Photo purported to be obama and clinton seeing live assasination of Osama are fake!

Rds1989

http://www.infowars.com/staged-white-house-situation-room-photos-part-of-bin-laden-fable/

fontanalis

They're not fake; they weren't watching live footage. And as far as I know the white house never claimed the footage to be live.

jackiebaron

fontanalis wrote: »

They're not fake; they weren't watching live footage. And as far as I know the white house never claimed the footage to be live.

BULLSH!T

The White House released these pictures and stated that the president and his entourage watched the killing LIVE.

Stop trying to move the goalposts, buddy. You're not gasbagging your way out of this one:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Osama-Bin-Laden-Dies-President-Obama-And-Hillary-Clinton-Watch-Operation-That-Killed-Al-Qaeda-Chief/Article/201105115984215?f=rss

fontanalis

Sky News said it was live. The photos still aren't fake and footage was still being watched.

ician

jackiebaron wrote: »

BULLSH!T

The White House released these pictures and stated that the president and his entourage watched the killing LIVE.

Stop trying to move the goalposts, buddy. You're not gasbagging your way out of this one:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Osama-Bin-Laden-Dies-President-Obama-And-Hillary-Clinton-Watch-Operation-That-Killed-Al-Qaeda-Chief/Article/201105115984215?f=rss

"Mr Brennan said he would not reveal details "about what types of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there but it was - it gave us the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis"."

From your article. Provide quoted source that states that president "watched the killing LIVE".

jackiebaron

fontanalis wrote: »

Sky News said it was live. The photos still aren't fake and footage was still being watched.

Oh boy! Now you're really reaching. The White House TOLD the news media that they were watching the killing LIVE.

If a newspaper reports something erroneous they immediately correct the error next day in an announcement.

(1) Did the press issue a retraction stating that in fact they were not live but a rerun? No. And you want to know why? Because the news media didn't make a mistake. The White House said they were live.

(2) Did the White House contact the media and correct them for falsely reporting that the pictures were of staff watching reruns and not a live feed? No. Why? Because they're fcuked! They can't say now "Oh, folks, those pictures are of us watching a rerun, not live as you reported." because the media will say "but you told us they were live!"

Damning indeed.

ician

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh boy! Now you're really reaching. The White House TOLD the news media that they were watching the killing LIVE.

source? quote?

meep

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh boy! Now you're really reaching. The White House TOLD the news media that they were watching the killing LIVE.

That's not true.

I happened to watch all of that briefing (Jack Brennan?) as it went out live and he was at great pains not to divulge whether or not there was a visual feed.

All he would say was that the president could monitor events in real time.

He would not be drawn on whether the feed comprised visuals or audio only.

chuckliddell

Who gives a ****

mickoneill30

jackiebaron wrote: »

If a newspaper reports something erroneous they immediately correct the error next day in an announcement.

Or

If a newspaper reports something erroneous they print a small paragraph of a retraction buried inside the newspaper at the bottom of some column, several weeks later.

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh boy! Now you're really reaching. The White House TOLD the news media that they were watching the killing LIVE.

Nope, that did not happen, as was posted above, they went to great lenghts to not say they watched it live, they could monitor the situation in real time - a textbook politicians answer, anything beyond texting would fill that description.

Also the photo are usually described as the White House staff watching the operation that killed OBL.

ician

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh boy! Now you're really reaching. The White House TOLD the news media that they were watching the killing LIVE.

If a newspaper reports something erroneous they immediately correct the error next day in an announcement.

(1) Did the press issue a retraction stating that in fact they were not live but a rerun? No. And you want to know why? Because the news media didn't make a mistake. The White House said they were live.

(2) Did the White House contact the media and correct them for falsely reporting that the pictures were of staff watching reruns and not a live feed? No. Why? Because they're fcuked! They can't say now "Oh, folks, those pictures are of us watching a rerun, not live as you reported." because the media will say "but you told us they were live!"

Damning indeed.

You edit your post after people have replied and yet you still haven't shown a quote which says they watched it live!

To use your words "BULLSH1T" and "You're not gasbagging your way out of this one"

Dave!

Just provide a quote from the White House jackiebaron, and your theory will be verified. Easy.

jackiebaron

fontanalis wrote: »

They're not fake; they weren't watching live footage. And as far as I know the white house never claimed the footage to be live.

Why do you believe the bull****ters in the White House PR department but you don't believe Steve R. Pieczenik the spymaster who worked in 5 administrations when he says the pictures are a complete hoax?

fontanalis

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why do you believe the bull****ters in the White House PR department but you don't believe Steve R. Pieczenik the spymaster who worked in 5 administrations when he says the pictures are a complete hoax?

