FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Faking the Faking

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> State Terror: 9/11, 7/7, CIA Fakes
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:33 pm    Post subject: Faking the Faking Reply with quote

I'd like to post this, because I never have before here. I proposed this a few years ago on some other boards, and had it soundly dismissed as... oh, what was the phrase... ah yes, "fucking bullshit." That was the phrase.

Anyway, it's the concept of "faking the faking." I came up with this in response to the possibly/supposedly/maybe hoaxed Moon Landing, in which a lunatic relative of mine was going on about a Fox TV special he saw that "proved" the moon landings had all been faked. (For the record, I don't have a definitive opinion on this - I see points made on both sides. I can't tell you if we ever landed on the moon or not.)

But one thing the PTB seem to have an insatiable appetite for is CONTROVERSY, and for obvious reasons. It distract from the truth, it sucks up media bandwidth, and it gives my idiot relative something to do all day. Therefore, I think we can assume that often we are subjected to deliberately fuzzy evidence simply because it confuses and causes endless debate.

I think we can all agree by now that we are dealing with some very, very, very smart cookies here. The perps of 9/11 are not the bumbling morons they are often portrayed as by those who stumble across "evidence" that's been hung out for all to see like blood stains on a white sheet. I think 90% of what we've "discovered" about 9/11 since 9/11 has most likely been intentionally placed there.

Most of us have seen the moon pictures that look suspiciously phony. Well, maybe they are, but that doesn't mean they are from the moon landings. Since we kind of know there is a big warehouse in Virginia somewhere that has models of the LEM and other 'moon machinery', why wouldn't they simply fake some shots, and insert them with the real moon landing shots? Pollute the evidence pool, so to speak, by injecting forgeries into the legit photos?

And the same goes with the recent plethora of "no plane" stuff we're seeing here on BFN. Yes, if you watch the Naudet Bros. video of the first plane strike, it does appear as if the plane disappears for a frame or two. Well, since we're already assuming they have tampered with this video, why do we not consider that they may have tampered with it in the other direction - taken a real video and made it look a little fake - just to fuel controversy? Take a legit video of a plane flying into WTC1 and erase it for a frame or two? That's actually a hell of a lot easier than CGI'ing one INTO the video.

As Fintan says, "Why fake it when you can just do it?" Correct. And it's companion concept, "Fake the faking. It's easier."

Once again, the big obstacle in most minds is this: wow, they'd really have to be ahead of the game to be thinking like that.

Yes, I think they are way ahead of the game.

p.s. You can all dismiss this now. Been there, done that. Cool

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
bulletin



Joined: 20 May 2007
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For sure it helps the perps to have people get sidetracked in all sorts of physical evidence theorizing. That said, there are plenty of people who don't get bogged down in youtube slow motion pixel examinations. For example, the Jersey Girls. Thus far, the political/media Establishment has seen fit to ignore many of their questions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:36 am    Post subject: Re: Faking the Faking Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:

Once again, the big obstacle in most minds is this: wow, they'd really have to be ahead of the game to be thinking like that.

Yes, I think they are way ahead of the game.


This concept seems to have gestated inside my head on and off over the last month for me, an idea I had never contemplated before. Not about just 9/11, but about politics in general. Faking the faking would allow an INCREDIBLE amount of diplomatic freedom, with virtually any action being publicly hailed AND denounced, with few knowing actually what is happening. At the very least, these tactics allow Plausible Deniability and/or other excuses to explain one's political actions or stated opinions. Even other state actors - or especially newer actors not versed in the game - may not know what the hell to think as well.


Some triggers recently that led me to this kind of thinking:

Two posts I made about books I had read years ago, both of which seemed to do a poor job at attacking its or their main antagonists.

1. http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=29639#29639
Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman, DENYING HISTORY: WHO SAYS THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED AND WHY DO THEY SAY IT?

2. http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=29651#29651
John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope about Pope Pius XII

The first book was a difficult read & had little to none facts (even mainstream ones), the second revealed some possible nasty things about the Catholic Church allowing Fascists to gain power because the CC had shut down its political parties in Germany & Italy...but this was supposed to be long-term planning the CC had planned on doing for decades.

