My Exploration of FEMA Internment Camp #1 in Columbus, Ohio

I can't, I suppose. But many of the articles I've read covering FEMA Internment Camps give details of purported crematoria extensively. In this particular case, the very oddly shaped building seemed to be fed by a series of pipes or gas mains, and there were a series of exhaust stacks (not all of which are visible in the photo) from which smoke was coming. That and sheer size, too. It's a bit of an extrapolation on my part, admittedly.

Careful, Jimster. Sometimes it is better to let a thing run its course.

Jimster, I've messaged you privately.

What makes you think this is some sort of crematoria, versus a garbage incinerator? Or just gas fired boilers for power generation? As I said, it is of course speculation on my part. But the facilities seemed much too large for the simple disposal of garbage, and I would expect that if it were designed for power generation, there would be some sort of power transmission lines coming from it.

Admittedly, "crematoria" is the biggest speculation of all, but it is consistent with what's been written about other such sites.

Eric, Ohio is much like the rest of America. Nothing more, nothing less. It contains people who are backward and racist. And people who are not (for example, your friend in Canton). What they will or won't do in some future situation is simply speculation. The evidence suggests that most people-- most people everywhere-- tend to try to avoid confrontation, aren't very good at doing their own investigation, and frequently draw the wrong conclusions on the evidence that they DO have. Those are not Ohioan tendencies, or American tendencies, but human tendencies. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, El Salvador, Guatemala, et cetera show that.

My point is that anyone can do more than accept whatever they are told at face value. Whether they'll successfully get to the truth of a matter is an open question. Most people, however, don't even bother to try.

Infohack, absolutely, draconian new immigration laws, as well as erosions of civil liberties by invasive and ill-considered presidential orders or legislation such as the Patriot Act concern me, as they should any citizen capable of paying attention.

This article was written for a purpose. That purpose was to show how easy it is to let one's expectations about what one is seeing take the place of any natural skepticism-- the fact is that most if not all of us choose what to believe, often for very flimsy reasons, or with little to no investigation. This article was tagged as satire. The photos hosted on Flickr make it eminently clear that his is satire-- they blatantly state that the representation of this article is incorrect. In other words, absolutely no one who did even cursory investigation of this article would conclude that my statements here should be taken at face value.

And I'd like everyone here to note-- that process of granting legitimacy to a story, of what avenues are available to ascertain the validity of online assertions, is the conversation which I'd like to have in this article. Not a conversation about whether FEMA camps are real, but about whether and how we can ascertain the veracity of online stories adequately enough to draw firm conclusions, and when and where the boundaries of what constitutes acceptable evidence lie. If you want to discuss the validity of FEMA internment camp stories, let's do that here, and not there. That article has a wholly different aim.

If you want to call me an @!$%# or a tool, or talk about how I'm just doing this for attention or what have you, let's confine those conversations to this thread, and not that one.

Thanks.

Good, on that we agree, Your article was clearly facetious even without the satire tag. I'm not sure that this sentence says what you meant. It's unclear to me how something marked as "satire" should ever be taken at face value to begin with. To claim that it should would, for example, be like claiming that Swift's "modest proposal" was meant seriously.

Obviously facetiousness can be one very prevalent facet of satire.

However I find the idea that the federal government would feel the need to detain of large numbers of people quite plausible. I'm sure there are contingency plans in place for a number of different scenarios. I agree. That seems likely.

Critical thinking and healthy skepticism are fine, but I also know that history and the FOIA have shown that many conspiracy theories often contain a grain, occassionally more than a shovelful, of truth, so I don't automatically dismiss them because "it can't happen here" as some seem to think. Which is a good tack to take, IMO. But I think the corollary is that you have to be prepared to admit that a shovelful of sand does not of itself mean that one is standing on a beach. This is the core of what this article was intended to demonstrate, and is an issue which I would like to discuss over on the other thread, as I've said.

What in my post would lead you to believe I'd resort to name calling? That admonishment is meant more generally. Perhaps you wouldn't resort to such tactics, but it's clear that others would be more than happy to, both on this thread and on the other.

you don't need to don a tinfoil hat to be concerned with the overly broad reach of the federal gov't. Nor do you need to don jackboots and a brown shirt to be concerned with the overly broad reach of some conspiracy theories.

You take yourself far too seriously, and obviously missed the point that was being made while doing so.

As they say-- "You can lead a man to information, but you can't make him think."

you are under the presumption that I don't think It's not a presumption. I'm operating under the evidence that you've provided.

