annabelle wrote:
How real does footage have to be before it clicks in your head that a terrorist attack is real,
You're asking me how red has a cherry has to be before it clicks in my head that a cherry cake is red.
I.e. you're not giving any argument here.
this isn't the Boston Marathon or Sandy Hook.
True, this is London, 3-06-2017. So what?
You ARE an auto-hoaxer who jumps to the conclusion, along with others, that an attack is fake based on nothing.
That are 5 lies in one sentence. And CAPITALIZED. Why, annabelle?
There are three possible positions with these kind of things; the reporting of a
story in the MSM:
1 - it is real
2 - it is a hoax
3 - I don't know, I will see
You place me in category 2, while I have just said that I am in category 3. Why do you do that, annabelle? What is the reason of that aggression?
I HAVE decided this is real......already....
That's quick. How do you know? And don't you think that by being so definitive and placing yourself in category 1, your eyes are not completely open enough to keep possibility 2 open?
based on the footage taken at the scene, particularly that of the man, Pete, lying on the street with a sliced neck, struggling to breathe and being attended to by medical personnel while his wife is beside herself in shock and grief, hopefully he lives.
www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ed_1496534855
Thanks for the link (again), I just watched it.
1 - how do you know this footage is "taken at the scene", as you say?
2 - how do you know this man's name is really Pete, as the video reports?
3 - how do you know "Pete" really has "a sliced neck"?
4 - how do you know "Pete" is struggling to breathe?
5 - how do you know he is "attended by medical personnel"?
6 - how do you know that woman talking is indeed his wife"?
You see? You make 6 assumptions based on a short bit of video that is mostly filming street anyway. Don't you think a storywriter gets away very easily with you, just assuming all those things are true?
I don't know if this is a hoax, or if it's real, or maybe even a false flag. So stop placing me in a category where I don't belong.
My views on this short clip:
1 - VVS (Vertical Video Syndrome) - always waiving red flags. As videos are mostly played landscape and in landscape you can see much more, this portrait filming is suspicious, especially because there is no need to do it (when it's like undercover/secret footage it may be more appropriate)
2 - the utter calmness of everyone, except some emotional sounding bursts from "Pete's" alleged "wife".
3 - "Pete" does breath perfectly fine (look at his belly). If he has problems breathing, it isn't really conveyed by the video
4 - where are all the people? We are talking central London on Saturday night, here we have in an area of some 100s square feet, what, 10-12 people?
This clip doesn't do anything to me to be able to conclude "this is real". It may do it for you, but I am curious based on what exactly? The points I name, you can do too; which points do point you to conclude, no, DECIDE that this is real?