Re: Report: Malaysia Airlines flight crashes in Ukraine
My God...
Seriously?
You don't understand?
Seriously?
The "fact" that they "looked like?"
It's not saying they were factually Ukrainian.
It's saying it looks like they were wearing Ukrainian uniforms. Not only is this subjective from satellite imagery, but to me, what would be important, is where the actual location is that was spotted. They don't say.
No, you are being the blind one here. I wonder if you do it in purpose. I hope not, or else my respect for you would have to appeal to my electronic microscope analogy above.
This whole edifice that this biased narrator is trying to conctruct is, first, based on some unknown source (great!). Then, the source says that *initially* "in all likelihood" it seemed like these were Ukrainian soldiers, then rapidly it gets changed to "they could also be Eastern Ukrainians dressed in similar uniforms." This very important point is then tossed aside and never repeated, while the narrator insists over and over in a very repetitious and hammering way with the "in all likelihood" line and then even briefly switches to tossing around that the evidence that supposedly the Americans have (according to, mind you, one unknown, never named source) "proves this fact" and then the narrator keeps repeating over and over, in dramatic tones of voice, that they were Ukrainian soldiers. Whoa! Where is the "they could be Eastern Ukrainians in similar uniforms"???
Are you this dense? You don't see the bias? The attempt to make of a hypothetical, rapidly dismissed by its own source (unnamed, vague) as the people who *initially* were thought to be *in all likelihood* Ukrainians, a hypothetical that then gets changed to *or maybe Eastern Ukrainians in similar uniforms* (these people all have similar military attire, not so easy to distinguish from satellite imagery), a *proven fact* that these are Ukrainian soldiers - wait, did the satellite imagery look into their pockets and found Ukrainian passports and IDs there???
Dear, the progression of the phrases, the pauses, the emphasis, the repetition... intend to make the listener forget about the "small detail" that the source merely said that these people could be Ukrainian soldiers, or Eastern Ukrainian activists, all in similar uniforms... and only remember the dense, heavy words "in all likelihood... proof... fact... Urkainian soldiers."
If we needed a clear example of intellectual dishonesty, this one wouldn't do... because it is TOO clear.
Like I said, your video clip is UTTER RUBBISH and its intellectual dishonesty (tossing around words like "proof" and "fact" and insisting over and over with what was only an initial *impression* rapidly reversed, as if it were established) is in tune with that of your leader Ron Paul.
You need any more proof? Look at the clip's title: "Whistleblower: Ukrainian troops shot down MH17"
Whoa! A more accurate title would have been: "Former whistleblower journalist for the Iran-Contra scandal claims to have an unnamed source who said soldiers seen in satellite imagery related to MH17 might either be Ukrainians or Eastern Ukrainians in similar uniforms."
How did this get changed to the *affirmation* "Ukrainian troops shot down MH17" :shock:???? And see, even the dramatic "whistleblower" line... the journalist was a whistleblower for a totally different matter - the way it is said, it sounds like he's a whistleblower for this current matter. Wow.
Are you still sustaining that this is not dishonest????
