Crisis Actors? Post your info & WTF moments here

[barracuda]

Will you answer that question?

Probably not. I'm not sure I care much for your phrasing of it. The premise doesn't seem to reflect any statement I've made on the thread. And it's kind of a dumb question.

[compared2what?]

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

Assuming that they're not framing that someone: No, they don't. Or not in a way that's equivalent to relying on that video. If the suspect is identifiable on video to a standard not set by them but by forensic science, that's an identification. And if not, not.

I shouldn't have said "arrested" I should have said detained / brought in for questioning.

I guess they might, if they had other grounds. But there would then be (a) other grounds; and (b) a chance for that person to answer the questioning and go home without further consequences or permanent injury to his reputation, if innocent.

But how fascinating! What's the forensic scientific threshold of for positive suspect ID on grainy security camera footage in your state? I can't find it written down anywhere in Canadian Law.

I'm not a forensic expert, so I don't know. But you know perfectly well that my point was that if that process isn't crooked, they use professional forensic photo-ID techniques, which are codified professionally. And not by them, at their discretion.

As a result, if they try to hang a questionable video-ID on someone, it's open to challenge. Which reminds me:

The other diifference is that whether they use it well or poorly, at least they don't just conclusively state it's the perp, end of story, and leave him publicly saddled with that for the rest of his life without so much as giving him a chance to say it's not.

Same for the media, when it comes to shady allegations. They seek comment. And include it, if they get one.

So it's not, in fact, doing the same thing they do. It's doing something lower and less responsible. And we're talking about the media and the cops here.

And if there's any boundary line separating which hardball tactics you're okay with using and which not, "techniques for framing the innocent" is pretty damn clearly on the wrong side of it...

guess what - I can't frame anyone. I have no authority. If you seriously think that my debating something on the internet - something as innocuous as "doesn't that guy look like Gene Rosen!>?" is DANGEROUS, then let me tell you lady, you're living in the right country at the right time.

Obviously, the consequences aren't the same. But that doesn't mean there are none.

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

I don't agree. Your real response, unmediated by videos and MSM both, is worth a lot more attention than either, I mean, "you, Canadian_watcher," in this case. But also, "you, everyone."

if I read that right, then yes - I agree - our immediate responses to these things are valuable. However, it seems to me that we can get the shit kicked out of us for sharing what those reactions are 'round these parts. I submit as evidence the untouchable status accorded St. Robbie Parker some months back

Well. First of all, this...

"Robbie Parker seems insincere to me"

...is an immediate response. This...

"Robbie Parker is a crisis actor, the whole thing is a hoax."

...is an interpretation of it that you need more than the response itself to justify.

And second of all, he got brought up here plenty.

That also didn't meet anything close to an acceptable standard for self-rigor-testing. ("Could it be possible that I'm not in a position to reach any conclusions about what the emotional affect of this complete stranger to me whom I've never seen before in my life means or doesn't mean?"):

And it also wasn't about asking questions but about making claims. Without acknowledging that there might be other explanations. Or showing any sign of thinking about it. Or trying to check the accuracy of the allegation. Or....I don't know. Or anything. It wasn't questioning. In short.

[mulebone]

An example of the capabilities of the BSC [British Security Coordination] operation was in the forgeries that it was able to effect. The skilled labor to produce this high quality work was, by the latter part of 1941, housed in a BSC forgery factory in downtown Toronto, Canada. It was called Station M, perhaps after its chief, Eric Maschwitz(cover symbol G.106). Station M, which opened in the summer of 1941, was under cover of the Canadian Broadcast Corporation.

Evidence needed to frame Britain's enemies or move the United States closer to war could be and was indeed manufactured. This was truly a frontal assault on the rules of evidence. In addition to "an industrial chemist, and two ruffians who could reproduce faultlessly the imprint of any typewriter on Earth," Maschwitz later wrote, "I controlled a chemical laboratory in one place, a photographic studio in another."

A newly released document stamped MOST SECRET wonderfully illustrates Eric Maschwitz's willingness to do whatever necessary to move the United States toward war. One problem facing British intelligence in the United States was a shortage of good photographs of German atrocities. On November 26, 1941, in a memorandum titled "Atrocity Photographs," Maschwitz proposed a solution. "If asked to do so, my section could quite easily provide a regular supply of atrocity pictures, manufactured by us in Canada." Most problems seemed small and quite solvable, "the buying and hiring of costumes, the manufacture of small pieces of scenery and of dummies...a first class make up man...all of which could be carried out under some sort of cover.

"For the sake of accuracy," Maschwitz continued, "we should be provided...with as complete a library as possible of photographs of German personnel, equipment, vehicles...also actual specimens of German...equipment..."

Only one problem loomed in G.106's fertile brain, and it had nothing to do with the propriety of duping the American public. If the project was to be done they had better get busy. "The most obvious setting for atrocity pictures at the moment is Russia, so that we should get to work while there is snow in Canada."

