THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
omaxsteve
Banned
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by omaxsteve »

Every time the subject of 9-11 , or any other media fakery story is discussed, there is always one recurring argument put forward that makes many people believe that it is impossible to for such a hoax to be successful. Those who believe the official story claim that it is impossible for such a large number of people to be involved, with none of them eventually coming forward and admitting they were "acting". It is one thing to say that a few government operatives, CIA, or even media executives, are part of the hoax, but quite another to have people believe that all the people interviewed on TV, are "in" on it. Yes, it is obvious that there are a few actors which play a large role in the operation, but it seems unlikely that the perpetrators would risk so many people knowing that the operation was a hoax.

My opinion is that many of the witnesses" are duped into believing the story. For example, in Aurora could there have been an actor wearing a mask, shooting plastic bullets in the theater and the audience believing it was a real shooting? Could Sandy Hook have followed a similar pattern? (an actor "pretending" to shoot, so that the children and other teachers, neighbors, etc. are really just unknowing "extras"?

Is it possible that a guy like Gene Rosen, for example, is an innocent bystander who actually found some kids on his lawn and believed the story that they told him which was later corroborated on the news?

If my assumption is true and the modus operandi for these events is to "stage" the event that would leave only a small handful of civilian "actors" required to "sell" the story. That would be the families of the vicsims. I am noticing in the case of Sandy Hook that there are very little attention paid to parents of children who survived the shooting. I would guess that the best way to expose the hoax would be to question the parents whose children attended Sandy Hook and were not among those reported as being killed. I wonder how many, if any, of them might have a picture from their own child's birthday party that includes a photo of one of the vicsims?

All this to say that it is the VICSIM report that not only blew open the entire 9-11 hoax, but is the essential piece of evidence that blows apart every one of these media fakery operations. In financial scandals the best way to solve the crime is to "follow the money". In these fake events, where there are alleged deaths, the best way to expose them is to "investigate the vicsims".

A very big thanks to Hoi and Simon and anyone else who contributed to uncovering the major weakness/the Achilles' heel in all of these psy-ops.

regards,

Steve O.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

Drawing a line between reality and fabrication is one of the most sensitive issues in the investigation of media fakery. Personally I think that the use of sounds (explosions, shooting, sirens) and smoke can come in very handy in certain types of psy-ops. I seem to remember some fairly reliable testimonies of a big "kaboom" both in New York and in Oslo. People in the vicinity should not actually see anything close-up (there is nothing to see anyway!), but get all their "details" from the TV news. But once they have heard an explosion or felt the ground shaking a bit, or even seen a distant smoke plume, they will tend to mix it up with the fabrication they are shown on TV and, I think, can easily be made to act as "unknowing extras".
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Dcopymope »

Verizon Wireless promoting the mark of the Beast:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYIAaBOb5Bo


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slv3KqY6p6E

Love how these Devils even tell us that these commercials really have nothing to do with a phone, as they tell us that "It's not an upgrade to your phone, it's an upgrade to yourself".
nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by nonhocapito »

Flabbergasted wrote:Personally I think that the use of sounds (explosions, shooting, sirens) and smoke can come in very handy in certain types of psy-ops. I seem to remember some fairly reliable testimonies of a big "kaboom" both in New York and in Oslo. People in the vicinity should not actually see anything close-up (there is nothing to see anyway!), but get all their "details" from the TV news. But once they have heard an explosion or felt the ground shaking a bit, or even seen a distant smoke plume, they will tend to mix it up with the fabrication they are shown on TV and, I think, can easily be made to act as "unknowing extras".
I already told this story but here you go: Back in 1993 I lived in Milan, Italy when a bomb exploded in the city, not too far from where I lived back then with my father's family: http://translate.google.com/translate?l ... a_Palestro

We all heard the huge explosion, and after a few moments i decided to ride there with my bicycle. Getting there maybe half an hour or less after the bomb had went off, I found the whole area secured and a whole bunch of people like me kept quite far from the location of the bomb. All we could see were these very high flames, because the bomb had apparently hit a main gas pipe, and the commotion with firefighters, ambulances and police.