What do you mean by hoax; they're not in the white house, the peopel in it are photoshopped?

Di0genes

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why do you believe the bull****ters in the White House PR department but you don't believe Steve R. Pieczenik the spymaster who worked in 5 administrations when he says the pictures are a complete hoax?

Just provide the quote jackiebaron

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why do you believe the bull****ters in the White House PR department but you don't believe Steve R. Pieczenik the spymaster who worked in 5 administrations when he says the pictures are a complete hoax?

So you d'ont believe the photos that you have seen of the White House staff because they come from the corrupt White House... but you believe the SPYMASTER who worked for the same White House for decades?

BTW. Spymaster - coolest job title ever.

jackiebaron

Dave! wrote: »

Just provide a quote from the White House jackiebaron, and your theory will be verified. Easy.

I don't have to provide a quote...the White House PR department's silence is proof enough. At this point in time they're probably frantically trying to dream up another story to get out of this fcukup and aren't answering the phones.
Use your intelligence and logic.....if the White House never said that they were live then the press would have issued a statement saying they got it completely wrong but the press know what they heard and now they are waiting for the White House's next move. Think about it (very slowly for some of you). You don't need quotes to deduce what has happened here.

If the White House told it like the way many of you think, it would have gone something like this on Tuesday when the images were released:

PR Guy: "OK press people here are some photos for you. These are photos taken last sunday of the president and his entourage watching footage of the killing of Bin Laden."

Press Guy: "Are these shot of the president actually watching the operation LIVE??"

PR Guy: "No. These shots are of the president watching footage from the mission at a later stage"

Press Guy: "OK, thanks"

Now WHAT fcuking journalist or reporter would get that so wrong and print in SKY that the were in fact watching "live" footage???

And if such a cretin does exist (and is demoted to the mail room by now) why hasn't SKY issued a retraction?


Here's how it really panned out:



PR Guy: "OK press people here are some photos for you. These are photos taken last sunday of the president and his entourage watching footage of the killing of Bin Laden."

Press Guy: "Are these shot of the president actually watching the operation LIVE??"

PR Guy: "Sure are!"


It then comes to light that they couldn't have been watching live

PR Guy: "eehhhh...emm....wtf do I do now....Mom!!!"

Press Guy: "I can wait all day for an explanation!"

jackiebaron

clever_name wrote: »

So you d'ont believe the photos that you have seen of the White House staff because they come from the corrupt White House... but you believe the SPYMASTER who worked for the same White House for decades?

BTW. Spymaster - coolest job title ever.

I don't believe their PR department or their Press secretary.

Dave!

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't have to provide a quote...

Stopped reading after that

</thread>

fee fi fo fum

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't have to provide a quote...the White House PR department's silence is proof enough.

Groan

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't believe their PR department or their Press secretary.

Yes thats what I said, you d'ont believe the white house PR because the white house is corrupt but you have no problem believing a "SPYMASTER" who worked in the same corrupt white house for decades?

fontanalis

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't have to provide a quote...the White House PR department's silence is proof enough. At this point in time they're probably frantically trying to dream up another story to get out of this fcukup and aren't answering the phones.
Use your intelligence and logic.....if the White House never said that they were live then the press would have issued a statement saying they got it completely wrong but the press know what they heard and now they are waiting for the White House's next move. Think about it (very slowly for some of you). You don't need quotes to deduce what has happened here.

If the White House told it like the way many of you think, it would have gone something like this on Tuesday when the images were released:

PR Guy: "OK press people here are some photos for you. These are photos taken last sunday of the president and his entourage watching footage of the killing of Bin Laden."

Press Guy: "Are these shot of the president actually watching the operation LIVE??"

PR Guy: "No. These shots are of the president watching footage from the mission at a later stage"

Press Guy: "OK, thanks"

Now WHAT fcuking journalist or reporter would get that so wrong and print in SKY that the were in fact watching "live" footage???

And if such a cretin does exist (and is demoted to the mail room by now) why hasn't SKY issued a retraction?


Here's how it really panned out:



PR Guy: "OK press people here are some photos for you. These are photos taken last sunday of the president and his entourage watching footage of the killing of Bin Laden."

Press Guy: "Are these shot of the president actually watching the operation LIVE??"

PR Guy: "Sure are!"


It then comes to light that they couldn't have been watching live

PR Guy: "eehhhh...emm....wtf do I do now....Mom!!!"

Press Guy: "I can wait all day for an explanation!"