• This article is clearly marked both "satire" and "hoax" in the tags.
• The Flickr photo set which is offered as "proof" of my "exploration" has clear captions indicating that the story is bogus, and in many cases specifically lists the real nature of the buildings shown. For instance, the very first photo in the set states "This is not really an overhead view of a FEMA internment camp. This is an overhead view of the neighborhood around my office. Amazing how little real information can be imparted by a photo captioned misleadingly, eh?"
• Less than three hours after this story was posted (ten months ago) people had already figured out that the story was not real. What's your excuse?
• The subthread to which you've appended your current comments contains a clear explanation of the purpose of this article, as do other comments in this nearly year-old article.
• The subthread in which you're responding also contains a link to an article which lays clear the purpose of this hoax/satire.

Yet despite all this I sent you on "a wild goose chase"? Frankly, if you went on a wild goose chase, it's because you arent' very observant, don't read much, and simply assume the truth of whatever thing it is you're "chasing." Which is a roundabout way of saying that you don't think and take yourself too seriously.

The rest of your lecture, while it may make you feel good, is likewise completely off-base. Who are the "you guys" that are encouraging each other? Whatever group that is certainly doesn't contain me as a member. Why would you think I don't take "this" seriously? I took the pernicious credulousness of unthinking, tin-foil-hat-wearing 'viners seriously enough to pen not one, but two serious articles on this topic. What have you done? Besides @!$%# about the fact that I didn't spoon feed you enough information to recognize a hoax in this one? That I can tell, not a goddamned thing.

Maybe I'll "eventually get funny"? Hardly on your radar as laughable? The intent wasn't laughter, kid. But you keep on missing the point, if you like. It's what makes you you.

Now run along. Your opinion has ceased to matter to me.

Comment bolsters the fact that you're a troll. Beat it.

Now you are ignored. Really? Now? What makes this time different from the last?

You didn't see my column did you? You didn't know how many articles I ahve posted regarding the prison in Texas, Rex 84.......... etc.

I'm not part of the Drollhouse, and not interested in that sort of fun and games. This article would have been written even if that group hadn't pulled its prank, being for an altogether different purpose, and, indeed, was already started before any of those folks revealed their work. I see no seriousness or thoughtfulness in your post, here. If you're concerned about our reservations, I suggest YOU write an article about them. Laying the responsibility off on me is a simple shirking of your own moral responsibilities, designed to make you feel morally superior without expending any effort. That is something for which I have little time and absolutely no respect.

Problem for you is that these camps DO exist though. Its a fact. IF they exist, for the purpose that's commonly stated, then it's a problem for all of us. Nevertheless, I have been following stories of such camps on and off for the better part of twenty years. The predicted events have yet to transpire, and what passes for evidence seems comprised mostly of speculation.

And I'll take special care to rubb this thread all over your face, once the topic is on Fox. Yes, I'm sure that will be the very first thing you do.

(Also, I think Martin may have been joshing.) OK. Sometimes it's hard to tell over the internet؟ [grin]

NOW. Why do I write all of this. Simple, iarn: You're on lost ground here. That these bases exist is out of question. Not only the US has such things, others have as well. The PURPOSE and potential danger is completly open for interpretation. And that's the point. If that's the point, how would I be on lost ground? Oh, wait... you haven't bothered to read the other article.

That makes our continued exchange, here, somewhat pointless.

I'm not positing the, non-existence of these camp Martins. I'm posing a question about the legitimacy and value of purported eyewitness testimony backed up with photographs in an age in which eyewitness testimony and photographs are cheap and easily manufactured. Please see here.

Do I think there ARE such camps? As you said, The PURPOSE and potential danger is completely open for interpretation. Much of what has been written on this subject is wrong. Much else is nothing other than rank speculation. Some of it seems, frankly, incredible-- I did not make up the "crematoria" angle of this piece. There are plenty of people out there who claim that American government intends to re-enact the Holocaust, or in this case perhaps it would be more like the Soviet Union's murder of "wreckers"-- the so called "purges." What is such speculation based on.

My point was always about the nature of proof-- as in the fact that some people will be blinded to disconfirming evidence by the simple presence of their own expectations. In an article which clearly was false, and clearly had evidence showing that it was flase (was, in fact, designed so that anyone doing any more than a cursory glance at it could easily detect the falsity), people still accepted it as "proof" of their already reached conclusions.

So, ignore my sheepish post in #12.4, then, and revert back to #12.2...

I'll be waiting. I could use a good face rub.

