This looks kinda bad.

.

But on what end, are they fake????

It also cites Indymedia, a notorious den of various leftist conspiracy theorists and assorted wackos. Even if it was staged, so was (as Bo noted) the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima's Mt. Surabachi in 1944 (the picture was of the second flag faising, the first flag having been deemed as too small by the Marine commander on the island). The Red Army's seizing of the Reichstag in 1945, the entry by American troops into Rome and Paris in 1944 and many other such famous moments were similarly staged, as the actual liberations were accompanied by continued resistance by diehard opposition forces that made having film crews running around just too dangerous.

Someone who was in Berlin when the Berlin Wall fell told me he saw a CNN crew pull up with sledgehammers and other tools, which they provided to Berliners to use on that hated structure. Is that "staged"? Doubtless the Berliners would have found their own tools...

But you gotta admit that it was a staged production and not a piece of history.

Staging is not the offense. Deception is.

Dan

My folks were both french/ canadian.

"My folks were both french/ canadian."

Really? So am I.

Hi, Paul.

In Berlin, there were large numbers of Berliners who spontaneous went to the Wall to celebrate and participate in its destruction, regardless the source of the tools. I recall this incident, and was under the impression that there were large numbers of Iraqis trying to pull down the statue, and an American unit that happened on the scene assisted them. That's entirely different from a staged event involving a relatively small number of iraqis brought to the site for that specific purpose. To Bush fans, this may not make a difference, but to the rest of the world it helps build the image of us being in the same league as what J. Edgar Hoover called "the Masters of Deceit." Not good at all! Incidentally, whether the messenger is left-wing or not is irrelevant (though you don't really expect Bush fans to trumpet such deceit, do you?) The key question is whether the report is genuine.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I remember it as well, Dave. Weren't there two attempts at taking that statue down. (second one successful)? I rememember the 1st attempt specifically because I was thinking that one or more of those people up on the statue were in danger of falling off, not to mention people on the ground if it had suddenly come crashing down. Didn't the Army try to assist with a vehicle, but it wasn't powerful enough, so they stopped? (there was a good chance of someone being hurt.) AIR, later the bigger one with that crane affair was bought into play. Perhaps an attempt to focus on the second attempt and imply that it was the only attempt might be considered by some to also be "deceit".

As I said in my earlier post.

When we first turned on the live reports, the square was full of people, climbing the pedestal and beating on the statue with shoes. Eventually, some citizens tried to get a rope around the head. They were standing on each others shoulders to reach it.

The tank retriever was brought in and attached to the rope. At this time, I remember more people in the square around the statue alone than can be seen in the photo.

When it was determined that the rope would not be strong enough, the TR was pulled up to the statue and a crew man climbed the boom to attach a chain. He initially attached a US flag, but then took it down and attached an Iraqui flag that one of the citizens gave him. They then cleared the square immediately around the statue to prevent injury and pulled the statue down.

As soon as the statue was on the ground and the chain removed, the crowd rushed back in and were literally covering it with humanity.

As I said originally, this entire thing took at least 1.5 hours.

Bo

I remember the American flag being over the statue's head and that it was one of the ones from the World Trade Center. That was why he put it there for a moment and everybody was mad at him for it for his arrogance.

Even if there had been a huge crowd when the 'process' started 90 minutes earlier, where'd they all go? If there was jubilation to be done this would seem like a logical place for it to happen. Even if there were nothing else to do there should have been a less organized collection of people. If a couple of hundred were able to get there for the 'event' then thousands should have been able to get there. There should have been random foot traffic in the area surrounding the square. If this were not a strictly controlled security area there would have been lots more people. If it was a strictly controlled security zone then it was a staged event.

Just a couple of thoughts. Who can know what really happened?

Dan

Hi, J.