So, this much of the event was real. Everything else, the victims and such, of course I cannot say, and today, naturally, I have doubts. But having heard the explosion back then made me believe unquestionably that there had been victims, because, after all, "I was there".

I can add this detail: I also to this day remember very well having had a brief conversation with this charming young guy who stood there mixed with the crowd, telling everyone with a smile how he had been there when the bomb had went off, had just gone by with his car, had talked to the police etcetera (he might even have said that he had seen the bodies: I am not sure if i remember this correctly).

Now keep this in mind: that same month two other bombs had gone off in Rome and Florence. So this one was the third. The following day other two bombs would go off, once again in Rome.
The year before, two major bombs had killed (so the story goes) two famous magistrates, Falcone and Borsellino.

So I say to this guy:
"And with this one it makes five bombs!"
(suddenly serious and interested): "What do you mean five?"
"Well... I mean with Falcone's and Borsellino's"
"Oh, right, right".

this conversation remained stuck in my head when the next day I heard of the other two bombs in Rome. I felt for a moment, and from then since, that these other two bombs made "five" in that guy's head, because he knew they were going to go off the next day, which is why he had been weirded out by my comment.

In any case whether it was the case with this guy or not, it stands to reason that someone behind the event, some "secret agent", would be there mixed with the crowd to influence and pick up observations and general sentiment.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by lux »

nonhocapito wrote:
In any case whether it was the case with this guy or not, it stand to reason that someone behind the event, some "secret agent", would be there mixed with the crowd to influence and pick up observations and general sentiment.
It sure seems that way. It makes perfect sense that they would have someone like that mingling with the crowd and dropping little suggestions as to "what happened." I'm sure such a tactic would be very effective in creating a false reality amongst witnesses. The average person would never suspect that such a person was planted there for that purpose.
omaxsteve
Banned
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by omaxsteve »

I came across this interesting article about government responses to "conspiracy theories".
What is "counterspeech", and has anyone heard of Cass Sunstein?


In a paper written in 2008, Cass Sunstein, legal scholar, and Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote of appropriate government responses to conspiracy theories. In the paper he stated:

“What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.
(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.
(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

regards,

Steve O.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack »

omaxsteve wrote:and has anyone heard of Cass Sunstein?
Yah - have heard of Sunstein clown.

Image
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2366903
edgewaters
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:49 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by edgewaters »

Flabbergasted wrote:Personally I think that the use of sounds (explosions, shooting, sirens) and smoke can come in very handy in certain types of psy-ops. I seem to remember some fairly reliable testimonies of a big "kaboom" both in New York and in Oslo. People in the vicinity should not actually see anything close-up (there is nothing to see anyway!), but get all their "details" from the TV news. But once they have heard an explosion or felt the ground shaking a bit, or even seen a distant smoke plume, they will tend to mix it up with the fabrication they are shown on TV and, I think, can easily be made to act as "unknowing extras".
There's a well-known psychological mechanic behind this; it's called social cryptoamnesia. As a group's beliefs are influenced by a minority, and the newly received belief comes to be a majority belief, they internalize the information, forgetting what changed their belief, and come to believe that they themselves came to the conclusion independently.

It's easy to imagine a person being in NY on the day of the event, who heard a loud noise and looked up and saw an explosion. He did not actually see what caused the explosion, but he looked up in time to see it unfold and witnessed the flames and smoke and ejected debris. Then he hears on the news that a plane hit, and everyone around him starts believing this (this in itself has some very powerful effects on what people think). After a while, he starts to think that maybe, when he first looked up, he caught a glimpse of the plane. That piece of debris he saw being ejected - maybe he actually saw that object just before the explosion, not after? Maybe it was really a split second glimpse of a plane? As time goes by, he becomes more and more certain that it was - internalizing the belief about a plane and synchronizing his memory with the belief.
edgewaters
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:49 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by edgewaters »

Just had a crazy thought.