So, then I stumbled upon A REAL SCREED against the Catholic Church, a ton of books online by Avro Manhattan,Italian-born but escaped to Britain during WWII. His first book http://www.cephas-library.com/catholic/catholic_vatican_in_world_politics_introduction.html against the CC seemed plausible in many ways, providing at least some kind of logic that the CC had favored authoritarianism since WWI because its political influence (and voting share) had gone to shit in Europe since the late 19th century. Since the CC had publicly denounced socialism in all forms, if Italy & Germany (and probably Spain too) became ruled by socialist parties (which made HUGE GAINS after WWI), wouldn't the CC be dead in terms of worldwide influence? At the time of the Spanish Civil War, I think Spain & Italy were the last clearly majority Catholic nations in all of Europe...with France being about 50% Catholic, and Germany being only 1/3 Catholic.

But what looks like plausible political analysis at first, also has a tiny bit about Jesuit conspiracy/Black Pope nonsense. Okay, so maybe there's something to that, maybe there isn't. BUT THEN I LOOK AT THE REST OF AVRO'S BOOKS and they go from plausible to more and more WTF...he had written anti-Catholic books for about FORTY YEARS. He's blaming like everything bad that has EVER happened as manipulated by the CC, including the VIETNAM WAR ??? But his writing style is good, more like that of a real journalist than some nutbag sensationalist like Alex Jones.

As for Avro: I ended up thinking he was some kind of British psyop perhaps. Or is he a CC psyop? Weird. But the negative points Avro made about the previous pope POPE PIUS XI, I think Cornwell didn't mention at all...he stuck to PP12 only I think and the 1930s, and blamed everything else on long-term planning that just happened to coincide with the rise of Fascism.

And then I read the same kind of screed, conspiracy stuff on the late Sherman Skolnick's website http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ who Fintan and Ormond mentioned briefly in a post a while back http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1770&highlight=skolnick#1770 saying about what I thought...his stuff on the judges/court cases is good...but he (perhaps unknowingly) is being fed some pretty outrageous (unrealistic?) conspiracy stories as well destroying his credibility in general.

Another book/author I've wondered about is:
3 . William Engdahl's A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics And the New World Order

Engdahl's analysis seems pretty interesting, but:
1) for a scholar, very few of his sources are cited in the book
2) he mentions the Bilderburg crap

4. that South Park 9/11 Truthers episode
where the truthers are working for the feds possibly and the feds don't want to look helpless because of 9/11 because the U.S. must seem like the most powerful nation at all times (though the episode said the Arabs were still responsible for 9/11 I think...who else could have done it besides the Pentagon...Rockefellers? Doctor Evil from Austin Powers? )

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3174
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

proof to always check yourself to see if you are playing the game
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of faking the faking, as far as I can tell, the whole "Dubya was a draftdodger" media meme that went around a few years ago looks like it may have been bullshit too.

Two excerpts:
Quote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39ea05224b3e.htm

Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.


and
Quote:

http://www.geocities.com/bush_not_awol/

So, while the Democrats have spread this malicious, fradulent accusation that he went AWOL (without a shred of evidence) with the help of the liberal media, George W. Bush released copies of microfilm payroll records summarizing the days for which Bush was paid in 1972 and 1973. Though blurry and hard to read, they reflect payments for 82 days of services in 1972 and 1973. Guardsmen were required to get a minimum of 50 points annually and they received 15 just for being members of the guard. Bush accumlated 56 points from May 1972 to 1973 and he accumalted another 56 points in June & July of 1973 meeting the minimum requirement of 50 points for the May 73 to May 74 period. Despite the clear evidence that he served, Democrats still keep the lies coming.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Azoth



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 757

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:02 pm    Post subject: c Reply with quote

i've the book 'opening to infinity", which is about remote viewing. this seems to be a respectable scientifically validated phenomenon. also meaning, the book itself seems to be both credible and comprehensive.
one of the rv'ers was Ingo Swann. many have heard of this guy. there's a pic of him wearing a Cat cap. he looks like a regular joe...

well many years ago i found his site which had a book about what he rv'd on the moon. i never got it for obvious reasons and don't even know if it's still available.
but i do remember the book's description; he said that not only were there artificial structures up there (dark side i suppose), but the reason nasa stopped going there was because they were told not to - by the "folks" up there.
he's got a pretty high profile. maybe he's part of the con game. but i still remember his words concerning that book. it was a special book not meant for mainstream release etc......
he's a very talented rv'er apparenty.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also a pretty high-up $cientologist, IS and crew, apparently. Wink
_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:38 am    Post subject: Nick Cook Reply with quote

As far as faking the faking, don't forget Nick Cook's books.

