you read -- in a newspaper or magazine or online -- on a regular basis?" In response: Dead silence.
Slowly, one hand rises. A sports columnist is mentioned. . . "My generation is very visually oriented," explains Ryan Schreiber, a U-M Dearborn junior from Dearborn who -- like most in the class -- is majoring in journalism but doesn't read much of it. "My generation grew up watching MTV. We are used to short spurts of words, lots of images...We're used to immediate gratification.". . .
In another journalism class down the hall, the instructor annoyed his students. After asking how many read a newspaper regularly -- four or five out of 35 said they did -- he required them to bring a newspaper to class twice a week. "The students don't like it," says Laura Hipshire, one of the journalism students. . .
I envision a 12-Step Program for the Non-Reading Generation, as its members fight to recover from an addiction to color graphics and quick bursts of information. But no one in this class -- or in others I've faced in recent months -- seems to disagree: Words on a page are, like, kind of hard to read when you have "a fast-paced lifestyle," as [one student] put it. Or when you have "four kids and you're going to college," as Hipshire says. . .
What's intriguing is that these kids say they plan to write for newspapers and magazines. They're planning journalism careers. They're dreaming of careers creating products nobody they know uses much.

e-mail from a reader promoting the "Loose Change" hoax film

While Ruppert's point is quite valid, I think all you serious researchers should take advantage of the new attention to 9/11.
Considering that 59% of households with internet now have broadband, by far the easiest way to open the eyes of the greatest number of naive people is to get them to click here to see Loose Change, which should be called "The 9/11 411".
Young people, the most open-minded, don't want to read for hours, they want to watch Dylan Avery present the choice parts of all the readings, videos, etc. in 1 hr 20 min.
I think now is the time for you serious guys to put aside the egos and petty squabbles and promote our best shot at communicating while the window's open!


Apparently, the fact that there's more nonsense than reality in this film is not relevant to this truth seeker, or the fact that it alienates more people than it motivates (thus ensuring increased polarization between those who say "no planes on 9/11" and "no conspiracy," when neither point of view is true). One could say it is the "naive people" who promote Loose Change instead of efforts that check their facts. It was not a surprise that the media ridiculing of 9/11 complicity information that "peaked" in 2006 all focused on Loose Change as the counter narrative to the Official Story.,12271,1461245,00.html

Making a science out of applied idiocy
Richard Jinman
Saturday April 16, 2005
The Guardian

The research paper was clearly the work of experts. It had a long, baffling title and its authors were familiar with key topics such as "simulated annealing" and "flexible modalities".
Submitted to the World Multiconference on Systematics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI), a computer science event to be held in Florida in July, it was promptly selected for presentation.
There was just one problem: it was complete gibberish. A random collection of charts, diagrams and obtuse lines such as "We implemented our scatter/gather I/O server in Simula-67", it was generated by a computer program written by three Massachussetts Insitute of Technology students.
MIT graduate student Jeremy Stribling, 25, and two friends created the fake paper because they were tired of being sent emails by WMSCI organisers soliciting admissions.
Mr Stribling said he was "definitely surprised" when Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy, was accepted, but "we kind of suspected they had low standards". He added: "They ask for submissions, but once you get in you have to pay a $400 (£220) fee to have your paper published." The prank had been aimed at the WMSCI and was not a statement about jargon in computer science.
Nagib Callaos, a WMSCI organiser, said the bogus paper had been accepted on a "non-reviewed" basis.
Mr Stribling said the trio wanted to present their paper. "It's just a matter of whether we can get in."

If you came and you found a strange man... teaching your kids to punch each other, or trying to sell them all kinds of products, you'd kick him right out of the house, but here you are; you come in and the TV is on, and you don't think twice about it.
-- Jerome Singer, psychology professor

from "Painful Questions" by Eric Hufschmid, page 20
regarding a "blob" seen in some WTC photos that supposedly showed another plane overhead when the second tower was hit

"It is also possible that the blob is just an 'artifact' caused by the software that compressed the video. However, I suspect the person who posted the images deliberately created the blob to make fun of conspiracy theories or to fool people ... the best policy is to ignore theories that are based on compressed images. Demand the original, high resolution images.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hufschmid based his "no plane hit Pentagon" claims on blurry, altered images released by the military a few months after 9/11 ...