Clearly the major purpose of BSC was to conduct aggressive offensive operations against those it saw as the enemies of Britain. These included not only Hitler's agents in the United States, but those who simply wished to remain uninvolved in the European war.

Ernest Cuneo summed up the BSC offensive in a memo:

"Given the time, the situation, and the mood, it is not surprising however, the BSC also went beyond the legal, the ethical, and the proper. Throughout the neutral Americas, and especially in the U.S., it ran espionage agents, tampered with the mails, tapped telephones, smuggled propaganda into the country, disrupted public gatherings, covertly subsidized newspapers, radios, and organizations, perpetrated forgeries-even passing one off the President of the United States-violated the aliens registration act, shanghaied sailors numerous times, and possibly murdered one or more persons in this country."

The BSC was instrumental in the creation of the Coordinator of Information, which later became the OSS, and then the CIA. In other words, the CIA was developed in the image & likeness of the BSC, copying many of their successful methods.

I would imagine that the intervening 70+ years have allowed the intelligence community to evolve these methods into a completely untraceable art form. One that would continually flummox all manner of Internut pseudo sleuth & his/her attempts to Google a peek behind the curtain at the nefarious machinations of the Great & Powerful Oz.

In other words, if you're seeing seams in the construct, you're probably meant to see those seams.

Which leads me to ask

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist & a dog chasing its own tail?

The dog is usually smart enough to eventually figure out that it's chasing its own tail.

[Sounder]

All right mulebone, my favorite all time poster, and he comes to the party with the goods.

I miss you man.

[Canadian_watcher]

I shouldn't have said "arrested" I should have said detained / brought in for questioning.

I guess they might, if they had other grounds. But there would then be (a) other grounds; and (b) a chance for that person to answer the questioning and go home without further consequences or permanent injury to his reputation, if innocent.

This is a good point. Why don't any of these people ever defend themselves? I'm not being faceitous - I don't remember ever seeing anyone ever come out and say, look here's me in college, here's me three weeks ago. I went to this high school and here's my yearbook or whatever. I do, however, see this happening when it's the other way around - take for example Tamerlan's/Dzokar's mother in the Boston incident. She's desperately trying to prove that the family isn't the family the press says it is. It's curious to me.

But how fascinating! What's the forensic scientific threshold of for positive suspect ID on grainy security camera footage in your state? I can't find it written down anywhere in Canadian Law.

I'm not a forensic expert, so I don't know. But you know perfectly well that my point was that if that process isn't crooked, they use professional forensic photo-ID techniques, which are codified professionally. And not by them, at their discretion.

As a result, if they try to hang a questionable video-ID on someone, it's open to challenge. Which reminds me:

The other diifference is that whether they use it well or poorly, at least they don't just conclusively state it's the perp, end of story, and leave him publicly saddled with that for the rest of his life without so much as giving him a chance to say it's not.

No, I didn't know 'perfectly well' what you meant. You stated unequivocally that there is some empirical standard of IDing someone on a video before police can use that as a basis for detaining a suspect.

As for the rest, I'll refer you back to my first comment in this post. I think we'd all like Gene Rosen, say, to prove he's not a spook. I don't see how internet sleuthing is not up for a challenge. All of this being said, I get freaked out when internet lynch mobs form, too. It's not a pretty sight.

I don't agree. Your real response, unmediated by videos and MSM both, is worth a lot more attention than either, I mean, "you, Canadian_watcher," in this case. But also, "you, everyone."

if I read that right, then yes - I agree - our immediate responses to these things are valuable. However, it seems to me that we can get the shit kicked out of us for sharing what those reactions are 'round these parts. I submit as evidence the untouchable status accorded St. Robbie Parker some months back[/quote]

Well. First of all, this...

"Robbie Parker seems insincere to me"

...is an immediate response. This...

"Robbie Parker is a crisis actor, the whole thing is a hoax."

...is an interpretation of it that you need more than the response itself to justify.

And second of all, he got brought up here plenty.

That also didn't meet anything close to an acceptable standard for self-rigor-testing. ("Could it be possible that I'm not in a position to reach any conclusions about what the emotional affect of this complete stranger to me whom I've never seen before in my life means or doesn't mean?"):

And it also wasn't about asking questions but about making claims. Without acknowledging that there might be other explanations. Or showing any sign of thinking about it. Or trying to check the accuracy of the allegation. Or....I don't know. Or anything. It wasn't questioning. In short.[/quote]

I don't agree - i think that people introduced that subject because they thought about it, and I think that people resisted because they didn't want to.

[Canadian_watcher]

Mulebone, is that from a book? can you direct me to the complete text, it sounds fascinating and I had never heard of Station M before.

Your commentary -- depressing and defeatist but nonetheless pretty accurate I think. Although with the internet it might just be possible that this is the best/last time to find the cracks. wishful thinking.

[Sounder]

C_W wrote…

Your commentary -- depressing and defeatist but nonetheless pretty accurate I think. Although with the internet it might just be possible that this is the best/last time to find the cracks. wishful thinking.

It’s not defeatist at all, it’s simply recognizing that for us to ‘win’ we need to change the rules of the game.

