Are Maui fires mostly CGI fakery?
(mileswmathis.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
There is so much wrong with this article, I don't even know where to start. This is one of the big problems with the internet...every idiot can self-publish something with no editorial process or fact-checking.
"Maui is one of the wettest places on Earth." Oh really? I've driven on the arid side. It's like a desert.
The writer ignores the fact that fire crews already fought a brush fire earlier that day, leaving it when they assumed it was 100% contained. It wasn't. There is also video of where the fire began...as a result of a downed electrical line sparking. The video was taken by a resident across the street.
I could go on.
Let's see what the data suggests, rather than your "debunking" anecdote.
Only the high reaches get the 400 inches, but I'm gonna call over 33 feet of rain a pretty solid "wettest places on earth." Yes, in the west apparently there isn't a whole lot of rain, but the water from the heights goes somewhere, suggesting there may be many rivers, ponds and lakes, etc. Indeed, when you look at the map, there are many of those.
I'm not saying that the water is, or should be, playing a significant part in fire management. Who knows what part it is playing (or not playing as the case may be). I'm also not saying the authors statement of "wettest places on Earth" is necessarily applicable, because there are some places that receive very little rainfall, but it is one of the wettest places on earth by an overall measurement, and it's not hard to forgive that potential, but understandable blunder. Additionally, your anecdotal statement of "I drove there once" is not proper sleuthing, and I have no idea why you would attempt to "debunk" in that manner. That is straight up gaslighting level.
I do not see how the author makes this into any important point at all. I didn't even see it addressed. His criticisms seem valid in regards to firefighter response. Indeed, the very statement you made quoted above is exactly the type of shit put out by the media to create false beliefs, and here you are espousing it as some sort of truth.
While I am certainly not suggesting the article is itself a better "truth," or that I agree with his assessment on everything, because I most certainly do not, but he does make numerous solid points on many of the pictures and some of his analysis. I personally don't throw a piece out just because I disagree with some of the parts of it. In any investigation, a person is bound to get something wrong. Overall, I thought it was thought provoking and worth a read and discussion.
Regardless of my assessment, your attempt to "debunk" it didn't actually address anything, and that which you attempted was an address of the gaslighting variety on both counts.
Dude, you try to insult me, but you only point out your ignorance. The writer was trying to make the point that Maui was "so wet" that a fire of that scale IN LAHAINA would be impossible. You are ignoring the topography and geographical influences on Maui. I've driven all the way around Maui, and hiked into Haleakala. Even inside the crater of Haleakala, it is a desert. The water falls on the north side of the island, and drains north. Any insinuation that the arid side of the island receives enough water to make fire impossible is bunk.
The writer is trying to make it sound as if there is some giant conspiracy going on. The only point I am making is that the truth of what happened is more mundane...ignorance...incompetence...and perhaps grifters trying to take advantage of the situation. This has been proven by the evidence I offered.
Why do you always try to make this message board a battle ground? It is completely unnecessary. Check yourself.
That is not the author's primary point. It's barely even a part of it. You obviously didn't actually read it.
I disagree with this assessment completely. There is so much evidence of fuckery in these fires, I don't even know where to begin. Just do a search on this site. NOTHING is what it appears to be in the "official" version you seem to espouse. It's literally all bullshit. I'm not saying the fires are faked, but the photographic analysis of the post in the OP does make some very interesting points regarding those photographs. Regardless of the "CGI"ness (or not) of the pictures, the photography is obviously and purposefully staged in some way, and taking a closer look at them strongly supports that assertion.
In your first response you didn't provide a single piece of evidence except your analysis of the water conditions, which is barely an analysis at all. You did a little better in your response here, and I'll give your assessment a "maybe," but it doesn't address the fact that looking at the map shows quite clearly that there is plenty of water on the other side as well, which should be acting as firebreaks.
Your primary "evidence" other than the water is the media talking points which are almost certainly complete fabrications.
We are investigators of a fuckery so huge that everything is suspect. You begin your response with an ad hominem (always an argumentative fallacy), then you address almost nothing of the article itself, nor do you even glimpse at the meat of it. Then you put forth your "analysis" with anecdotal evidence, and no actual statement of anything ("I drove there once"). You do not give any allowance of an easy mistake, which may or may not have been an actual mistake. And then you suggest that was the authors main point, which it was not at all. Very little in the paper relies on that, and it isn't even certain that the water there shouldn't have played a part, since the map evidence suggests there is a ton of water there, even if the rainfall isn't high on that side of the island.
Your follow up post above does give a little better analysis of the water situation than your first post, but you are not offering it as your analysis, you are offering it as "proof" of something. Proof is a decision, based on each persons assessment, that the evidence is sufficient to suggest some truth. It is impossible for anyone to give "proof," all anyone can do is offer their argument and evidence.
Please offer your evidence, offer your argument, offer your critique. It is essential that you do that. That's what we are here for. But if you use ad hominem and other argumentative fallacies, or espouse certain facts as "obvious truth" in a world were facts are manufactured to prevent people from seeing the truth, I will call you out on it.
"No, it isn't really in B&W because we can see some gold in the lower right. Which means they jacked with this on purpose, removing most of the color to sell you the idea of this fire."
This is the point I realized this article was stupid. The gold in the lower right of the photo was glare from sunlight. Based upon the direction of the camera and the coastline, this would have been sunrise. Colors are always muted in periods of time with strange lighting. There was obvious green color in the sea water. The buildings appeared "B&W" because they were burned and covered in ash. There is no color in a burned-out community, especially from that distance. Was the ashen appearance enhanced? Perhaps...but so what?
There may have been some changes in how the photos appeared because news agencies manipulated them to get them to "print" better, but that's not the point of this article. The point was to suggest a broader conspiracy, even to imply that the fire didn't happen as the news reports. Just because a news agency manipulates a photo for shock value, doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy at play.
You say the following: "Just do a search on this site." You mean the dozens of posts about the Maui fires being due to a DEW, then showing a video clip with flashes of light from transformers exploding? Or videos showing oblong-shaped fire lines as "proof" of a DEW, totally ignoring (or oblivious to) the topography of the landscape, or the fact that wind-driven fire behaves this way? This message board is FULL of ridiculousness that makes us look like gullible fools. You say we need to be "investigators," yet the posts on this board prove, time and time again, that no one "investigates" anything -- they just immediately post anything and everything they see on Twitter or Facebook, without checking.
FYI, I'm not criticizing the OP for posting this link to the article. But it was done so with no effort from him, no opinion, or caveat. It was left open for critiques from the rest of us...which I did. However, instead of focusing upon the article, what you did was to focus on my opinion, instead of providing counterpoints why you support the points in the article. You could have said something like, "Yeah, I can see why you would feel that way. But consider this, or take a look at the way the author presented such-and-such."
If you spent the same amount of time critically analyzing this article as you did my statements, this whole exchange between you and me would have been totally unnecessary. I don't care if you (or anyone else) don't share my opinion. But the way you respond to posts/opinions from others in an antagonistic manner is out-of-line.
Every post people make on this message board doesn't have to be a diatribe, full of links and other supporting evidence. I said my piece in my first comment, until you came along. Sometimes, it's just fine for folks to post an opinion. In the two years I have been posting on this message board, I have never ONCE treated anyone else with disrespect, yet others seem to think it's their "right" to do so, and make responses/attacks personal. That is what makes this message board a hostile place.
The author did not claim there was no fire. He mostly points out that the photographic evidence is full of fakery. Like most false flag events, there is in truth an actual event, which is then exaggerated and hyped up by the media for purposes we don't yet know.