Let's say you work in media, and you're in New York, and you're watching the news. Consider that you're an insider, you know how the media operates, you may have professional expertise in spotting video fakery (for vetting and fact-checking purposes). Let's say because of all this, you realize the broadcasts are fake.

What do you do?

Option 1. Speak out. You have no proof, and you simply get lumped in with the "conspiracy theorists." Your career is definitely over, you lose your colleagues as friends, and you may well believe that you could be killed (this is on the day it happens, remember - as of yet, nobody is speaking out against it, so you really don't know what might happen). But hey, you did the right thing. A lot of people claim to be like that, but how many really are?

Option 2. Go along to get along. No worries here. Now how many people are like that?

Option 3. Same as option 2, but you fake a few photos. This might occur to you right away, or perhaps days, weeks, months, or even a few years later. It sure seems to occur to your colleagues, and you see them getting Pulitzers and promotions and whatnot. Seems like everybody's doing it. Nobody really talks about it, but everyone more or less knows. Why do they all get a piece of the pie and you don't? Bastards! Time to get your piece of the action. Now ... how many people are like that?

If you think about it this way, you can easily see how scores of journalists could be submitting fake photos ... without actually being "in" on anything other than a thoroughly corrupt media (which isn't exactly news to anyone)
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

Gliedman-Greene case:
If someone has time to look into an absolutely crazy story about the arrest of two upper middle class pseudo-terrorists, one of them “going into labor while being handcuffed by the police”, here is a link to begin with:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-say.html
Lots of "funny" pictures there... and, who knows, perhaps some connections to other events.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

edgewaters wrote:
Flabbergasted wrote:Personally I think that the use of sounds (explosions, shooting, sirens) and smoke can come in very handy in certain types of psy-ops. I seem to remember some fairly reliable testimonies of a big "kaboom" both in New York and in Oslo. People in the vicinity should not actually see anything close-up (there is nothing to see anyway!), but get all their "details" from the TV news. But once they have heard an explosion or felt the ground shaking a bit, or even seen a distant smoke plume, they will tend to mix it up with the fabrication they are shown on TV and, I think, can easily be made to act as "unknowing extras".
There's a well-known psychological mechanic behind this; it's called social cryptoamnesia. As a group's beliefs are influenced by a minority, and the newly received belief comes to be a majority belief, they internalize the information, forgetting what changed their belief, and come to believe that they themselves came to the conclusion independently.

It's easy to imagine a person being in NY on the day of the event, who heard a loud noise and looked up and saw an explosion. He did not actually see what caused the explosion, but he looked up in time to see it unfold and witnessed the flames and smoke and ejected debris. Then he hears on the news that a plane hit, and everyone around him starts believing this (this in itself has some very powerful effects on what people think). After a while, he starts to think that maybe, when he first looked up, he caught a glimpse of the plane. That piece of debris he saw being ejected - maybe he actually saw that object just before the explosion, not after? Maybe it was really a split second glimpse of a plane? As time goes by, he becomes more and more certain that it was - internalizing the belief about a plane and synchronizing his memory with the belief.
Whatever could be seen on that day, I believe that is in principle how it works. The effect of this cryptoamnesia can be potentiated with certain techniques employed by the media (perhaps originally developed by intelligence agencies). It reminds me of "false memory syndrome" and how it can be put to ill use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

edgewaters wrote:Just had a crazy thought.

Let's say you work in media, and you're in New York, and you're watching the news. Consider that you're an insider, you know how the media operates, you may have professional expertise in spotting video fakery (for vetting and fact-checking purposes). Let's say because of all this, you realize the broadcasts are fake.

What do you do?

Option 1. Speak out. You have no proof, and you simply get lumped in with the "conspiracy theorists." Your career is definitely over, you lose your colleagues as friends, and you may well believe that you could be killed (this is on the day it happens, remember - as of yet, nobody is speaking out against it, so you really don't know what might happen). But hey, you did the right thing. A lot of people claim to be like that, but how many really are?

