Original thread here:
http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shac ... c=9&st=300
[quote=""timothymurphy""]
I hope it’s ok to share these
brief responses to the latest victim-hugging 7/7 conspiracy films:
I basically don’t trust them.
This is not because of any information about the film-makers but because they:
1/ Re-hash the same old issues from the previous films.
2/ Have a na?ve trust of all sources except police and government.
3/ Hug victims.
These films are:
7/7 Anomalies (2009) by Spudxxxx and ConspiracyTVUK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uBRatJupGc
7/7 The Big Picture (2010) by Keelan Balderson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m630pIT6 ... re=related
7/7 The Seeds of Deconstruction (2010) by Tom Secker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAj6RF5inqw
[/quote]
I put it to you that it is wholly unjustified to lump my film in with the two others. In fact, I put it to you that you haven't paid sufficient attention to my film to make such an analysis of it.
So, to your individual criticisms:
1/ Re-hash the same old issues from the previous films.
No prior 7/7 film put the event in the context of historical covert operations and the proxy warfare behind the 'war on terror'. No prior 7/7 film contained the analysis of the CCTV and the train times from Luton, certainly not in the way I combined them in my film, and certainly not pointing out that the authorities must have had this footage only days after 7/7 and yet still managed to tell an untrue story about what the pictures showed almost a year later in the Home Office narrative.
No prior 7/7 movie raised the question of the number of explosions, the locations or directions of the trains when the explosions hit them, or why so many witnesses spoke of electrocutions or explosions that sounded like power surges or other things suggestive of some sort of electrical explosion. Similarly, no prior 7/7 film spoke of Daniel Obachike as a possible disinformation agent, or discussed the relevance of the Bourgass/Barot cases to the 'intelligence failures' or the role of 'Q' in both the fertiliser plot and the alleged 7/7 conspiracy.
I could go on, but while of course my film does go over certain things covered to some extent in other films, it only does so in the context of telling an overall story of an ever-deconstructing narrative of what happened. It's not like I've just said the same things but in different words. This is a lazy, generic criticism not at all applicable to the actual film that I made.
2/ Have a na?ve trust of all sources except police and government.
Which sources did I trust? I didn't postulate any specific theory about what happened, hence I didn't cite any source in particular as being particularly trustworthy. I took witness accounts at face value most of the time because my whole thesis was that given what we've so far been told, any narrative of 7/7 dissolves into ambivalence and contradiction. And given my treatment of the contradictions in the accounts of Ian Wade and his wife Eve I think it's fair to say they are a non-police or governmental source that I don't have a 'naive trust' of.
Again, a lazy criticism not in any way applicable to the actual film that I made.
3/ Hug victims.
I don't see that I did this. For the most part I only referred to the victims where their stories contradicted the home office/police narrative (Jenny Nicholson, David Foulkes etc.).
Also, even if I did do this, why would it be cause for distrusting my film? Do you honestly believe that no one died or was seriously injured on 7/7? That every single story of every single victim is somehow a concoction of the mainstream media? The discussion on the 7/7 thread very much indicates that is the running thesis about what really happened. Correct me if I'm wrong here, or elaborate on how you think I 'hugged victims' in my film and why you think this is cause to doubt my intentions as a filmmaker, or at least the integrity of my film.
You then posted this picture:
So I'll respond to that too.
It is 1950s Guatemala, the part about Guatemala is only 4 minutes long so how you can know 'a lot more' about '1940s Guatemala' than you did before is a total mystery to me. As a sarcastic put down this is pretty lame.
My film is a 'big picture' though it's hardly 'bulked up' with 20th century history when the parts on history are less than 50 minutes of a 2 1/2 hour film. Again, this is a pretty half arsed attempt to criticise my film, based on nothing more than a rhetorical dismissal.
Your summary is approximately what I was trying to get across regarding 7/7, but my point was that in the absence of any comprehensive narrative of events, it is fair and proper to consider the hypothesis that it was some kind of covert operation, possibly a psyop involving mass media. I don't see what you're criticising here.
I did not 'draw' the power surges question 'into the conspiracy narrative' because there was no conspiracy narrative. I didn't have any particular thesis to put forth in the film, and it's pure interpretation on your part that I was saying that 'rather than bombs, the people in the trains were electrocuted'. Some people said they were electrocuted, or at least that they felt like they were being electrocuted. That's what I put in the film.
It is clear that the basis for this idea was prepared in advance, with a number of 7/7 'witnesses' having mentioned electric shocks, etc.
So, for some reason, the time is ripe for a new element of conspiracy narrative to be added - electric shocks.
It isn't remotely clear that the power surges story was prepared in advance, and I stake my presence here on you having no evidence (beyond your wild interpretations) that this is the case.
Also, what do you mean that 'the time is ripe for a new element of conspiracy narrative'? The issue of power surges being the initial story, and perhaps to some extent the truth about what happened on the underground, was picked up five years ago, shortly after 7/7. If you'd visited the July 7th Truth Campaign's site and read the years-old discussion between members of the nascent J7 group and Rachel 'North' from the Alex Cox forum:
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/alexcoxforum/index.html
Then you would realise that this isn't a new conversation. In fact, that you're obviously ignorant of this says to me that you're in no position whatsoever to be judging other people's views and work about what happened on 7/7.
This last film (seeds of deconstruction) especially illustrates Hoi's comment about deliberate loose ends being left for conspiracy theorists to obsess over.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't obsess. I would put it to you that given the wholly misleading nature of your response to my film that you should see if those terms of derogation better describe your own behaviour.
(and to bore other people with...
The first part has >1000 views, the final part <200 )
I hate to break this to you, but when a 2 1/2 hour film is broken into 18 parts on youtube, a lot of people tend to watch it in chunks. Also, there are full length versions of my film on VeeHD and blip.tv. They've both got hundreds of views, which accounts for much of the difference between the numbers of people who've watched part one on youtube and the number who've watched through to part 18. Most people who've watched the introduction, by my count, have gone on to watch the rest of the film in one way or another.
So, aside from a bunch of diversions, strawmen arguments and in some places complete and utter horseshittery, do you actually have any criticisms of my film other than 'it didn't flatter my preconceptions and beliefs about what happened?'