-
Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
I'm writing to solicit opinions from those of you who are familiar with how public policy is created and implemented.
I am going to give you a hypothetical situation and solicit your opinion.
For the sake of argument, let's say this is happening.
Let's say that certain factions in the Federal government have decided that they wish to change some of the basic laws governing the country with respect to certain freedoms. Let's say that it was decided that because the public would not willingly go along with planned permanent removal of certain basic rights - it was decided to use advanced opinion shaping techniques developed by the military to include Staged Atrocities.
Let's say that the science of Public Deception is fairly mature.
Let's say that there are specialist groups trained in Deception and Psychological Operations who are literally carrying out scripted drill scenarios - and presenting them to the public as real-world events. And these events are being broadcast to the public through complicit media channels.
Now, here is my question for you. Do you think that the government's use of Deception techniques to fool the public into thinking that certain things are happening is a legitimate way to achieve policy objectives?
If you don't think that Deception and Staged Atrocity Propaganda is a legitimate form of statecraft - and its use is presently "legal".... then, what do we do about it?
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
80,000,000 of us own guns. Most of us, more than one, and lots of ammo. If that kind of thing happens we would gladly lend you one. Would you stand with us or just jabber about hypotheticals?
:friendly_wink:
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
I am terrified to ask what these "deception techniques" might have been, WHY these activities might have been undertaken, and HOW such a covert and widespread action involving the buy-in of dozens or even hundreds of people could have been accomplished without a leak???
@haha, you wouldn't happen to be among those who believes that Newtown never actually happened???
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
@haha, you wouldn't happen to be among those who believes that Newtown never actually happened???
Haha could also be one of the folks that believe that some, or all, of the recentish mass shootings were carried out by agents (willing or otherwise) of the government.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
cdwjava,
Staged Atrocity Propaganda is a "thing". It exists. It is a bona-fide technique used to apply political pressure upon chosen target audiences to achieve policy goals.
It may help you read through this book:Counterdeception Principles and Applications for National Security by Edward Waltz (Author), Michael Bennett (Author). You can get it on Amazon. That book will help to introduce the concepts of how "Deception" works and it includes some general principles of application. "Counterdecption" is the science that enables to identification of deception to mitigate the effects of a deception operation.
But, to help you to understand how something like this can be done, I suggest you look up how the US Justice department used "Deception" techniques to remove Judge Joseph Waters Jr. from the bench in Philadelphia. http://articles.philly.com/2014-09-2...ny-gun-charges
Long story short: The FBI "Invented" an entirely fake "defendant" who never breathed air, named David P. Khoury. They "invented" an arrest so that appropriate paperwork was created. And they placed that paperwork into the Philadelphia Municipal Court system. Not "Everyone" was "in on it". Only the people that had to know - knew. This was just another documented arrest as far as most associated with the Court knew. Ultimately, the judge hearing the case reduced the charge to a misdemeanor and this is what the judge was charged and convicted for doing. The charges were ultimately dropped when the fake defendant failed to appear for trial and court staff had no address on file.
All that remains of Khoury’s case is a manila court file on an office shelf in the Philadelphia courts building. On it is a single green sticky note that reads, “Withdrawn – FBI.”
This proves that the government used deception to create an entire fake persona, created an entirely fake arrest, and created an entirely fake court case.
How they did it is interesting and worth your time.
Quote:
Quoting
adjusterjack
80,000,000 of us own guns. Most of us, more than one, and lots of ammo. If that kind of thing happens we would gladly lend you one. Would you stand with us or just jabber about hypotheticals?
:friendly_wink:
I stated in my original post that this kind of thing happens, and his happening.
Is your answer to my question about the legality of public deception to resolve the situation with violence?
I don't think I understand your answer.
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
Haha could also be one of the folks that believe that some, or all, of the recentish mass shootings were carried out by agents (willing or otherwise) of the government.
free9man, why attempt to throw in ad-hominem? Where did that come from?
Do you deny that Deception exists? It might help you to study up on Deception and how it is implemented.
As far as identifying whether or not a particular event was a Deception Operation or not, there is an entire body of science called "Counterdeception" that does that job.
Counterdeception principles can also be used to determine how a magician did a certain trick. But, it is widely used in military circles where Deception Operations are constantly be used as a force multiplier.
This thread is about the LEGALITY OF STAGED ATROCITY PROPAGANDA - WHETHER IT IS A LEGITIMATE TACTIC TO ACHIVE PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVES - AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT.
If you want to discuss how to apply Counterdecption principles to determine the veracity of a specific incident - then say so.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
The case that you speak about was part of an investigation by the FBI some years ago designed to catch a corrupt judge. It was a major news story at the time. Yes, deception is a legitimate form of criminal investigation.
