LOVE IT!



Also, and this is nitpicky, but couldn't the sound-guys have just plugged in the microphones and kept the mics on the tables silent for a little more "realism"? I KNOW IT'S NITPICKY BUT COME ON!

I like how the guy who only says, "Bom" rates his own microphone and the other three have to share.

haha, he hit him with the microphone, not his fist.

It's like it's eating the microphone...

His hand are moving so fast it looks like the video is actually sped up. Nice!


Also, we need less dipshit saying random shit on the microphone in the background TYVM.

by accident, @marinara?

How do you accidentally open fire on protestors?


This is an excellent article on the events:
New Kent State Video Evidence Points Towards FBI Provocateuring


The word “Guard!” can be heard around 11 seconds. “All right, prepare to fire” begins at around 20.5 seconds. “Get down!” is spoken at 23 seconds. The final “Guard!” is at about 25 seconds, and the gunshots begin at 27.5 seconds.


The order to fire directly contradicts claims from guard commanders who testified that there was no order to fire and that troops unloaded their weapons only after receiving incoming sniper fire.

The tape was given to Yale in 1979 for its Kent State archives by an attorney who represented students in a lawsuit filed against the state over the shooting. It was originally recorded by a student named Terry Strubbe who put a microphone at the window of his dorm, which overlooked the rally.

Subsequent analysis of the tape also uncovered an altercation and four pistol shots a little over one minute prior to the Guard gunfire. It is believed that the shots came from Terry Norman, who was at the time believed to have been an FBI informant.

Despite attempts by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to pave the way for a new federal investigation, the evidence has remained largely ignored.

it's almost as if they believe that the sound waves coming through the microphone is enough to drive out illness... er, I mean "satan."

If religion is a matter of faith and spirit, what's with all the shaking and shouting?

I've watched the whole thing, and I've rationally decided to be envy of the Microphone, or more precisely, its' location.

Someone needs to tell Ron Paul how microphones work. I know he's not the only person in politics who employs the non-stop shouting technique, but this is almost like attempting to watch The McLaughlin Group.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/mclaughlin-group/17wpc6xv3

Thank you, Louis. Thank you so much. Finally someone with a little reach tells it like it is. I can't enjoy concerts etc. anymore because i'm just looking at shining bright screens in front of me. Sometimes even in the cinema. If folks take pictures i guess one could at least try to understand, but MOVIES? Seriously? While in a concert you're TAPING the damn thing? Great, didn't see it for himself, spoiled it for others and never going to watch the crappy quality flic again (let alone audio quality from a overmodulated tiny microphone). Whereever you go, if there's something worth seeing some ignorant dick is going to spoil the moment by pointint his stupid phone. Use your eyes!

I assume it's so that everyone can hear what he's saying, as there is no microphone.

It's particularly horrible when the crowd doesn't understand his accent. Someone should have given him a megaphone or something.>> ^packo:

>> ^Skeeve:
Zizek: "You are all individuals"
Crowd: "We are all individuals"
This is horrible...

just wondering if you know why they are repeating what the speaker is saying,
but yes that is ironic

No. Step away from the microphone. Go paint pictures.

I bet he's never wanted to be a little microphone so much in his life.

>> ^marbles:

He's mischaracterizing George Orwell's views on technology.
http://revieworld.info/?p=3
George Orwell gives no evidence anywhere against his aversion to technology that he has discussed in his novel. On the contrary, his opinion is presumably neutral throughout the narration of 1984. However, his imaginations (not everything is his imagination!) portend not a very socially desirable use of technology. It is not even neutral technology. The telescreen is best being used as a propaganda machine. The microphones are used to pry upon personal conversations. There are other sophisticated gadgets to put an end to individual freedom. Since Oceania is always on war against some state or the other, such a society will make a feverish innovation in technologies.


That's an interesting read, thanks for that. I'm always looking for new perspectives on 1984; I've read it so many times.

Anyone else notice that in 1984, there is no mention of religion? Apparently that form of mind control is obsolete
Now let's all drink some victory gin and kill some proles.

He's mischaracterizing George Orwell's views on technology.

http://revieworld.info/?p=3
George Orwell gives no evidence anywhere against his aversion to technology that he has discussed in his novel. On the contrary, his opinion is presumably neutral throughout the narration of 1984. However, his imaginations (not everything is his imagination!) portend not a very socially desirable use of technology. It is not even neutral technology. The telescreen is best being used as a propaganda machine. The microphones are used to pry upon personal conversations. There are other sophisticated gadgets to put an end to individual freedom. Since Oceania is always on war against some state or the other, such a society will make a feverish innovation in technologies.