Exactly it.

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

if the White House never said that they were live then the press would have issued a statement saying they got it completely wrong but the press know what they heard and now they are waiting for the White House's next move.

You have a very high opinion of the press.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Think about it (very slowly for some of you). You don't need quotes to deduce what has happened here.

You dont need a quote to deduce what happened, you need a quote to know what happened.

jackiebaron

fontanalis wrote: »

Exactly it.

There are only two scenarios, fontanalis. Try to just analyse the situation for a second.

Situation 1
The White House PR stated that the photos weren't live.

Situation 2
The White House PR stated that the photos WERE live.

Are you with me so far? If Sitaution 1 were the case (as you believe) then why would SKY say that the WERE watching live?

jackiebaron

clever_name wrote: »

You have a very high opinion of the press.



You dont need a quote to deduce what happened, you need a quote to know what happened.

I admit, cn, that I can't say I know what happened but it's the most obvious scenario.

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

There are only two scenarios, fontanalis. Try to just analyse the situation for a second.

Situation 1
The White House PR stated that the photos weren't live.

Situation 2
The White House PR stated that the photos WERE live.

Are you with me so far? If Sitaution 1 were the case (as you believe) then why would SKY say that the WERE watching live?

Jaysus!

You are saying that you trust SKY!!!:eek:

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

I admit, cn, that I can't say I know what happened but it's the most obvious scenario.

Please allow me to post the question again.

clever_name wrote: »

you d'ont believe the white house PR because the white house is corrupt but you have no problem believing a "SPYMASTER" who worked in the same corrupt white house for decades?

Abelloid

I heard they were watching "The Pet Goat" DVD.

fontanalis

JustinOval wrote: »

I heard they were watching "The Pet Goat" DVD.

Think they were watching a premiere of a new film.

jackiebaron

clever_name wrote: »

Jaysus!

You are saying that you trust SKY!!!:eek:

They can't ALL be lying or incompetent:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-03/us/29499055_1_bin-laden-barack-obama-video-camera

jackiebaron

clever_name wrote: »

Jaysus!

You are saying that you trust SKY!!!:eek:

You're still not giving me any clear explanation for what would pan out in either situation.....all I'm getting now is "You trust SKY?"

And some other winners blabbing on about My Pet Goat....

can't provide an adequate explanation? solution: resort to schoolyard jokes.

ician

I don't think Sky, or the daily fail were lying. The story was being built piece by piece, coming from rumours and sources which of course may not be accurate. The two articles you linked were written May 3rd. You linked earlier to an article that has a quote from the white house:

"Mr Brennan said he would not reveal details "about what types of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there but it was - it gave us the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis"."

You seem to be in some strange mind state that they were either watching live shots or it was a hoax. You live in a strange world Jackiebaron, the fact you can't provide one quote is laughable.

K-9

meep wrote: »

That's not true.

I happened to watch all of that briefing (Jack Brennan?) as it went out live and he was at great pains not to divulge whether or not there was a visual feed.

All he would say was that the president could monitor events in real time.

He would not be drawn on whether the feed comprised visuals or audio only.

jackiebaron wrote: »

They can't ALL be lying or incompetent:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-03/us/29499055_1_bin-laden-barack-obama-video-camera

It said watched in real time.

I'd go with meep on this, some of it was watched in real time, parts of it wasn't, though audio feeds would have been heard then.

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

You're still not giving me any clear explanation for what would pan out in either situation.....all I'm getting now is "You trust SKY?"

I am saying a lot more than you trust SKY, for example I am now posting this question for the third time.

clever_name wrote: »

you d'ont believe the white house PR because the white house is corrupt but you have no problem believing a "SPYMASTER" who worked in the same corrupt white house for decades?

namloc1980

Here is what John Brennan in his briefing said:

...we were able to monitor in a real-time basis the progress of the operation from its commencement to its time on target to the extraction of the remains and to then the egress off of the target... We were able to monitor the situation in real time and were able to have regular updates and to ensure that we had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation. I’m not going to go into details about what type of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there, but it was —it gave us the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis.

Link

Clearly he never said they were actually "watching" live images of the raid. Realtime tracking could be radio reports or briefings from the command post. It "could" also be realtime video but he never said that.

jackiebaron

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Or

If a newspaper reports something erroneous they print a small paragraph of a retraction buried inside the newspaper at the bottom of some column, several weeks later.

