Right-Wing Alt Media, Bloggers Catfished by Fake "Rioter?"

As promised, I'm back with an update. I didn't hear back this morning so I decided to tweet out a little bump and the response was "no comment."



I'd caution against attempting to draw concrete conclusions from a "no comment." I can think of at least 7 possibilities off the top of my head (in no particular order so no inference should be drawn):

- he was caught off guard and he's not commenting without figuring out what's going on
- legal action could be underway and he's not commenting under the advice of an attorney
- he could be behind the "Jamaal Williams" account (and the video was from Chicago or not)
- he could know the person behind the account (and the video was from Chicago or not)
- the video could be incriminating evidence of an illegal discharge of firearms that he doesn't want to acknowledge
- he doesn't know anything about the "Jamaal Williams" fiasco but doesn't mind the publicity
- he simply doesn't care

I'm sure given a few more minutes I could come up with some more. What is obvious is that some level of deception was taking place and too many of the sorts of sources that people rely on for "the truth" were once again too quick to spread disinformation. In my opinion, the most likely conclusion here is that the "Jamaal Williams" account was specifically created for the purpose of trolling and that the video purporting to show a shooting at/after the Trump rally does not show any such incident.

At any rate, I've done my part and I'm content to move on unless/until any new information becomes available.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I think you've pointed to a deeper issue regarding the use of tweets as sources of news. The video has no indication of it being at a trump rally, nor even on the same day, besides the word of the person who posted it, who may or may not even be the real person in the video.

It's a shame extra diligence isn't taken to confirm or deny the information, especially those who claim to be on the side of truth.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

The video clip was fishy. Good work.

What was his responses?

Edit: Nvm I took a looked and saw your tweet conversation. He said "no comment", neither affirming nor denying that he shot guns At a Trump rally.

Yep. As much as I would have liked a more illuminating response, I'm about as involved as I'm comfortable with and I'm not badgering anyone.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Its understandable. The man was firing a gun into the air in the streets. I'm suprised he even replied. Either way, good work on questioning that dubious clip.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think what frustrates me the most is that so many people put undue faith in the veracity of "alternative media" "reporting" and far too often they're simply being taken for suckers by unaccountable hacks. IMO, when it comes to "alternative media," the cure is often worse than the disease.

Pa reply to: theantediluvian

It's the age of opinion news. The entire media has lost credibility with their blogger-platform style of reporting. Unbiased reporting is not lucrative enough. It's pure bias and punditry that gets the clicks and shares.

I think this guy will have to comment shortly - but probably to the police. I am sure they will want to investigate.
As for alternative media - its about as close to the truth you can get these days (which unfortunately is not that close). The established media are proven to be liars driven by an agenda, so can't really take anything they say at face value.

Lots of information from various sources is required in my view to even begin to draw an informed opinion.

How dare you call his brother "brother" you racist. Kidding, those 2 were on Megyn Kelly the other night debating Herman Caine. The brother had some good points but Jamaal was an idiot, when asked why he didn't like Trump he said " Because trump said he wants to make America white again" . Herman and Megyn assured him Trump never said that because it would have been the end of his path. Jamaal also claimed to be part of several anti whatever groups.

a reply to: DJW001

We can't we have intellects that prove otherwise .

originally posted by: Medicator
How dare you call his brother "brother" you racist. Kidding, those 2 were on Megyn Kelly the other night debating Herman Caine. The brother had some good points but Jamaal was an idiot, when asked why he didn't like Trump he said " Because trump said he wants to make America white again" . Herman and Megyn assured him Trump never said that because it would have been the end of his path. Jamaal also claimed to be part of several anti whatever groups.

Ah - was that HIM on that programme? I saw it too. He was a completely brain dead moron.
He did actually say he disliked Trump because he said 'Make America White Again'. He actually really believed he said that. If that was him, I think it clears up what kind of guy he is and I completely believe therefore the Twitter account was indeed his.

EDIT : This s not the same guy on the megyn kelly programme.
Link here : insider.foxnews.com...

The guy who thinks Trump said 'Make America White Again' is a BLM organiser. You have to wonder how many people he has spread that lie to.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

The video clip was fishy. Good work.

What was his responses?

Edit: Nvm I took a looked and saw your tweet conversation. He said "no comment", neither affirming nor denying that he shot guns At a Trump rally.

Yep. As much as I would have liked a more illuminating response, I'm about as involved as I'm comfortable with and I'm not badgering anyone.