DISCLOSURE: I read the Hunt for Zero Point . Not bad, if you count it as fiction or like an X-files episode on anti-gravity and Nazis. He even wrote a sequel, something about a Nazi "bell."

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Cook
Nick Cook is a British journalist and author of fiction and non-fiction works. He has been associated with Jane's Defence Weekly for a number of years as Aviation Editor and currently as Aerospace Consultant and has won four writing awards from the Royal Aeronautical Society. His two novels are Angel, Archangel (1990) and Aggressor (1993).

Cook's non-fiction book, The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology, was published in 2001. Cook is widely regarded as an expert on military "black projects." He appeared in and narrated the documentary, Billion Dollar Secret, detailing his investigation of these projects in the United States. He also appeared on the Discovery Channel's Unsolved History series episode Area 51 that aired in February 2005. His new documentary, "An Alien History of Planet Earth," was presented by The History Channel in the US in March 2006 and was shown in the UK as "UFOs: The Secret Evidence." A non-fiction book, Barefoot Soldier, written with Johnson Beharry, was published in October 2006.

Cook adopts a non-judgmental stance when interviewing subjects who clearly believe in UFOs, alien contact, conspiracy theories, and other unusual phenomena. As a result, Cook cannot be classified as a skeptic or a believer.

Nick is a founding member of the New Energy Congress.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cracrocrates wrote:
Speaking of faking the faking, as far as I can tell, the whole "Dubya was a draftdodger" media meme that went around a few years ago looks like it may have been bullshit too.


Unless the Free Republic has information supporting the claim that the Bush family was opposed to the Vietnam War, then I'm going to let the draft-dodger charge stand. The point made by many people was that if Dubya's family was supporting the invasion of Indochina then we should expect him to head for Vietnam as a way of showing his patriotism. Not that I think anyone should have there to fight in a war which the US had no right to carry on. But it is quite reasonable to demand that the Shrub show us his gushing patriotism in action before sending anyone else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:18 pm    Post subject: 45% of those drafted dodged serving in the military Reply with quote

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
Cracrocrates wrote:
Speaking of faking the faking, as far as I can tell, the whole "Dubya was a draftdodger" media meme that went around a few years ago looks like it may have been bullshit too.


Unless the Free Republic has information supporting the claim that the Bush family was opposed to the Vietnam War, then I'm going to let the draft-dodger charge stand.

I'm sure there was at least some class bias with dodging the draft especially via the National Guard route, but more people got completely out of serving than I had imagined. Of those drafted, only about 55% served, meaning 45% of those examined were disqualified for one reason or another. Dubya, for all his faults, did serve in the National Guard when nearly half of those drafted didn't even do that.

How do I know this?

About two weeks ago I was looking through the 1973 Statistical Abstract of the United States (available on the U.S. Census website along with all other years as well), which has draft statistics for 1960, 1965, 1970, and 1972, including reasons for being disqualified (medical, mental, training-ability limited, administratively disqualified)

stats from page 273, table number 443,"STATUS OF SELECTIVE SERVICE DRAFTEES EXAMINED FOR MILITARY SERVICE, 1960 TO 1972, AND BY STATES AND OTHER AREAS, 1972"

(in thousands)

Examined
1960: 259.3
1965: 1,229.0
1970: 1,016.7
1972: 470.9

Disqualified
1960: 116.3
1965: 540.6
1970: 467.8
1972: 223.7

So the disqualification rate is
1960: 44.9%
1965: 44.0%
1970: 46.0%
1972: 47.5%

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> State Terror: 9/11, 7/7, CIA Fakes All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.