Here is a picture of the aftermath of and execution of civilians during WWII to show the brutality of the Nazi’s.
Actually these are German civilians executed by Russian soldiers. Provided here as an example of a recurring issue I find in various researches on a multitude of topics. The narrator provides a stock photo and then tells you the reader what your looking at. You have probably seen similar instances of this yourself and likely noticed it and forgot about it.
It happens all the time and should not be overlooked. Recently, a reporter was describing a video of “a hundred” of Trumps supporters showing up for a protest. Except the video showed a sea of people that would easily fill a large stadium. What are you supposed to believer, the reporter or your own eyes?
It is a media trick to show you one thing and tell you its another. I read a particular story about other war crimes and the picture showed a forest of pine trees and the narrative was that the countries military had planted the forest of pine trees to cover up the war crimes that occurred there. The only issue was that it was a stand of 15-20 year old pine trees and the war crime was committed almost 80 years ago. You don’t have to be a pine tree expert to make the determination that something is amiss. You can easily look up photos of 20 year old pine trees vs 80 year old pine trees. If you have even a little bit of woodsman skills and experience you know the difference between young trees and old trees. These are called “continuity errors” and with the media so used to lying they try to dupe the public all the time. Sadly enough they are often effective. I use old references such as war crimes to illustrate that it isn’t something new. They have been doing it for a very long time.
In a government sanctioned and approved video from WWII, the narrator showed a video of several dog houses and described how vicious dogs were used to attack and rip apart the POW’s. It did not show the vicious dogs actually ripping to shreds a POW, in fact no picture has ever been produced or made available to the public that actually showed a dog ripping apart a POW.
What was provided was a picture of empty dog houses and a narrative on camera. That may be good enough for you but I need more evidence beyond a testimony from a liar.
We have come to believe testimony on its own merit even though it cannot be supported by physical or forensic evidence.
How many times has the media ran with a story only to find out later it was a hoax, but they never acknowledge the lie. They just move on to the next thing. People need to become better at doubting, before its too late.