I'm the first to admit that news agencies are hardly on the up and up, but COME ON… Dude, your argument is ridiculously flawed. Lets take a look shall we...
The first part of this video shows the stage set he was on, and he was clowning around with fellow CNN staff. The Saudi Arabian "hotel" in the background were fake palm trees and a blue wall in a studio.
First of all, the blue walls and palm trees COULD be fake but they could just as likely be real judging by the limited amount of information in the video. The pan around to the "studio" COULD be an actual studio, but it ALSO looks pretty much like any other remote camera setup a major news network would bring on location with them.
Charles Jaco was wearing a different jacket, but he had the same act. The acting was terrible as Charles Jaco wore a gas mask, and his fellow correspondent Carl Rochelle wore a helmet.
Reporting "style" and choices of clothing accessories are not evidence of acting.
The sirens and missile sound effects are part of the stage set.
Point me to the shot where you find evidence of the siren and missile sounds being faked. Oh wait... there isn't one.
The camera never pans out or shows the sky.
Why would they? The focus is on the reporter reporting the news. How many times in a newscast does the camera guy say to himself "gosh, now would be a great time for a sky shot!", or "Hmm.. this reporter guy is boring, think I'm just gonna pan around a bit and maybe zoom out."
He has a scud missle that says to larry king or bust on it. This is fake they have admited its fake.
Dude it's a paper mache prop used for illustration purposes. Ever seen a reporter use a prop before? Happens all the time. I'm sure the little graffiti was an inside joke.
The person who sent it said it was done in a basment at a hotel.
That'll hold up in court. Maybe "person that sent it" could invite some other people to testify that they heard from that person's cousin that Charles Jaco's sister also heard it was fake. Again, hearsay is not evidence.
This isnt jumping to a conclusion.
It may not be jumping to a conclusion, as you've obviously spent much time pondering this, but it IS coming to a conclusion based on faulty reasoning.
(least by having them do it you don't risk scratching the paint doing it yourself). I mean you either knock the ad off the car, or you knock some monies off the tag.