But, your original post is clearly about much more than that. You claim that the federal government is engaged in some sort of cryptic plot to change our fundamental rights, and utilizing "scripted drill scenario" and presenting them as actual events. Given recent headlines, I can only conclude that you are referring to mass shootings as an effort to promote the seizure of firearms or some such thing. Perhaps if you'd care to stop dancing around the event you are alluding to and spit it out, we won't have to dance around wondering what on Earth your going on about.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
The case that you speak about was part of an investigation by the FBI some years ago designed to catch a corrupt judge. It was a major news story at the time. Yes, deception is a legitimate form of criminal investigation.
But, your original post is clearly about much more than that. You claim that the federal government is engaged in some sort of cryptic plot to change our fundamental rights, and utilizing "scripted drill scenario" and presenting them as actual events. Given recent headlines, I can only conclude that you are referring to mass shootings as an effort to promote the seizure of firearms or some such thing. Perhaps if you'd care to stop dancing around the event you are alluding to and spit it out, we won't have to dance around wondering what on Earth your going on about.
I claim that the use of Staged Atrocity Propaganda is legal in the US. So let's focus on that first. How and why is it legal?
You use the term "cryptic". Do you mean "secret" or "classified"?
I am not "dancing around" anything here.
Here is a DIRECT QUESTION for you:
Do you think that the use of Staged Atrocity Propaganda is a legitimate use of government discretion for a regime to achieve public policy goals?
It is interesting to note that you admit and assert the legitimacy of government operatives using a "cryptic plot" to achieve the policy goal of removing Judge Waters from the bench in Philadelphia.
Are you trying to assert that government operatives do not and are not employing "cryptic plots' to achieve policy goals?
I am saying that such a thing is happening.
I find it interesting that many people seem to be in denial about this.
Is that because they simply don't understand the science of deception? Or do you think they are simply intellectual cowards?
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
haha
I claim that the use of Staged Atrocity Propaganda is legal in the US. So let's focus on that first. How and why is it legal?
If you think it would be legal it is up to you to answer that question.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
I'm not going to bite on your "direct question" about something called "Staged Atrocity Propaganda" as the term is undefined. Propaganda, by it's very nature, is spin, or, an interpretation of events that have occurred. What you describe is something that has been foisted on the public in order to change the fabric of society.
Give an example of what you are talking about. Come on ... you can be open about it. What is the recent event that you believe is entirely staged and not at all real?
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
I decline to feed the troll.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
probably one who believes 911 was an inside job, that the kids in Sandy Hook were actors and probably those in Lakeland FL.. not going to give the OP any legitimacy of answering him directly
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Oh, I think he may be referring to a number of such matters ... but, given the recent headlines involving the shooting in Florida, I suspect it's another of those odd ducks that think Newtown was made up and that the feds - in an impressive and unprecedented level of coordinated manipulation involving a hundred or more people pretending to be residents, parents, and students - managed to coordinate the whole thing. I just want to see if he'll admit to it or not. I'm guessing not. (After all, aren't we all part of the same grand conspiracy?)
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
haha
Now, here is my question for you. Do you think that the government's use of Deception techniques to fool the public into thinking that certain things are happening is a legitimate way to achieve policy objectives?
If you don't think that Deception and Staged Atrocity Propaganda is a legitimate form of statecraft - and its use is presently "legal".... then, what do we do about it?
Whether it is legal and, assuming it was legal, whether I would think it was legitimate would depend on exactly what was done and why. But the answer to your second question seems obvious: if it is currently legal for the government to do it and you think it ought not to be then lobby Congress and/or your state legislature to make it illegal.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
PayrolGuy
If you think it would be legal it is up to you to answer that question.
The use of Deception to present pseudo-events as "real" is indeed "legal". In fact, as explicitly shown, the Justice department employed Deception to the extent that they invented a completely fake shadow persona with the made-up name David P. Khoury. They even went further and created an entirely fake court case.
Time to face facts.
Not only is this practice legal - it is being used.
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
I'm not going to bite on your "direct question" about something called "Staged Atrocity Propaganda" as the term is undefined. Propaganda, by it's very nature, is spin, or, an interpretation of events that have occurred. What you describe is something that has been foisted on the public in order to change the fabric of society.
Give an example of what you are talking about. Come on ... you can be open about it. What is the recent event that you believe is entirely staged and not at all real?
How far did you go in school? Do you know anything about the science of Deception?
Do you know anything about Counterdeception?
It looks like you suffer from some sort of "follower" syndrome. Maybe you're just in denial about Deception and have absolutely no clue about how it works.
I suggest you study up.
