Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 09 Mar 2019 (Saturday) 13:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Ethics and Photography

 
this thread is locked
Jeff_56
Senior Member
285 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Jan 2013
Location: SE Ohio
     
Jun 07, 2019 13:07 |  #46
bannedPermanent ban

Just to make my point. This image of McCarthy is obviously intended to make him look bad. I could make Mother Teresa look bad if I wanted. It's not fair or right.

BTW again for the record. From Newsmax:

"...McCarthy actually underestimated the number of American Soviet spies working for the USSR in the FDR administration. It took a while, but in 1994 NSA and CIA released 190,000 formerly classified cablegrams they, and their predecessor agencies, intercepted from 1943 to 1980. The number of American Soviet agents identified from Venona has reached 500, more than double the 205 McCarthy predicted..."

Search for "McCarthy's Legacy Still Misportrayed by Media After Venona Disclosure". I included quotes from a left wing paper before. This one isn't left wing. For once try actually educating yourself instead of falling back on discredited views. You're proving my point about the dangers of yellow journalism when you don't look at the facts.

Here's the photo.

http://uscivillibertie​s.org …eph-mccarthy-19081957.jpg (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,134 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 638
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
Post edited 5 months ago by RDKirk. (2 edits in all)
     
Jun 07, 2019 14:54 |  #47

Jeff_56 wrote in post #18874052 (external link)
I see NO ONE here even bothered to read the information that might discredit your warped views. No one McCarthy targeted was innocent. Got that? Do the research. They nearly tore this country in half with YELLOW JOURNALISM.

BTW those that responded that being a communist not illegal are absolutely right. But being a spy for the Soviets absolutely was illegal and that is what McCarthy accused people of and that is what they were GUILTY of.

I won't bother further responding in this thread. I've gored a sacred cow here. Too bad I'm the only one that has bothered to keep up with current events. Do a search yourself. This is all common knowledge among people who actually follow the news. It isn't hard to find.

Venona intercepts. Look it up. Add McCarthy to your search and you'll find that even the Washington Post admits McCarthy was right. Willful ignorance is not a virtue.

I read it. It doesn't say what you think it says.

It says that maybe 12 State Department members were operating for the Communist Party, although hundreds had had contact with the Communist Party, and some of them unwittingly. In other words, the Communists were contacting them, and the NSA happened to catch it. Different sources throw terminology around loosely.

"Contact" is not the same thing as either a "sympathizer" or an "agent," and when someone says "agent," they'd better show some dates and times that such a person actually operated under the explicit instruction of foreign interests--because that's what that word means.

Hell, yes, I expect the Communists contacted lots and lots of State Department employees, particularly in Eastern Europe and probably quite often.

McCarthy's net swept up hundreds of people and made no distinction between actual agents (operatives) of which there were very few and people who had had the slightest contact with someone who might have been a Communist sympathizer.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
THREAD ­ STARTER
making stuff up
7,514 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 519
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Jun 07, 2019 15:08 |  #48

Spencer Photo.... I think you have your answer now. If I need to explain more PM me.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,897 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2362
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Jun 07, 2019 20:11 |  #49

Weee!


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jeff_56
Senior Member
285 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Jan 2013
Location: SE Ohio
Post edited 5 months ago by Jeff_56. (4 edits in all)
     
Jun 07, 2019 20:34 |  #50
bannedPermanent ban

RDKirk wrote in post #18874091 (external link)
I read it. It doesn't say what you think it says.

It says that maybe 12 State Department members were operating for the Communist Party, although hundreds had had contact with the Communist Party, and some of them unwittingly. In other words, the Communists were contacting them, and the NSA happened to catch it. Different sources throw terminology around loosely.

You're reading the WaPo version of the facts. Remember, they were among those responsible for creating the anti-McCarthy hysteria. Newsmax put the number of Soviet agents in the FDR administration at over 500. I've read many accounts of the events. The idea that it was limited like you say is just wrong. The WaPo said that the common assumptions about McCarthy are wrong.

