Dear nonhocapito,
you say:
OK, sorry if I sounded a bit arrogant in my previous message to you, Warriorhun, it is just because it is so damn difficult to make my position clear with you, and move on from these equivocal pictures where, it seems, you really want us to be stuck.
Do not worry about your style if you think I am wrong in something, point it out as "arrogantly" as you wish, we are not little girls to worry about whose "feelings are hurt" if we point out a possible mistake. With
the exception of accusing my mother with indecent acts, there is no other limit on criticising my comments. Let me tell you, I enjoy our correspondence immensely, and sometimes one of your or other people's comments can give me food for thought for a whole day.
I understand your different approach, but I do not want to be "stuck" with
the pictures: I simply wanted to solve their riddle first, because figuring out
the extent of
the fakery-especially if all Libyan ones are fake as my theory claims-that would be a very-very strong help in speculating out what is behind. And trying to find clues of fakery in
the Libyan images is hardly hijacking
the topic or hardly alien from septemberclues' spirit or objectives, if you think on it.
Let me give you my basic approach to
the Libyan or Middle East revolution imagery, and
the reason why I seem obsessed with it: (I quote my credo):
1. We live in an information age.
2. In an information age, having information on real events and live happenings from trusted sources, is not just simply time-critical in decision making, but an outright decisive factor in winning warfare, in realising economic gains, in achieving political agenda.
3. If you had such information, would you share it with every peasant who has a TV subscription?
4. No, you won't.
5. Therefore the Media is not doing it either.
6. So, what is the media doing instead?
7. Projecting images of a non-existent "reality" only, altered and faked images, in order to provoke thought patterns in the viewers, provoke emotions and opinions in the viewers, and incite mass reactions.
This is my basic opinion and approach to
the Media and to all Media images, including
the Libyan ones: and my credo is non-negotiable.
As I highlighted
the important points, I view Libyan news and images through them. Real news and real images of
the Libyan happenings would contain not only such information which would betray
the propaganda efforts of both sides, but as I pointed out regarding
the "rebel pictures",
the real images would contain such decisive information which would mean life or death for
the real people on such pictures. Did you do national service in army too, did you receive basic training, so my claims regarding
the "battle/airstrike pictures" make sense? Whatever, these are my reasons to assume all Libyan images are faked, and what I wanted to check is my claim is valid based on
the existing images. I believe they faked images imitating wide angle pictures, because you can not tell a faked wide angle picture from a real and legit wide angle picture, because both looks very fake.
Before I come up for a last time with two pictures at
the end of this comment, as you proposed to discuss theory on Gaddhafi and
the events, I comply.
I allow
the Tripoli Hilton is probably swarming with Western reporters, in that I have to say you were right. But
the lies of reporters being victims of
the regime's intimidation , plus Gaddhafi's opposite lie that reporters are not restricted, according to my theory means this:
the reporters are frustrated that they can not move around without official Libyan guides into everywhere they want, and Gaddhafi wants them to stay in
the Tripoli Hilton. In all probability, local contacts may take pictures for them, but no way are they sharing them with us instead of their own countries' intelligence. These are not used as basis for image altering, because an altered image may contain some overlooked clue which
the enemy will notice and use.
I quote myself from another topic, on Gaddhafi and "pro-democracy rebels" and
the excepted beautiful secular liberal democracy for Libya, just to sit again on my favourite horse and chew again on my favourite bone, my "Crescent of Democracy"-plan theory: I wonder what your opinion will be:
If Gaddhafi falls, that means he and his tribe is out of power. The resulting system will be called "democracy", but believe me, those "pro-democracy rebels" could not care less about democracy. They want their tribe to take the power. So if Gaddhafi goes, the strongest tribe-with Western backing I suppose-will take the power, and will consolidate it with cutting a deal with the main other tribes and share it with them in exchange for their support. "Democracy", if the Westerners press it, will look like this: there will be Party A, Party B, and Party C to vote on. Party A will equal Tribe A, Party B will mean Tribe B, and so forth. All Triba A members will vote on Party A, all Tribe B members will vote on Party B, and so on. Party A will cut a deal with Party B and C in the above mentioned manner. Easy.
And please allow me just this once to return to Nazi Kuwait and those white banners. Perhaps you will forgive me for me wanting to discuss them with you if you will see what I am on about.
The first picture is from
the link you provided:
To help
the comparison, I attach
the original for
the last time:
Same place, same banners, same time. And no, they were not turning back,
the banners are in exactly
the same position, only
the swastika flag and
the left one to it moved about. Can you explain
the colored banners/white banners discrepancy, or can we say this is a clue of media altering/faking reality, and especially fakery going on regarding these images? (And
the car on
the second picture does not have a front numberplate, just for you.)