Option 2. Go along to get along. No worries here. Now how many people are like that?

Option 3. Same as option 2, but you fake a few photos. This might occur to you right away, or perhaps days, weeks, months, or even a few years later. It sure seems to occur to your colleagues, and you see them getting Pulitzers and promotions and whatnot. Seems like everybody's doing it. Nobody really talks about it, but everyone more or less knows. Why do they all get a piece of the pie and you don't? Bastards! Time to get your piece of the action. Now ... how many people are like that?

If you think about it this way, you can easily see how scores of journalists could be submitting fake photos ... without actually being "in" on anything other than a thoroughly corrupt media (which isn't exactly news to anyone)
That's not a crazy thought. Although we may never know the truth in each case, it's very interesting to think about these different "options".
Another "option" for the list: without really being "in the know", you may decide to go along with a scam or with what appears to be a minor lie at the time ("I have a friend who died on 9/11", or "I treated this patient at my clinic") because you owe someone a favor or have a huge debt, or because you have a dirty little secret, or because your lodge brethren tell you to, or because your family may otherwise have a little car accident ... or all of the above!
MrSinclair
Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:29 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by MrSinclair »

The Station fire in Rhode Island provides a tragic and authentic measure against which the staged events like Sandy Hook can be judged. I live one state away and was working for a live theater when this happened. We had many visits from the fire department in the aftermath. To this day, the anger and persistence of so many people has remained loud and chaotic, not the neat tidy efficient grieving of the vicsim mourners.
Of course many of these relatives and friends spoke out for new laws regarding fire safety but they didn't have the faux happy face crap of the Sandy Hookers, these people were seriously pissed off. They hated the club owners, the building inspectors, the Fire Marshal , the band, everything and everyone at least for a few years.
This story had all the resonance, persistence, bitterness and grief of real survivors of a needless tragedy.

The man in this video conveys more authentic grief 10 years later than the Sandy Hooker parents did within days of the deaths.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLY_Q2JWQq0
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv »

Flabbergasted wrote:
brianv wrote:Oh gawd it's worse than Miss Marple. Anytime somebody puts on a blue and white striped shirt there's a disaster. They're all over this one. Ban blue and white striped shirts NOW! Burn baby burn! Disco Inferno! Sorry! :(
I agree the blue-and-white-striped shirt is an interesting find in several of the incidents investigated on the forum, but before we establish it as a possible or even likely indication of psyop/drill/fakery, it would be interesting to determine the likelihood of occurrence of this pattern in a random sample of people on the street. How likely are we to see a blue-and-white-striped shirt (or similar) in the window of a men's clothing store?

I am not questioning the significance of the find, but I mention it because of the questions I raised on the previous page, and which I hope some of you will have time to address.
It's not really something we're hung up on! ho ho ho...more like a running gag! But it is curious how there is one at every major news event.
upstream
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:18 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by upstream »

MrSinclair wrote:The Station fire in Rhode Island provides a tragic and authentic measure against which the staged events like Sandy Hook can be judged. I live one state away and was working for a live theater when this happened. We had many visits from the fire department in the aftermath. To this day, the anger and persistence of so many people has remained loud and chaotic, not the neat tidy efficient grieving of the vicsim mourners.
Of course many of these relatives and friends spoke out for new laws regarding fire safety but they didn't have the faux happy face crap of the Sandy Hookers, these people were seriously pissed off. They hated the club owners, the building inspectors, the Fire Marshal , the band, everything and everyone at least for a few years.
This story had all the resonance, persistence, bitterness and grief of real survivors of a needless tragedy.

The man in this video conveys more authentic grief 10 years later than the Sandy Hooker parents did within days of the deaths.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLY_Q2JWQq0
Great point. The Station nightclub fire incident is a CASE STUDY of how victim families SHOULD behave in tragic, unjust situations. I happened across the Station fire video while researching the Brazil fire and have been fascinated about that incident since. The contrast is quite evident when compared to 9/11 and other FAKE families of "victims".
Post Reply