Quote:
Quoting
hr for me
probably one who believes 911 was an inside job, that the kids in Sandy Hook were actors and probably those in Lakeland FL.. not going to give the OP any legitimacy of answering him directly
Again - another "follower" who resorts to back-handed ad-hominem attacks.
People like you are serial "believers" who blindly accept what their TV tells them. Even in the face of OBVIOUS lies.
You make a great "follower".
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Whether it is legal and, assuming it was legal, whether I would think it was legitimate would depend on exactly what was done and why. But the answer to your second question seems obvious: if it is currently legal for the government to do it and you think it ought not to be then lobby Congress and/or your state legislature to make it illegal.
I agree that lobbing Congress and State legislatures is the path to having this type of thing stopped. However, I find it interesting that certain people here are in denial about this. Even when it is quite obvious that Deception and Psychological Operations do exist. And that the US government has invested tremendous resources in developing them.
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
Oh, I think he may be referring to a number of such matters ... but, given the recent headlines involving the shooting in Florida, I suspect it's another of those odd ducks that think Newtown was made up and that the feds - in an impressive and unprecedented level of coordinated manipulation involving a hundred or more people pretending to be residents, parents, and students - managed to coordinate the whole thing. I just want to see if he'll admit to it or not. I'm guessing not. (After all, aren't we all part of the same grand conspiracy?)
You have already admitted your ignorance about Deception. You know nothing about the science or implementation - yet you firmly assert things that you apparently "believe". I find that interesting - yet sad. In fact, i pity your child-like intellect.
The fact is that Deception operations exist and are being used to achieve policy objectives.
Frankly, i was expecting much more than the typical idiotic denial response from a forum like this one. Aren't the forum members here supposed to be on a higher level? Obviously not.
How about if you simply exit this thread and focus your attention elsewhere.
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Whether it is legal and, assuming it was legal, whether I would think it was legitimate would depend on exactly what was done and why. But the answer to your second question seems obvious: if it is currently legal for the government to do it and you think it ought not to be then lobby Congress and/or your state legislature to make it illegal.
Here is a direct question for you: Do you think that the use of Deception and Staged Atrocity Propaganda is a legitimate form of stagecraft that should be tolerated here in the United States?
Yes or no.
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
I decline to feed the troll.
Stay off my thread.
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Whether it is legal and, assuming it was legal, whether I would think it was legitimate would depend on exactly what was done and why. But the answer to your second question seems obvious: if it is currently legal for the government to do it and you think it ought not to be then lobby Congress and/or your state legislature to make it illegal.
OK, for the sake of argument - lets say that the US signed the UN Small Arms Treaty and that provision of that Treaty require the US to take affirmative steps to disarm the population of semi-automatic firearms as a "first step" measure by the year 2020.
Let's say that factions within the US government have decided to use Staged Atrocity Propaganda to achieve that policy goal.
What is your position on the use of Deception against domestic target audiences?
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
haha
How far did you go in school?
Multiple degrees and credentials including a graduate degree and teaching credential.
Quote:
Do you know anything about the science of Deception?
Do you know anything about Counterdeception?
In general, sure.
So, what deception are YOU referring to? Certainly, you didn't post to resurrect an investigation from nearly 4 years ago?
Quote:
I agree that lobbing Congress and State legislatures is the path to having this type of thing stopped. However, I find it interesting that certain people here are in denial about this. Even when it is quite obvious that Deception and Psychological Operations do exist. And that the US government has invested tremendous resources in developing them.
Name one that you believe recently occurred. You seem to be afraid to do that. Why?
Quote:
Frankly, i was expecting much more than the typical idiotic denial response from a forum like this one. Aren't the forum members here supposed to be on a higher level? Obviously not.
Perhaps if you stop being cryptic and just spit out the recent event that spurred your recent posting you might dazzle us with your investigative and deductive acumen.
Quote:
OK, for the sake of argument - lets say that the US signed the UN Small Arms Treaty and that provision of that Treaty require the US to take affirmative steps to disarm the population of semi-automatic firearms as a "first step" measure by the year 2020.
Let's say that factions within the US government have decided to use Staged Atrocity Propaganda to achieve that policy goal.
So, are you claiming that the Florida shooting did NOT happen? Or, that the shooter was a government actor of some kind? And that shooting and others are merely staged events by actors? And, do you believe that no one really died?
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
haha
Here is a direct question for you: Do you think that the use of Deception and Staged Atrocity Propaganda is a legitimate form of stagecraft that should be tolerated here in the United States?
Yes or no.
