Crisis Actors? Post your info & WTF moments here

[0_0]

Maybe 'they' want to bury truth more than they want to bury you. The last option is only the natural course of events after all -we all end up burying each other just to stay alive- while the first would be truly satanic in its illusion and trickery, thus befitting a truly bored elite. And how boring it must be to have everything you want.

Just paranoidly speculating along..

[Canadian_watcher]

0_0 - but you're right - the truly rich and powerful are a completely different breed (no, not literally - although I'm open to the possibility) - just as I could not hope to fully comprehend the mental gymnastics of a serial killer/psychopath I can't hope to figure out the motivations of the tip-top elite. One rule of thumb for me is that I don't bother trying to ascribe any test of reasonableness as I understand it to any of these people.

[IanEye]

They love death and get off on it. What's the magick of faking anything?

*



*


you've seen life through distorted eyes
you know you have to learn
the execution of your mind
you really have to turn


the race is run - the book is red
the end begins to show
the truth is out - the lies are old
but you don't want to know

*

[chump]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHZ-y4Gmqdc

gene rosen with FEMA as an actor? This one was pretty convincing.

Edit:
Video shows compelling evidence that GR at a FEMA event of some kind in Harlingen, TX. I haven't seen it debunked.

[Sounder]

No, no , no, don't do it chump

Cuda is right, (although technically off point), facial recognition comparisons are a rats nest.

[chump]

.

No, no , no, don't do it chump

Cuda is right, (although technically off point), facial recognition comparisons are a rats nest.

Uh ugh! technically off point.

[compared2what?]

.

No, no , no, don't do it chump

Cuda is right, (although technically off point), facial recognition comparisons are a rats nest.

Uh ugh! technically off point.

It's no crime. I mean this non-judgmentally, but I think the rigor benchmark wrt asking "Is there an alternative explanation for this?" has to be a little higher than that video meets when you can't exclude the possibility that you're talking about an ordinary person who is what he/she appears to be. As in: "Do many houses look like that?" "Is FEMA such a huge federal agency with such a complex sprawling organizational structure and so many private-sector and volunteer partnerships that being a rep for them means anything in terms of the person's coziness with elites?" and "What, if anything, did this guy do or say that's suspect?"

Because in that particular case, strictly speaking, that last one appears to be entirely absent. The reason for the examination is just that he was there and ergo suspect. And, you know. That's not asking questions. It's declaring judgment without cause..

But it mostly comes down to making some gesture in the direction of considering alternative explanations before reaching a conclusion. And that's not just for rigor's sake. When there are that many unknowns, there always really might be another explanation. FTM, acknowledging that it's possible that there is should also be standard, when that's the case, pretty much on the grounds just mentioned by Canadian_watcher: Getting people not to look at certain possibilities is how con men run their games.

I mean...The alternative explanations actually might not be innocent. So I'm not saying: Don't ask questions!

The reverse, actually.

[barracuda]

This one was pretty convincing.

I'm not sure what's driving you to that conclusion. Ask yourself some questions:

What is the source of the photo? I don't mean Wikimedia, but the original publication source.

How is the image captioned on that page? (I'll throw you a bone on that one.)



How did Wikimedia determine the identity of the man?

What is the chain of custody and/or the security level regarding the identifying label seen on the Wikimedia page for that image?

What is the methodology being used to determine the identity of the man in the photo by the author of the video? That is, what specific techniques are used to determine an isomorphic match between the man in the photo and Gene Rosen?

Why the fucking ominous and darkly foreboding sound track?

Once you have the answers to these questions firmly in hand, then I think you can begin to make a determination as to the level of convincingness of the argument put forth in the video.

[IanEye]

crisis actor

[8bitagent]

one theory might be that they wouldn't be able to get enough people to go along with killing or a coverup of killing, whereas if they needed accomplices to a staged public spectacle, they could probably fairly easily convince a great many people that they were 'agents' of sorts and that this was necessary for the greater good. Pretty weak, but a theory anyway

All it really takes is one handler to guide a mentally unstable/easily brainwashable guy. Now Im not saying the VT Tech, DC Sniper, Sandy Hook, Batman movie, Jared Loughner, etc events fall into that. Heck I cant prove or illustrate a clear cut conspiracy with Boston. But...as we did see with the Miami 7 case "the plot to blow up the sears tower", an FBI informant talked some naive men into some sort of bizarre plot. And Ive seen evidence imans(who turn out to be protected assets) use a series of brainwashing/tape loop techniques on impressionable young Muslim men who later go on to become suicide bombers. Sirhan Sirhan is a classic example of a guy who gets into a religious(Rosicrucian) institution yet seems to have been preyed upon by intelligence networks.