You shouldn't have contacted him... It would have been better to keep your eye on him and future activity.
Your thread in my view is the prime example of why ATS should consider a: Private Post option for paid subscribers.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: DJW001

We can't we have intellects that prove otherwise .

Explain, please.

a reply to: Medicator

Kidding, those 2 were on Megyn Kelly the other night debating Herman Caine.

Link, please.

I noticed the gun firing didn't really seem to fit the context.
Good research but it doesn't negate the rest of the ugliness directed at Trump and his supporters.
Saying that he held a rally in Chicago as a means of inciting violence is patently ridiculous, politicians are going to go to every major city to draw support.
That's politics 101.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Why are you fighting so hard to cling on to reverse image searched on twitter?

The video in the OP patches together scenes that have nothing to do with the rally in Chicago. The gun firing is just one example. Would you like a complete analysis? Highlights include various "Occupy" protests, the NATO protests in Chicago, rioting in Ferguson. Look, just pay attention to the station ID logos in the various scenes and you can see that most of them cannot possibly have been shot at the Chicago rally.

Doing what? A thug is a thug regardless of race. Why do you keep making the association?

Good, then let's agree that Donald Trump and his supporters are thugs, and that the peaceful black protesters are not.

Anyone who throws a punch at another person not in self defence is a thug in my view.

So when Donald Trump shouts from the podium "I would like to punch him in the face" and his supporters do exactly that to protestors...you agree both Trump and his supporters are thugs by your clear definition?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Why are you fighting so hard to cling on to reverse image searched on twitter?

The video in the OP patches together scenes that have nothing to do with the rally in Chicago. The gun firing is just one example. Would you like a complete analysis? Highlights include various "Occupy" protests, the NATO protests in Chicago, rioting in Ferguson. Look, just pay attention to the station ID logos in the various scenes and you can see that most of them cannot possibly have been shot at the Chicago rally.

Doing what? A thug is a thug regardless of race. Why do you keep making the association?

Good, then let's agree that Donald Trump and his supporters are thugs, and that the peaceful black protesters are not.

Anyone who throws a punch at another person not in self defence is a thug in my view.

So when Donald Trump shouts from the podium "I would like to punch him in the face" and his supporters do exactly that to protestors...you agree both Trump and his supporters are thugs by your clear definition?

No I agree that the person who through the punch is a thug.
You won't get your spin endorsed by me.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I noticed the gun firing didn't really seem to fit the context.
Good research but it doesn't negate the rest of the ugliness directed at Trump and his supporters.
Saying that he held a rally in Chicago as a means of inciting violence is patently ridiculous, politicians are going to go to every major city to draw support.
That's politics 101.

Inciting violence is exactly what Trump has done at every rally...from rhetoric to threats to going as far as to promise to throw his "Billions" into defending any of his followers who get arrested fro attacking protestors and most recently threatening riots if he is denied the nomination.

There is a time for parsing words and being "politically correct"...this is not one of those times...Trump is a fascist and encourages violence. He has no place in American Politics...

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Saying that he held a rally in Chicago as a means of inciting violence is patently ridiculous, politicians are going to go to every major city to draw support.
That's politics 101.

Trump did not win in Chicago, he won in the suburbs. If he held his rally in suburban Rosemont, a town built for conventions, there would have been fewer protesters because most college students don't have cars. He wanted an incident for its publicity value, and he got one.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Excellent work indeed! Too bad it's just the tip of the iceberg, and that is certainly no indictment of you. It's too bad the "fact checkers" seem mostly to be part of the distortion machine. Society, in general, needs more people like you who can dig into the story and produce facts. It's sad that our reality is so manipulated. Wasn't it William Casey that said something along the lines of: "Once everything the American people believe is false our program will be complete".

I'd like to offer a suggestion for a future thread, instead of only dissecting disinformation, which you do quite well, why not make a how to thread? A thread to teach the less technologically inclined on the finer points. Things like a reverse image search for example. The more educated all of us are in these techniques the better IMO. Maybe then we can try to put aside the partisan bickering and really deny ignorance!

Great thread! S+F!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Saying that he held a rally in Chicago as a means of inciting violence is patently ridiculous, politicians are going to go to every major city to draw support.
That's politics 101.

Trump did not win in Chicago, he won in the suburbs. If he held his rally in suburban Rosemont, a town built for conventions, there would have been fewer protesters because most college students don't have cars. He wanted an incident for its publicity value, and he got one.

Trump won easily in and around Chicago in both sparsely and densely populated areas.

www.nytimes.com...

Your speculation is just that - but if it was planned then the violent protesters were played like a fiddle.