That is not a yes or no type question despite your assertion to the contrary. The term “Deception and Staged Atrocity Propaganda” is not one with any precise definition. It is impossible to know from that term exactly what acts are included and what acts are not. You’ve chosen a term that is a bit loaded with a negative connotation, which of course suits your purposes in arguing against the conduct you opppose. But I don’t form opinions based on loaded imprecise terms. As I said before, I would want to know exactly what acts the government did and why to form an opinion of whether it is something that is legitimate for the government to do. We know that all governments lie in some circumstances. And indeed we expect that governments will lie in certain circumstances. Thus it is not a simple black and white issue.
Quote:
Quoting
haha
OK, for the sake of argument - lets say that the US signed the UN Small Arms Treaty and that provision of that Treaty require the US to take affirmative steps to disarm the population of semi-automatic firearms as a "first step" measure by the year 2020.
Let's say that factions within the US government have decided to use Staged Atrocity Propaganda to achieve that policy goal.
What is your position on the use of Deception against domestic target audiences?
And exactly what acts of “deception” does the government undertake to achieve its goal? Again, details matter. I will note that signing the treaty is not what makes it binding in the U.S. As the Constitution makes clear, the treaty must also be ratified by the Senate before it can take effect. And frankly, the Senate would not today approve entering into such a treaty. Even if it did, any provision in the treaty that conflicts with the Constitution would be invalid. The president and Congress would therefore be foolish indeed to enter into such a treaty without first assuring that enough of the the public would support it so that their re-election chances would not be damaged by it, and without ensuring it would pass Constitutional muster. That’s not to say that presidents and Congress have never done anything foolish; certainly they have.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
That's what "I decline to feed the troll" means - is that I intend to stay off your thread.
You're the one who brought me back.
I don't know why two intelligent men like Carl and Tax are bothering with your nonsense.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
I don't know why two intelligent men like Carl and Tax are bothering with your nonsense.
Morbid curiosity, I suppose.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
haha
The use of Deception to present pseudo-events as "real" is indeed "legal". In fact, as explicitly shown, the Justice department employed Deception to the extent that they invented a completely fake shadow persona with the made-up name David P. Khoury. They even went further and created an entirely fake court case.
In this case it did happen and was legal what the FBI did. Now what's your question?
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
I don't know why two intelligent men like Carl and Tax are bothering with your nonsense.
Because the question itself is not “nonsense.” The belief by some in this thread that his question is founded by belief in government conspiracy theories that have very little evidence to support them is not supported by anything the OP has said and I will not, as others have done, assume what the OP’s beliefs on any conspiracy theory may be. And in any event, those beliefs are not relevant to the questions asked. Even if he/she believes in a conspiracy theory that I and most others might deem wacky that does not mean the underlying question about what is legal for the government to do is itself nonsense. One can surely ask if it would be legal for the government to engage in a particular act even if that person does not believe the government has actually done it. After all, one can ask if rape is illegal without himself being a rapist, right? So I suggest separating out the question being asked from whatever assumptions you have as to the beliefs prompting the question, as the latter isn’t really relevant.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
The questions, as worded, have a feel of an attempt to bait a trap. The insistence of attempting to force a yes/no to a "Do you believe" scenario, makes the cynic in me wonder what would then be the "then how do you explain" aspect once the yes/no has been obtained.
But you know what you're doing and I have for many years admired your patience. So I'll leave you to it and go buy some popcorn.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Because the question itself is not “nonsense.” The belief by some in this thread that his question is founded by belief in government conspiracy theories that have very little evidence to support them is not supported by anything the OP has said and I will not, as others have done, assume what the OP’s beliefs on any conspiracy theory may be. And in any event, those beliefs are not relevant to the questions asked. Even if he/she believes in a conspiracy theory that I and most others might deem wacky that does not mean the underlying question about what is legal for the government to do is itself nonsense. One can surely ask if it would be legal for the government to engage in a particular act even if that person does not believe the government has actually done it. After all, one can ask if rape is illegal without himself being a rapist, right? So I suggest separating out the question being asked from whatever assumptions you have as to the beliefs prompting the question, as the latter isn’t really relevant.
Thank you for your thoughtful and considered responses.
The basis of this thread originates with fact-based real world experience in Denial and Deception operations.
My question could certainly have been worded better.
In your view, Do you think it acceptable that Domestic Target Audiences (legislators and citizens) are targeted with “Staged Atrocity Propaganda” to further regime political goals?”
More specifically, do you think it acceptable for a regime to employ staged events in the form of “shootings” to manipulate public opinion and to provide political cover for the passage of more restrictive laws?
The underlying issue is, of course, the legality of the use of these weapons against Domestic Target audiences.
The term “conspiracy theory” has been used in this thread, apparently as a type of slur.
The fact is that persons trained in Deception are taught that most people are unaware of the epistemological basis of their analytic judgments, forecasts, or insights.
This may account for the knee-jerk reaction of applying the term “conspiracy theory” to situations not fully understood by the commenter.