[Canadian_watcher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHZ-y4Gmqdc

gene rosen with FEMA as an actor? This one was pretty convincing.

Edit:
Video shows compelling evidence that GR at a FEMA event of some kind in Harlingen, TX. I haven't seen it debunked.

thanks for this, hadn't seen it. It is compelling, naturally, and obviously (in my universe) people ought to look into it, question it. Is it proof? I dunno - does law enforcement rely on grainy security cam imagery to make arrests when they've already got a suspicion about someone based on circumstance? Yes. They do.

Interestingly, in the meta-data that was posted in that video the "author" was named Patsy Lynch. I find that to be a crazy ass name, seeing as we're deciding whether or not someone might or might not be a questionable character based on that photo. the hits just keep on coming.

fwiw I thought Gene Rosen's witness account of Sandy Hook was very very weird. But clearly that's basically neither here nor there.

[Canadian_watcher]

crisis actor

how did I forget?!????!! Clearly Harley Guy is not the earliest example I knew about, and this one's admitted. Nice call.

[Canadian_watcher]

one theory might be that they wouldn't be able to get enough people to go along with killing or a coverup of killing, whereas if they needed accomplices to a staged public spectacle, they could probably fairly easily convince a great many people that they were 'agents' of sorts and that this was necessary for the greater good. Pretty weak, but a theory anyway

All it really takes is one handler to guide a mentally unstable/easily brainwashable guy. Now Im not saying the VT Tech, DC Sniper, Sandy Hook, Batman movie, Jared Loughner, etc events fall into that. Heck I cant prove or illustrate a clear cut conspiracy with Boston. But...as we did see with the Miami 7 case "the plot to blow up the sears tower", an FBI informant talked some naive men into some sort of bizarre plot. And Ive seen evidence imans(who turn out to be protected assets) use a series of brainwashing/tape loop techniques on impressionable young Muslim men who later go on to become suicide bombers. Sirhan Sirhan is a classic example of a guy who gets into a religious(Rosicrucian) institution yet seems to have been preyed upon by intelligence networks.

not to mention the reaction we have seen to quite a few state actions - some people will bend everything they've got (to the breaking point) to support their ideas of government, law enforcement and authority. I can name many people who I believe would very likely play a part in an operation even though they aren't mentally unstable. And, if it happened to go far beyond what they thought it would - if they felt badly afterward, they'd keep their mouths shut to their graves.

It wouldn't be difficult to ensure this, just in case their consciences got the better of them. But it seems to me that that rarely happens and that when it does it is so easy to carry out a character assassination that the truth dies along with their reputations.

We think we've come so far from the days when tomatoes were 'poison' and the crusades burned heretics. We haven't.

[Canadian_watcher]

Ask yourself some questions:

[list]What is the source of the photo? I don't mean Wikimedia, but the original publication source.

How did Wikimedia determine the identity of the man?

What is the chain of custody and/or the security level regarding the identifying label seen on the Wikimedia page for that image?

What is the methodology being used to determine the identity of the man in the photo by the author of the video? That is, what specific techniques are used to determine an isomorphic match between the man in the photo and Gene Rosen?

and let me ask you the same questions in return, regarding any at all of the pictures that MSM puts up for you to swallow.

[barracuda]

and let me ask you the same questions in return, regarding any at all of the pictures that MSM puts up for you to swallow.

Gimme a break. The difference between watching mainstream media propaganda and YouTube videos centering on the Great Gene Rosen Conspiracy is so minuscule as to be non-existent. At least in terms of your personal political empowerment or understanding. In either case the viewer is assumed to lack all common sense and any ability to think for himself. I prefer not to be spoon fed patent absurdities set to spooky music, whichever side of the war on terror it happens to be coming from. As far as I can tell they both are symbiant parasites feeding off fear for the purpose of one sort of control or another. I say this in complete sincerity: please don't consider for a moment that watching the "Information surfaces that Sandy Hook witness Gene Rosen is FEMA" video and finding it "compelling" puts you in the slightest leg-up in terms of knowledge or power or broadmindedness regarding either the events in Newtown or the wider situation we are in. It is, on its face, an enfeebling influence, whether by design or error.

It took me about a minute to confirm that the man in the photo isn't Gene Rosen.