“So what tiny things is the vast conspiracy attempting to cover up?”
Dead and dying birds, fish, dolphins, turtles mostly. Of course the limit is 65 feet outside the boom. The boom is supposed to be placed outside the oil. So on beaches and choppy water the animals end up being pretty darn hard to locate.
But it seems you’re ok with the govt dictating what you can and what you cannot see.
I too am stunned by the FReeper defense of CENCORSHIP and, as I asked above, how many even bothered to watch the link to the TEN MINUTE CNN piece?
About SEVEN minutes of the interview is with two Louisianna Parish Presidents who flat out said What is being reported, from the Government, is LIES! The number of skimmers (on paper) is many times more than what they SEE off their shores; same with miles of boom and timelyness of changing oil soaked boom. What is being reported is NOT what they are seeing in their Parishes!
And face it folks, the spirit of this thread, no matter how many ‘field goal,’ Waco, or gun sight comparisons that are made, is defending the indefensible...Obama’s reaction. Local, LA Parish Presidents were saying ‘the feds are lying, we need reporters down here, with cameras to show the lies’ and we have FReepers, either not watching the video or just thinking its too much fun to make fun of Cooper than it is address government censorship of what is happening in the Gulf.
I’ll ask again, how many watched the complete TEN minutes?
Forcing people to move back from working equipment 65 feet is going to hide a dead dolphin? Ooookay, if you say so.
The secrets are, I think, how many booms, how many vessels, and their Obama-given “rules of engagement” as to placement and how many hours the crews are allowed to work.
The secrets the MSM is hiding are organizational, not factual like the 9001th shot of an oily gull. These new rules are designed to let the few booms and skimmers work with some clear space. Holmes might put it, the press cannot block the fire engines coming to a fire in a theater.
I have seen no diminution in the flow of injured wildlife pictures, which are irrelevant anyway.
We disagree, you see this as an obvious breach of the first amendment that is putting a restriction on the free press, I don’t; we’ve both explained our positions in some detail.