posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:40 AM
I didn't see any smoking gun. Every question asked, I could think of a reasonable explanation. Doesn't mean the explanation is true, but it does
mean that there are other possibilities besides fraud.
Having said that, I will repeat what I've said before. The news is entertainment, not information. This news bit had a little drama in it. Guy in
Saudi Arabia, possibly near where military action is taking place, possibly vulnerable to explosions, missiles, even a gas attack. How exciting.
Then, conveniently, there is some sort of alert and everyone puts on protective gear (although different protective gear, for some reason).
But the light in Saudi Arabia at dawn? Maybe it's quite bright then. This was August, when the days are long. I don't see any fraud there. Also,
it is possible that studio lighting was used to enhance available light.
The background - if fake - could easily have been set up in Saudi Arabia just because the real background wasn't dramatic enough. For example, if
there were a McDonald's behind them, or barracks for the troops; or if it looked like anywhere in US suburbia. Put a palm tree in there and make it
Asking that a siren-like noise be turned off, no mystery there. The military was working with the media during Gulf 1. They might well have wanted
to keep the media happy by cooperating when possible.
Still, it is true that the news has no legal obligation to be factual. They could have held that interview in Manhattan. But I'm thinking it
doesn't really make any difference. We already know that the media lies. We know they fake stuff. If this is one more fake, then so what?
Business as usual.