Surely, the assertion that the FBI created an entirely fake pseudo-character with a totally fictitious name and orchestrated an entirely fake court case (the David P. Khoury case in Philadelphia) would be met with the slur label “conspiracy theory” … unless numerous news articles appeared that documented some of the details of that Deception operation.
Knowledge building requires that they understand the basis for what constitutes “Knowledge” since some knowledge is more reliable than others.
Professional Deception planners leverage unsubstantiated information coming from what are thought to be reliable sources.
Deceivers manufacture unsubstantiated information conforming to a certain mind-set or bias to further enable the deception.
Counterdeception is a mirror-image of deception planning and execution. The characteristics of the things hidden and displayed and categories of analysis are the same. The only difference is that the process used by the deceiver follows a different logical path than the process used by the investigator to unravel it.
Consequently, counterdeception is most effectively performed by people who have experience in planning and executing deceptions.
Whoever creates a deception simultaneously creates all the clues needed for its solution. Every deception necessarily generates a minimum of two clues. At least one about the real thing being hidden and at least one about the false thing being shown.
Each clue is an incongruity characteristic that distinguishes the real thing from the fake one.
The reason I took the time to start this thread is because I know for a fact that these capabilities are presently being used against Domestic Target Audiences to manipulate public opinion and provide political cover for more restrictive laws.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
There is a HUGE difference between the FBI or any other LEO organization conducting a sting by creating a character to document the wrongdoing of a criminal and some portion of the government or anyone else staging mass shootings at a school, or anywhere else for that matter, to garner support for increased gun control. And there is nobody in the world who would be more happy if such a event were found to be staged than I would be.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
I'm sure that the families and friends of the 17 dead in Parkland would be shocked to find out that it was all a hoax and that those people never existed ... or, are alive and in some sort of Witness Protection program somewhere. :rolleyes:
But, the same falderal was being laid on thick by the fringers after Newtown as well. So, I'm not surprised.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
PayrolGuy
In this case it did happen and was legal what the FBI did. Now what's your question?
Public policy issues pertaining to the use of Deception fall into two general categories:
1. Deception operations to catch persons committing crimes (Stings), and
2. Deception operations to manufacture consent among an unsuspecting public.
Stings have a legitimate place in law enforcement. But, It is currently legal for this regime to create scripted scenarios to manufacture consent among an unsuspecting public.
Our federal courts will only hear “cases and controversies” involving real people and real issues. They will not hear cases involving fake shadow personas and invented issues. They will not issue “advisory opinions” nor will they hear moot cases. I know that some States will render advisory opinions on a law’s meaning or constitutionality inconsistent with Article III limitation that its power extends only to cases and controversies.
As we all know, the David P. Khoury case in Philadelphia did not involve a real “case or controversy” and involved the creation of a fake person, a fake ID, the filing of a false police report and other resultant paperwork that constituted fraud. However, because it done with the authorization of the Justice Department - they simply gave themselves immunity.
They also relied on the fact that implementing Faked Scenarios and Staged Atrocities is not “illegal”.
Imagine if our courts agreed to hear cases and controversies involving invented shadow characters and completely invented issues – not just those involving real people and real issues.
How about this one: There is a rash of “insanity” among Muslim police officers resulting in random police walking into shopping malls and shooting the places up. Several such events are staged in fairly close temporal proximity amid calls for deporting all Muslims “for our safety”.
Or how about this one: There is a rash of arrests of Homosexuals for child abuse and child murder involving the production of snuff films. Several such arrests are staged in fairly close temporal proximity amid calls for segregating homosexuals from the general population “for our safety”.
The Philadelphia Municipal Court did, in fact, hear a case involving and entirely fake scenario. That particular case was not used to manipulate public perception about perceived threats. It was used to take a judge off the bench.
But the technique of filing a fake case could have been used for public manipulation and this is the reason for this thread.
Obviously any convenient and useful scenario could be scripted and used to lead the masses in the desired direction. The entire reason for this thread is to disuses the use of Deception as a tool of public manipulation.
You can remain in denial about these things if you wish. The fact is that certain “events” that you were shown in the news were entirely staged under the supervision of professional Deception planners.
You may find interesting the fact that FEMA has something called the National Exercise Division. That division has the expertise and infrastructure to create large scale Staged Atrocities including shootings with fake blood and even amputee actors.
Since you seem to have wanted to discuss the Sandy Hook event that you seem to be so convinced of its veracity, I have something for you and would love to hear your excuse for it.