Maybe if it's Alison O'Riordan plagiarising some bubblegum piece but not if it is something as substantial as the US Prez, Vice Prez and Secretary of State watching something that they weren't watching at the purported time.

jackiebaron

namloc1980 wrote: »

Here is what John Brennan in his briefing said:

Link

Clearly he never said they were actually "watching" live images of the raid. Realtime tracking could be radio reports or briefings from the command post. It "could" also be realtime video but he never said that.

But multiple press sources published this photograph, stating categorically that it was of Obama and his cabinet WATCHING the killing of Bin Laden LIVE.

Now, if they could only "hear" audio reports of the raid then why are they all photographed glued to what is, I would imagine, some kind of screen or monitor?

Either they are watching it live (impossible) or they are watching it post-factum. I have never seen people all gaze in one direction when listening to a radio report and neither have any of you.

Pannetta stated that there was no live footage of the raid. He obviously and inadvertently blew the cover on the "this is Obama watching LIVE" tale.

There may have been footage of this alleged raid but the press was told that the president was watching it live.....and that is impossible and I challenge you to refute that VERY simple fact.

namloc1980

jackiebaron wrote: »

But multiple press sources published this photograph, stating categorically that it was of Obama and his cabinet WATCHING the killing of Bin Laden LIVE.

Now, if they could only "hear" audio reports of the raid then why are they all photographed glued to what is, I would imagine, some kind of screen or monitor?

Either they are watching it live (impossible) or they are watching it post-factum. I have never seen people all gaze in one direction when listening to a radio report and neither have any of you.

Pannetta stated that there was no live footage of the raid. He obviously and inadvertently blew the cover on the "this is Obama watching LIVE" tale.

There may have been footage of this alleged raid but the press was told that the president was watching it live.....and that is impossible and I challenge you to refute that VERY simple fact.

Were they? Can you give us a quote backing this up??

They could have been watching a briefing from the command post perhaps.

caseyann

They look clearly distressed by what they are watching,be it whether live or not.Fact they watched something at all like that is sick.
Same as the sadam pictures of hanging sick to let them out aswell.
World is sick gone mad.

jackiebaron

clever_name wrote: »

I am saying a lot more than you trust SKY, for example I am now posting this question for the third time.

Your question is academic.

I have never stated that I wholeheartedly believe the "spymaster" but I have less reason to doubt him than the spokespeople of the administration.

The administration have lied and have been found to lie. Not only that but they have more to gain by lying than a single non-power-wielding individual.

Either he is lying or the administration is lying.

What has he to gain by lying? Fame? Fortune? A damn blowjob? What?

What has the US administration got to gain by lying? A lot more...and any fool can se that.

jackiebaron

namloc1980 wrote: »

Were they? Can you give us a quote backing this up??

They could have been watching a briefing from the command post perhaps.

Are you 5 minutes behind the rest of the world?

We've covered this.

These photos were released by the White House on Tuesday. The PR guy/girl who released them said "Here are pictures"

After that there are three scenaria as qualified:

a. Live

b. Post factum

c. Not telling you what they are. Just publish them and make up what you think they are.

MRPRO03

I remember the Sky News caption, it did say Live but there was an extension 'as it happened' implying they were watching it from start to finish but not directly live feed.

Di0genes

caseyann wrote: »

They look clearly distressed by what they are watching,be it whether live or not.Fact they watched something at all like that is sick.
Same as the sadam pictures of hanging sick to let them out aswell.
World is sick gone mad.

If they didn't watch it and soldiers died?

What I'm disappointed in this,

Did you see the situation room? The West Wing and Jerry Bruckheimer lied to us man, it's supposed to a dark room with loads of maps.

It's just a bunch of guys with laptops, I've seen more hi tech Lans.

namloc1980

jackiebaron wrote: »

Are you 5 minutes behind the rest of the world?

We've covered this.

These photos were released by the White House on Tuesday. The PR guy/girl who released them said "Here are pictures"

After that there are three scenaria as qualified:

a. Live

b. Post factum

c. Not telling you what they are. Just publish them and make up what you think they are.

Look, I'm not arguing with you I just want you to back up your claim that the press were told that the picture shows Obama and the lads watching the killing of Bin Laden LIVE. The reality is we don't know what was on screen at the moment of the taking of the picture.

jackiebaron

namloc1980 wrote: »

Here is what John Brennan in his briefing said:

Link

Clearly he never said they were actually "watching" live images of the raid. Realtime tracking could be radio reports or briefings from the command post. It "could" also be realtime video but he never said that.

Now we have that word "could" being bandied about.

Why are you making sh!t up with "shoulda/coulda/woulda"

Why ....WHY don't you want proof of the death of this guy?