I read the articles that qppear on my tracker, I'm not here to inquire in what else you might post. Then you're missing the major thrust of this article, and are unqualified to make assumptions about its purpose. So I guess our conversation is, of necessity, over.

you have an attitude problem. I'm wounded. (BTW, you might try looking in a mirror sometime.)

Whatever. Here's the difference between me and you-- when I was fed a bull@!$%# story, I went and investigated it personally, and learned that you can't trust just any @!$%# who posts a picture on the internet. Then I took the time to create something which illustrates exactly that fact.

You, on the other hand, prefer your unsupported conspiracy theories, and want to vilify anyone who notes the fact.

So I'll just chalk you up with lovetrust as a person whose opinion is worthless. See ya.

FEMA supports Bush, at the moment. I'll get back to you next November to let you know whether they will be supporting Obama...

Oh, and someone from the "camp" planted that sign. I don't have enough information to say whether it was guard or prisoner.

Batmanchester. Yes, his "article" was comprised of photos he pulled off the internet, which had nothing to do with what he claimed. As I recall, he also claimed to have visited one of these camps and been chased by the dreaded men in black.

In point of fact, griff69 and I went to a purported FEMA camp in Columbus, Ohio. It turned out to be someone's private residence.

Which prompted this article meant to encourage people to think rationally about the nature of the "evidence" they're presented, and to do their own legwork whenever possible. Sadly, from the recent comments by lovetrust, KLconsiders and upswing, it seems apparent that rational thought, personal investigation and skepticism aren't terribly popular. But for all I know, they may be Batmanchester's buddies, who threatened to punish Newsviners for causing poor Batmanchester to flee Newsvine with his reputation in tatters.

At any rate, I think their own self-serving asshattery is plenty illuminating in terms of how seriously any of their opinions should be taken.

No, gladbutterfly, the story as presented is not true. See comment #16. I DID take the photographs, but if you click on the Flickr link (both the first and last links in the article lead to my Flickr set containing these photos) and explore them, you'll see from the captions that they are not what they purport to be in this story. That's why the story was tagged "satire." I've since added "hoax" as a tag, after considering drudge's request. The purpose of this story was to spur a conversation about how and/or why we take certain forms of evidence as authoritative (again, see comment #16). I wanted to explore the assumptions that lead us to accept something at face value without exploring its validity, even when such exploration might be particularly easy (as here).

I hope you weren't made TOO paranoid by the story.

No problem...

Now you say it's a hoax.....well I don't find that funny and amusing. It was a hoax right from the start, but certainly no more a hoax than batmanchester's supposed expose, although more honest in that it was tagged as satire at the time of posting. Many readers copped to the fact within a few hours. I explicitly noted it within 48 hours in comments to this article. I posted a second article detailing the hoax and the purpose for posting it within 24 hours.

Now I say it's a hoax? You've got a funny sense of timing, complaining about it 5 months after it was posted.

I see you as being a trouble maker and NOT a truther. I'm crestfallen.

But I'll get over it.

You have done this kind of thing at least three times before. Really? Where?

The jewel in your crown was the "satire" you wrote on Iraqi children disembowling US service people. Seriously, what the @!$%# are you talking about?

Aren't hoaxes supposed to be amusing? I assume you meant "satire," not "hoaxes." And the answer is "not necessarily." I'll settle for "illuminating" or "educational," thank you very much. Apparently, lovetrust is not alone in failing to understand the point. The two of you should start a club.

I guess I shouldn't expect a Christmas card from you, this year?

Don't you mean "satirical"? Nope, I mean ironic. As in, an incongruence between the literal meaning of your statement and the true nature of your character, which is revealed thereby. The apparent blithe ignorance in the fact that your words are far more applicable to yourself than to me. That irony.

As for linking others to your horrible posts and seeds, why would I want to do that to them? To show that you're not completely full of @!$%#?

Like pretending to everyone that you've seen imaginary FEMA internment camps, you mean? Hey, if you're too stupid to read tags, and too dumb to bother clicking through on a link, and then persist in trying to justify your own stupidity by insisting that this article had some intent other than what was plainly stated by its author, there's really no hope for you.

You do realize you're not suppose to drink the bong water, don't you?

Really. Provide the evidence that supports your assertions, or don't bother posting. At this point, I'll simply delete anything further of yours short of a link to these supposed stories. Anything else you have to say probably isn't worth engaging.

Like I said, you can post when you provide some proof to your allegations. Otherwise, this is no forum for you to continue trolling.

I thought I made myself sufficiently clear. Apparently not. How many times would you like to repeat this experience?