On the morning of December 14, 2012 CNN broadcast video footage of CT State Troopers running into the St. Rose of Lima School that is 1 mile away from Sandy Hook School in Newtown. The CNN video shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI0rBbLxYLo clearly shows this. I do not endorse that channel and am merely providing a link so you can see the video. But you should understand that Youtube has been actively purging this video. If you look, you may be able to find a version that was not intentionally darkened to make it more difficult to examine the shadows.
Not only were the troopers filmed running into the wrong school - the troopers were shown running into the school just before SUNDOWN as proven by the angle and direction of all shadows.
If you investigate further, you will find that the shadows cast from the troopers are about 28 feet long and are coming FROM the south WEST.
As a reminder: the sun rises in the East and sets in the West and the alleged Sandy Hook event allegedly occurred in the morning. If the video was shot before noon, the shadows would have been coming from a generally Easterly direction. And their exact length would correspond to the time of day at the date and location in question.
This means that video was shot in the evening the day before the alleged Sandy Hook event occurred (or on another date BEFORE that), just before sunset. Not in the morning as you were told. You were told that the Sandy Hook event occurred on the morning of December 14, 2012.
No little kids would have even been present either at the St. Rose of Lima School just before sundown or at the Sandy Hook School.
That video had to have been shot the evening of December 13, 2012 (or before) at an "Active Shooter Drill" at St. Rose of Lima School...and that script was broadcast to the public the next day on December 14, 2012 at the inactive Sandy Hook School.
I only mention this because this is just one of literally hundreds of factual anomalies that point to the fact that something is very wrong with the official story.
If you wish to remain in denial – that’s great. But I certainly do not deserve your abuse. In fact, I am a professional and know what I am talking about.
I was trained to understand that people like that have very strong mental biases that prevent them from questioning anything that a perceived authority tells them.
Then, predictably, they spew the “conspiracy theory” slur.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
haha
Public policy issues pertaining to the use of Deception fall into two general categories:
1. Deception operations to catch persons committing crimes (Stings), and
2. Deception operations to manufacture consent among an unsuspecting public.
Stings have a legitimate place in law enforcement. But, It is currently legal for this regime to create scripted scenarios to manufacture consent among an unsuspecting public.
Where are you getting that what I bolded above is actually the case.
Quote:
Then, predictably, they spew the “conspiracy theory” slur.
con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informalracket
"a conspiracy to manipulate the results"
the action of plotting or conspiring.
"they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
synonyms: plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason
"conspiracy to commit murder"
the·o·ry
ˈTHirē
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
MATHEMATICS
a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.
conspiracy theory isn't a slur.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
So, no one was killed at Sandy Hook. Got it.
<sigh>
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
PayrolGuy
conspiracy theory isn't a slur.
Most of the time when someone starts talking about another person believing in such theories, it is not a complement.
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
So, no one was killed at Sandy Hook. Got it.
<sigh>
Not too mention that all the theories that he spouted regarding it have, to the best of my knowledge, been proven to be completely false or misunderstandings of other events not related to Sandy Hook.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
Most of the time when someone starts talking about another person believing in such theories, it is not a complement.
The OP is spouting a theory that there is a conspiracy. That isn't a slur. If he or anyone else provides proof it will no longer be a theory.
Words mean things no matter how any one tries to redefine them.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
PayrolGuy
Words mean things no matter how any one tries to redefine them.
Words can take on alternate meanings. The concept of conspiracy theories, not the actual words themselves, has a negative connotation. Those who believe in them don't tend to believe so but know that those who do not tend to attach a negative connotation to it since many, if not most, conspiracy theories are complete codswallop.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
I can't help what other definitions people apply to words or phrases. A theory about a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
haha
In your view, Do you think it acceptable that Domestic Target Audiences (legislators and citizens) are targeted with “Staged Atrocity Propaganda” to further regime political goals?”
Again, the details matter. I don't form opinion based on vaguely defined phrases and loaded terms.
Quote:
Quoting
haha
More specifically, do you think it acceptable for a regime to employ staged events in the form of “shootings” to manipulate public opinion and to provide political cover for the passage of more restrictive laws?
Committing actual murder of citizens in a stage event would, of course, be illegal already and would not be a legitimate means to influence public opinion. As to the argument made by some that one or more of the mass shooting incidents like Sandy Hook never even really happened and are all fake, I find those theories to be wholly lacking in credible evidence and indeed the evidence available works against them. Still, there are those who are so predisposed to believe that the government engages in that sort of thing that they'll latch on to whatever evidence they can point to, however weak it is, to support their belief that that government staged it all. If the government had done that I would find it inappropriate conduct. But so far there is no convincing case made that it has occurred. And no, I’m interested in hearing whatever theory you have on how the government staged shootings. I’ve already seen the claims made about that and find them wholly unconvincing.