>>Perhaps an attempt to focus on the second attempt and imply that it was the only attempt might be considered by some to also be "deceit".<<
You're right -- I had forgotten that. OTOH, one now wonders if the first effort were also staged and things weren't as they seemed. That's the problem with a little deceit -- it gets people doubting truth from the same source. Point is, this is the sort of thing that we used to say only Nazis and Communists did, but that the US always was on the up-and-up. For example, during the Cold War we prided ourselves that Radio Free Europe told things as they were, because the truth was in our favor. Apparently we're now in the propaganda business, too.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Remember, Dave, Radio Free Europe is not oficial broadcasts of the U.S. Government, that's VOA. (Voice of America).
Your attempt to imply that the first attempt was staged (or should I say "also" staged, implying that the accusation that the "second" one was is true) ranks with your use of Nazis and Communists and the implication that that tries to make.

The 'first' attempt was ALL Iraqi. No Americans around.

Why are you so ready to believe any and all anti-American stuff?

Bo

Where'd they all go in the following 90 minutes?

Dan

Hmmm I wonder.

After living under Saddam's rule, and last several days of war, would you hang around if/when large armed foreign troops showed up?

Even if believed it to be a good thing, I suspect it might appear to be a good time to be scarce. At least, till be scarce until you're sure the armed troops are feeling secure enough to welcome civilians without misunderstanding.

Just one scenario, have no idea if true one.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

When the chain was attached to it, the soldiers cleared the square to prevent injury when the cast statue broke loose.

After the statue was down, it was literally covered by Iraqis dancing on it and beating it with shoes (the ultimate muslim insult).

Further, all the news services carried clips the remainder of the day and for several days after of statues being toppled all over the country and pictures of posters and murals being defaced.

Bo

That may be, but it doesn't make sense, really. If they were holding the crowd back somewhere why can't we see a single sign of them in the wide view picture? If they had to be cleared further back why were some allowed to remain in such extreme danger.

They weren't tipping the Statue of Liberty here. A safe fall zone could easily be setup 30-40 feet from the base. Even at 70 feet this large crowd would still be in the picture.

Dan

Bo, I'm starting to notice something. In the wide shot, I can't see the a-frame crane affair on the tank. Also on the shot with the statue roughly pulled horizonally but not off the pedistal, look at the white pillars and car behind them. Now, look at the wide area long shot again. Notice the distance from the pedistal to the pillars and then the additional distance to the street. Back to the close-up again. Notice that that distance is extremely collapsed. Telephoto lenses do that. Considering that, how far away from the statue and tank/crane were the people in the foreground? I've got to examine a bit more, the perspective is quite distorted due to the telephoto lens. Note: I can't examine all the pictures on that page, my Mozilla doesn't display them anymore, I get blanks on some. I thought they displayed when I first went there, but my Mozilla must have developed a problem.

There are 2 photos remaining of the statue location. One before the tank retreiver arrived, and one with the statue horizontal but still attached to the pedestal. In both of them there are more people visible than in either of the long shots.

Bo

Moving right along, Bo...
Did you notice that the wide shot does not have a credit "bug"? The close up shot has an APTN bug (Associated press Television News)- translation: a "lift" TV footage. All of the images of U.S. soldiers have an AFP bug- AFP stands for "Agence France-Presse".
Just a thought: could the missing images be because some news agencies don't agree with that propaganda organization's claim of "fair use"? Well, I doubt that AFP would ever gripe with their use of its images, as it's an anti-U.S. work.
It's pretty obvious that just as that carefully selected TV "lift" distorts position by use of a telephoto lens, the other carefully chosen images distort the time factor.

Looking at the pic links:
Of those remaining, 6 are at Globalresearch, one at voxfux and one at indymedia

Of the pics gone, 3 from Reuters, one each from arabnews, thisbighush and Globalresearch.

It is entirely possible that the offsite pix are no longer available. But now the annotated picture is gone and it was from globalresearch.

Bo

.

...

Very well stated, Angeline.

Marcia/Oregon/USA