Start with the number of people listed as in the Venona project intercepts. Wikipedia has a list. Actual involvement of individuals would vary naturally. Some were extremely guilty. But to come to the conclusion that McCarthy had no reason to complain is just ludicrous. Here's the page where the list is. Keep in mind that most of the intercepts still have not been deciphered.

https://en.wikipedia.o​rg …cans_in_the_Ven​ona_papers (external link)

For further illumination on the part played by individuals consult this list.

http://www.johnearlhay​nes.org/page66.html#_f​tn3 (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,134 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 638
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Jun 07, 2019 22:04 |  #51

Jeff_56 wrote in post #18874213 (external link)
You're reading the WaPo version of the facts. Remember, they were among those responsible for creating the anti-McCarthy hysteria. Newsmax put the number of Soviet agents in the FDR administration at over 500. I've read many accounts of the events. The idea that it was limited like you say is just wrong. The WaPo said that the common assumptions about McCarthy are wrong.

Start with the number of people listed as in the Venona project intercepts. Wikipedia has a list. Actual involvement of individuals would vary naturally. Some were extremely guilty. But to come to the conclusion that McCarthy had no reason to complain is just ludicrous. Here's the page where the list is. Keep in mind that most of the intercepts still have not been deciphered.

https://en.wikipedia.o​rg …cans_in_the_Ven​ona_papers (external link)

For further illumination on the part played by individuals consult this list.

http://www.johnearlhay​nes.org/page66.html#_f​tn3 (external link)

I'm going to present this quote from the Wikipedia article, which is meaningful...although apparently not to you:

The following list of Americans in the Venona papers is a list of names deciphered from codenames contained in the Venona project, an American government effort from 1943–1980 to decrypt coded messages by intelligence forces of the Soviet Union. To what extent some of the individuals named in the Venona papers were actually involved with Soviet intelligence is a topic of dispute.

Names marked with a double asterisk (**) do not appear in the Venona documents. Inclusion has been inferred to correlate with codenames or similarly spelled names found in the documents.

Similarly, identities that have been inferred by researchers (i.e., the name appears in the Venona documents, but positive identification of the individual bearing that name does not), are also marked with a double asterisk (**).

As the article pointed out, in some cases it wasn't even verified that the names on the list were actual names of contacts--some are just inferences and guesses by similarity. And the extent to which individuals were involved is debatable.

I notice the list also includes Franklin D. Roosevelt--who actually had meetings during WWII directly with Josef Stalin!

And a lot of those contacts were established during WWII while the US was an ally of the USSR by people who had operational reason to be in contact during the war with the USSR.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,394 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1687
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Jun 07, 2019 23:44 |  #52

Jeff_56 wrote in post #18874052 (external link)
I see NO ONE here even bothered to read the information that might discredit your warped views. No one McCarthy targeted was innocent. Got that? Do the research. They nearly tore this country in half with YELLOW JOURNALISM.

BTW those that responded that being a communist not illegal are absolutely right. But being a spy for the Soviets absolutely was illegal and that is what McCarthy accused people of and that is what they were GUILTY of.

I won't bother further responding in this thread. I've gored a sacred cow here. Too bad I'm the only one that has bothered to keep up with current events. Do a search yourself. This is all common knowledge among people who actually follow the news. It isn't hard to find.

Venona intercepts. Look it up. Add McCarthy to your search and you'll find that even the Washington Post admits McCarthy was right. Willful ignorance is not a virtue.

The WP admits no such thing. It was an opinion piece in which the author, Nicholas Von Hoffman, asked the question (as indicated by the question mark in the title of the article) but didn't actually provide evidence. Your inability to understand that an opinion piece does not constitute evidence and your blind assumption that just because the source of something is an "intelligence" service that it must be correct, makes me sad for the state of education.

The Verona intercepts? The very opinion piece you linked to states that many of the people on the list were unwittingly contacted by the Soviets - They weren't spies at all but just people the Soviets identified as people to contact/target.

Had you done the research you ask others to do you would already know that being on a list, even a Soviet one, doesn't make someone a spy. The Soviets did actively go out to recruit spies in the US and Europe (as we were also doing in the USSR) but they also targetted and funded those who were not spies. They had a multi-level approach (as do western intelligence agencies).
1. Agents/Potential Agents (by far the smallest %)
2. People/organisations who were not willing to spy but were left wing/communists and would knowingly accept funding from Moscow to promote the cause.
3. The bulk of the people on these lists - Groups/individuals who were unknowingly funded through shell organisations because they were promoting left wing/communist ideals (entirely legally).


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,380 views & 23 likes for this thread
Ethics and Photography
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is smartlogg1
665 guests, 253 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.