So far as your question at the outset of this thread goes, my answer is still the same: if there is some act that government can do that is currently legal to do and that you think should not be legal to do then the solution is to lobby the federal and state legislatures to outlaw that conduct.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
So, no one was killed at Sandy Hook. Got it.
<sigh>
So that is how you react when you are confronted with a very basic fact that is undeniable. I'm glad this is documented for others to see.
FYI, "David P. Khoury" did not commit a crime in Philadelphia.
AND you were shown video of a "Drill" in progress that happened at the St. Rose of Lima School that is over 1 mile away from the Sandy Hook School site - and that drill happened just before sundown the day before the "event" or on another day before that.
Forensic examination of the shadows proves this.
If you were employed as a police officer I surely hope it was not as a detective. LOL
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
haha
So that is how you react when you are confronted with a very basic fact that is undeniable. I'm glad this is documented for others to see.
Sandy Hook and Parkland happened ... deal with it.
Quote:
FYI, "David P. Khoury" did not commit a crime in Philadelphia.
Since he was a fiction, you're right.
Quote:
AND you were shown video of a "Drill" in progress that happened at the St. Rose of Lima School that is over 1 mile away from the Sandy Hook School site - and that drill happened just before sundown the day before the "event" or on another day before that.
Yeah ... and ...??
Quote:
If you were employed as a police officer I surely hope it was not as a detective. LOL
I supervised the detectives.
Perhaps you might consider facts and not fringe propaganda.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
haha
FYI, "David P. Khoury" did not commit a crime in Philadelphia.
Why do you keep coming back to this? It was a sting operation that is perfectly legal
Quote:
Quoting
haha
AND you were shown video of a "Drill" in progress that happened at the St. Rose of Lima School that is over 1 mile away from the Sandy Hook School site - and that drill happened just before sundown the day before the "event" or on another day before that.
Forensic examination of the shadows proves this.
These claims have been proved false multiple times. They are garbage and insult the real families who lost their real children in the very much real event.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Again, the details matter. I don't form opinion based on vaguely defined phrases and loaded terms.
Committing actual murder of citizens in a stage event would, of course, be illegal already and would not be a legitimate means to influence public opinion. As to the argument made by some that one or more of the mass shooting incidents like Sandy Hook never even really happened and are all fake, I find those theories to be wholly lacking in credible evidence and indeed the evidence available works against them. Still, there are those who are so predisposed to believe that the government engages in that sort of thing that they'll latch on to whatever evidence they can point to, however weak it is, to support their belief that that government staged it all. If the government had done that I would find it inappropriate conduct. But so far there is no convincing case made that it has occurred. And no, I’m interested in hearing whatever theory you have on how the government staged shootings. I’ve already seen the claims made about that and find them wholly unconvincing.
So far as your question at the outset of this thread goes, my answer is still the same: if there is some act that government can do that is currently legal to do and that you think should not be legal to do then the solution is to lobby the federal and state legislatures to outlaw that conduct.
If you have time I could certainly present to you the facts and how the Deception planners performed the illusion. But the point I'm making here is that this regime is using Staged Atrocity Propaganda to achieve political goals. This is happening. And we all need to face this.
You used an important phrase, “predisposed to believe”.
A person who is “predisposed to believe” something exhibits cognitive bias.
A person who is “predisposed not to believe” something also exhibits cognitive bias.
Both those who are predisposed to believe and predisposed not to believe will have difficulty objectively examining evidence.
Those characteristics are easily leveraged by Deception planners.
It looks like some of the respondents here are "predisposed not to believe" certain things even in the face of hard evidence. Of course, most people have no background in forensic investigation nor do they have any background in military deception operations.
You must consider where you obtained your information about a certain event. That source is your "information channel". If it is controlled by the deception planner - you will need to find other information sources that are not under the control of the deception planner.
As you must know - the practice of conducting Staged Atrocity Propaganda is a very real thing. In fact, here is an excerpt from Counterdecepion Principles and Applications for National Security:
"An event (atrocity) will be staged with supporting media coverage and accompanying deceptive propaganda. This will be fed to through the channels of sympathetic regional media, which will be picked up by the international media. These channels will convey the message to the targeted sympathetic groups within the public to sway public opinion and bring pressure on the targeted government policymakers. The deception planner also create forged documents attributing the atrocity to agents of the target government and leak them through unsuspecting (duped) third-party diplomatic channels. Finally, the planners coordinate the creation of decoyed objects and signals (to be viewed by the targeted government IMINT and SIGINT collectors,respectively) to support the atrocity story. Forged materials are also passed through agent channels to add further credibility to the decoys. These activities are all conducted to convince intelligence analysts that the atrocity story is, indeed, true."
(That was from Chapter 1 Deception and the Need for Counterdeception, Page 6)
Those were not my words.
