nonhocapito wrote:reel.deal wrote:I'm genuinely shocked at the sheer shitness of this stuff;
keep expecting to come across something at least 'kinda' authentic-ish looking,
instead of being served up more of this garbage.
i'm no expert at all, if I can see its all half-assed lame lousy 'continuity-lite' junk,
then anyone can, who bothers to actually look, & see for themselves...
un-fricken-real. unbelievable !!!
I think the whole point is really that these pictures are meant to be seen once or twice, and not with particular attention.
In the earlier days of the internet (which we'll perhaps stretch as including 2001) this
might have been a believable operating context- that images on the web were perceived by TPTB as being transient in nature, nothing more than flickering drive-by billboards. But, especially over this last decade of universal SM, when the internet has become a permanently-inhabited realm by the vast majority of the world's citizens, this
specific point (let's call it failed laughably-incompetent imagery intervention...or failed Liii for short), this is unquestionably what worries me the most. More than the errors within individual battle actions, what is the stragic reasoning behind this
ongoing apparent display of casual confidence within the overall campaign?
nonhocapito wrote:They work on a shock-and-run kind of tactic. Even when someone indulges in watching them over and over it is maybe for morbid reasons, for the awesomeness of terror, and not because of suspicion of fakery. It is like the idea of fakery sits on a different step. Until one gets there, fakery is never taken into consideration, and the pigs get away with a lot of crap
Something I must ask members of this forum (probably not the best representative dip-sample, by definition)...we are amongst that sub-set of humanity that
saw the original footage of 9/11 (including the emergent material) and, at a gut level immediately thought...."hey...ok...but
what???" Tracking/pan shots that were impossibly smooth, fortuitously (no,
gratuitously) framed, dissolving content that just screamed CGI. The package was initially swallowed, but that gut-level doubt remained as a growing tumour of doubt...at least within us.
So are we in a cognitive minority? Do we who believe we
can recognise 'Liii' represent a
growing body of educated and savvy media consumers, or are we a just shrinking abberation? I'm betting almost everyone on Cluesforum has always, since childhood, been able to watch television and successfully detect live versus pre-recorded/studio versus on location/canned laughter versus true audience responses. I'd initially presumed that the generations that have been getting born into the world after me have been becoming progressively more perceptive, more media-evolved in terms of being able to detect fact from fiction- but I am having to accept that I could be entirely wrong with this expectation.
Whilst I think that some of the ever-increasing constituency of so-called 'digital natives' that take our places as we shuffle towards our exit doors occasionally display a level of healthy media cynicism, I think that if we grudgingly accept that only 30% would have swallowed an overtly-false entertainment media construct such as 'Blair Witch', we have to accept that only a tiny minority of the public ever question content
which is purported to be real.
nonhocapito wrote:... sorry for the obvious words here
Hey, no, don't be. Because if a game is being played here, fundamentally we must ask:
is it serial checkers or single chess??
[Something that to me encapsulates much of this puzzle for me is that weird episode for which ironically very-few people outwith TPTB have seen much imagery for: and that is the 'missing WMD' saga. Was this a psyop at a strategic layer far above the normal consumer, intended to convince the movers-and-shakers, or was it a tactical misinterpretation in good faith? The eventual truly-bizarre WMD
admission of "we were wrong, the intel/imagery/interpretation, all of the strategic concerns of projectable ballistic oblivion that legitimised invasion was incorrect" is screaming out for a response. Why on earth was the world eventually
told that the enabling information was fundamentally wrong? Remembering that, just like the Cuban Missile crisis, and irrespective of the Blix sideshow, much of the strategic decision-making will have been informed by the provision of tactical imagery....as well as the emotive backdrop provided by any video content relating to 9/11. Why was that 'new testament' WMD imagery eventually discredited, and admitted to be wrong? Surely the safest path of damage limitation would have been to have quietly-avoided an explicit statement on discovery, or at least left it in the category of 'unknown'...in my opinion this
admission of error is almost the ultimate irony within the chain of world events initiated following 9/11: doubly-ironic for us, since I suspect the imagery to which I refer remains substantially unavailable for critique, the polar opposite of New York's dark omnipresent opera to which, for me, it remains inseparably welded].