Why are you constantly trying to explain away something farcical.

They are now blabbing about plans found in Bin Laden's camp about derailing trains. This is abyssmal. Now in the coming months you will see the same restrictions at trainstations as at airports.

namloc1980

jackiebaron wrote: »

Now we have that word "could" being bandied about.

Why are you making sh!t up with "shoulda/coulda/woulda"

Why ....WHY don't you want proof of the death of this guy?


Why are you constantly trying to explain away something farcical.

They are now blabbing about plans found in Bin Laden's camp about derailing trains. This is abyssmal. Now in the coming months you will see the same restrictions at trainstations as at airports.

Seriously you need to take a timeout. If you had read my contributions to this debate you would realise that I am very sceptical of the story being put out there by the Americans.

BUT you claimed that the press were told by the Americans that Obama watched the killing of Bin Laden LIVE in the picture they released, all I want is something to back this up.

jackiebaron

MRPRO03 wrote: »

I remember the Sky News caption, it did say Live but there was an extension 'as it happened' implying they were watching it from start to finish but not directly live feed.

Such language could be employed to describe you watching the fcuking 1974 World Cup Final "as it happened"

The multiple news outlets presented these images as Obama watching the killing of Bin Laden "LIVE".

I don't want to hear about "sketchy visuals" or "audio reports" or any other such crap. The papers reported that they recieved these images and were told they were of the president watching the killing LIVE. That is not possible. Why did the WH state that this was a live viewing of Bin Laden's death?

namloc1980

jackiebaron wrote: »

Such language could be employed to describe you watching the fcuking 1972 World Cup Final "as it happened"

The multiple news outlets presented these images as Obama watching the killing of Bin Laden "LIVE".

I don't want to hear about "sketchy visuals" or "audio reports" or any other such crap. The papers reported that they recieved these images and were told they were of the president watching the killing LIVE. That is not possible. Why did the WH state that this was a live viewing of Bin Laden's death?

Ok this is the Sky News piece as that is the one being referenced the most:

Pictures have been released of US President Barack Obama watching live footage of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

The al Qaeda leader was shot dead by US special forces who stormed his villa in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad in the early hours of Monday morning local time. Bin Laden's compound was close to a military garrison and was only around 40 miles from the capital, Islamabad. Photographs issued by the White House show the president and other members of his team looking tense as they watch live video of the mission as it happened.

He said: "It was probably one of the most anxiety-filled periods of time. It was clearly very tense, a lot of people were holding their breath.
It's clear that a pretty significant side effect of killing bin Laden could be a guaranteed second term in the White House.

"There was a fair degree of silence as the operation progressed.
"Minutes passed like days and the president was concerned about security of his personnel."
He added that a "tremendous sigh of relief" came in response to confirmation that bin Laden was among those found in the compound.

Asked how Mr Obama reacted when he received the news that bin Laden had been killed, Mr Brennan recalled that the president had said "We got him".
Mr Brennan said he would not reveal details "about what types of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there but it was - it gave us the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis".

The Navy Seal team that carried out the operation were likely to have been wearing helmet cameras that were able to transmit video and sound back to command centres.

One picture shows the president and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff US Navy Admiral Mike Mullen sharing what appears to be a congratulatory handshake.

That piece is full of press conjecture i.e. the media filling in the blanks. Nowhere does it say he watched the killing of Bin Laden LIVE or that the WH said as such.

caseyann

Di0genes wrote: »

If they didn't watch it and soldiers died?

What I'm disappointed in this,

Did you see the situation room? The West Wing and Jerry Bruckheimer lied to us man, it's supposed to a dark room with loads of maps.

It's just a bunch of guys with laptops, I've seen more hi tech Lans.

I dont get the first question sorry.

I know doesnt look like a country that put the man on the moon.:D

jackiebaron

namloc1980 wrote: »

Seriously you need to take a timeout. If you had read my contributions to this debate you would realise that I am very sceptical of the story being put out there by the Americans.

BUT you claimed that the press were told by the Americans that Obama watched the killing of Bin Laden LIVE in the picture they released, all I want is something to back this up.

It's very simple, namloc.

VERY SIMPLE.

And I've typed this more than a few times.

We have a photograph of Obama and his people looking at a TV screen. Correct so far?

This photo is delivered to the press as a cronicle of the entire Obama administration watching the killing LIVE.

Correct so far?

Leon Panetta let's slip that live feed video is shut off for 25 minutes and that there was no live footage of the killing.

Correct so far?

Why release this photograph and state to the press that it was of the administration watching the killing live?