If a person is capable of setting aside cognitive biases that may be interfering with their ability to recognize anomalies that are tell-tale signs of deception - then they can get somewhere.
From the responses in this thread, I can clearly see that many people suffer crippling disability as a result of their cognitive bias to "believe".
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
Sandy Hook and Parkland happened ... deal with it.
Sure, on TV. Deal with it. Better yet - how about looking beyond what you were shown on you TV for evidence. Or you can just sit there and "believe".
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
he was a fiction, you're right.
Not only was he a fiction, the court case was a fiction. Maybe you missed the significance of that kind of manipulation of the courts. Creating a fake court case goes far beyond a "sting" operation. Creating a fake court case can influence case law and precedent, and it can also have an effect on public opinion. But you knew that - right?
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
Yeah ... and ...??
Your were shown a lie.
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
I supervised the detectives.
That's really sad because you evidently suffer from crippling cognitive bias.
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
Perhaps you might consider facts and not fringe propaganda.
You need to check yourself here. Obviously you don't know what "facts" are. Facts are things that are real. Not simply what you saw on TV.
Quote:
Quoting
PayrolGuy
There is a HUGE difference between the FBI or any other LEO organization conducting a sting by creating a character to document the wrongdoing of a criminal and some portion of the government or anyone else staging mass shootings at a school, or anywhere else for that matter, to garner support for increased gun control. And there is nobody in the world who would be more happy if such a event were found to be staged than I would be.
According to you there is a huge difference. But the practice of using Staged Atrocity Propaganda is legal here and is being done to achieve political goals.
I am flatly saying that this is being done. I base this on the available evidence and there is plenty.
In fact, you can expect more of these events to occur on about a bi-monthly basis.
The whole reason for this thread is to bring attention to the fact that this regime is using this technique.
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
These claims have been proved false multiple times. They are garbage and insult the real families who lost their real children in the very much real event.
No. You are wrong. The FACT is that there was a "DRILL" at the St. Rose of Lima School and that Drill was filmed and shown to you as being a "Shooting" at the Sandy Hook School.
The sun angle has not been "proved false".
And you certainly have not done so.
Merely repeating what you 'heard" somewhere isn't credible.
Quote:
Quoting
PayrolGuy
I can't help what other definitions people apply to words or phrases. A theory about a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory.
So I guess we'll just have to call anyone who doesn't merely parrot what they heard on TV as a "conspiracy theorist".
At least they don't throw you in prison here (yet) for questioning supposed "facts". But I'm sure they're working on it.
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
Why do you keep coming back to this? It was a sting operation that is perfectly legal
It was far more than just a run-of-the-mill Sting. It involved the creation of a fake court case. And it also involved the creation of an entirely fake shadow-character that was sold as being a real person.
This is important for many reasons. It also shows the kinds of capabilities and techniques used by the Deception planners.
So in addition to "Sting" operations, "Creating Entirely Fictitious Court Cases" is "perfectly legal" here.
If you can't understand how monumentally significant that is - well, just go back to your TV.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Having spoken to law enforcement personnel who were AT the Newtown shooting and witnessed the carnage, I think I'll choose to believe them. Of course, I suppose you'll argue that the hundreds of friends and families of the victims, parents and first responders on scene, and assorted funerals were all part of an elaborate hoax where NONE of the pretenders ever spoke up about their participation and the fact they were seeded into the community years before the event was to have been staged. Right?
I think we're done here.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
Having spoken to law enforcement personnel who were AT the Newtown shooting and witnessed the carnage, I think I'll choose to believe them. Of course, I suppose you'll argue that the hundreds of friends and families of the victims, parents and first responders on scene, and assorted funerals were all part of an elaborate hoax where NONE of the pretenders ever spoke up about their participation and the fact they were seeded into the community years before the event was to have been staged. Right?
I think we're done here.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
And your broad brush statement means absolutely nothing.
Obviously you know nothing about the Sandy Hook enclave of Newtown. And very obviously you know absolutely nothing about the mechanics of the NATIONAL EXERCISE DIVISION and how it works.
Sandy Hook was a "NATIONAL LEVEL EXERCISE". Go look up what that means.
And while you're at it stay off this thread.
You are embarrassing yourself further.
I really don't think anyone benefits by your "believer" spew. Any idiot can regurgitate what their TV tells them.
Oh BTW, there's no Santa Claus either.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
And out comes the drooling, foaming at the mouth conspiracy theorist everyone already suspected was there.
That or a troll. Either way, beyond our help and beneath contempt.
-
Re: Legality of Staged Atrocity Propaganda
Why argue with a troll who, with true honesty in branding, picked the username "haha"? If you don't like trolls, don't feed 'em.