Fuck the cracks, the foundation needs to be taken out.

Although, and it must be added, the only responsible way to still be able to consider oneself as an humanitarian is to work on building a new foundation before commencing serious destruction of the old foundation.

[Canadian_watcher]

word
I ought to have said, "as depressing.. as it sounds" -- I agree there are ways around and ways through and sometimes one is better than the other.

[Sounder]

To be clear C_W, my attitude is not nearly as dour as is mulebones. I just like his refreshing honesty. I do think that ‘awareness’, in this case; conspiracy theory is warranted.

The crack here is the notion that ‘actors’ are a common, rather than being an uncommon psyop or false flag ingredient.

And that is why we hear the midget repeatedly calling out; ‘Bos, bos, de actor evidence is all about facial comparisons, it don hab nuttin ta do wit da script'.

For the moment, that's my WTF moment.

Canadian watcher, did I ever tell you how much I love you?

Well I do, yes I love you.

[FourthBase]

I would imagine that the intervening 70+ years have allowed the intelligence community to evolve these methods into a completely untraceable art form. One that would continually flummox all manner of Internut pseudo sleuth & his/her attempts to Google a peek behind the curtain at the nefarious machinations of the Great & Powerful Oz.

In other words, if you're seeing seams in the construct, you're probably meant to see those seams.

Which leads me to ask

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist & a dog chasing its own tail?

The dog is usually smart enough to eventually figure out that it's chasing its own tail.

Ahhh, so...don't bother. Don't sleuth. Ignore the seams.

Great strategy.

And this mindset is then applauded and only barely quibbled with by two more.
Perhaps you guys are construction n00bs, but cracks can definitely lead to collapse.
Sorry for interrupting your hopelessly-cynical circle-jerk. Carry on, doomers.

[Canadian_watcher]

To be clear C_W, ...

I wish I could enlarge this:

[Canadian_watcher]

I would imagine that the intervening 70+ years have allowed the intelligence community to evolve these methods into a completely untraceable art form. One that would continually flummox all manner of Internut pseudo sleuth & his/her attempts to Google a peek behind the curtain at the nefarious machinations of the Great & Powerful Oz.

In other words, if you're seeing seams in the construct, you're probably meant to see those seams.

Which leads me to ask

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist & a dog chasing its own tail?

The dog is usually smart enough to eventually figure out that it's chasing its own tail.

Ahhh, so...don't bother. Don't sleuth. Ignore the seams.

Great strategy.

And this mindset is then applauded and only barely quibbled with by two more.
Perhaps you guys are construction n00bs, but cracks can definitely lead to collapse.
Sorry for interrupting your hopelessly-cynical circle-jerk. Carry on, doomers.

you're so very entertaining

[Sounder]

FB, first off, I want to thank-you (and unemployment) for being an agent for inspiration this past week.

Now, and I'm kind of sorry to be hitting your triggers, but then again, man up.

You might try to add two plus two with my words before you resort to the large font green type.

Perhaps you are upset at the turn that your brainstorm thread has taken.

Hey maybe that other thread could use some green font misrepresentation also.

That would be much simpler than dealing with substantive issues like necessary and sufficient and other icky topics that use long words.

OH shit, there I go being condescending. And yeah, you are right this time.

[FourthBase]

FB, first off, I want to thank-you for being an agent for inspiration this past week.

Now, and I'm kind of sorry to be hitting your triggers, but then again, man up.

You might try to add two plus two with my words before you resort to the large font green type.

Perhaps you are upset at the turn that your brainstorm thread has taken.

Hey maybe that other thread could use some green font misrepresentation also.

That would be much simpler than dealing with substantive issues like necessary and sufficient and other icky topics that use long words.

OH shit, there I go being condescending. And yeah, you are right this time.

Uhhh...¿Que?

Can someone translate that for me?
"Agent of inspuration"? What is that supposed to mean?
What triggers? What has happened to the brainstorm thread?
What two plus what two? "Fuck the cracks"? "The goods"? What?
What other thread could use some green font representation?

Speak English, please. I am not sure what you mean.

Are you actually trying to pass yourself off as more nuanced and exhaustive than me?
Condescending. Yeah, you appreciate mulebones's "voice", eh?
Fuck his "voice". What are his ideas?
What would he have us think?

[FourthBase]

I would imagine that the intervening 70+ years have allowed the intelligence community to evolve these methods into a completely untraceable art form. One that would continually flummox all manner of Internut pseudo sleuth & his/her attempts to Google a peek behind the curtain at the nefarious machinations of the Great & Powerful Oz.

In other words, if you're seeing seams in the construct, you're probably meant to see those seams.

Which leads me to ask

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist & a dog chasing its own tail?

The dog is usually smart enough to eventually figure out that it's chasing its own tail.

Ahhh, so...don't bother. Don't sleuth. Ignore the seams.

Great strategy.

And this mindset is then applauded and only barely quibbled with by two more.
Perhaps you guys are construction n00bs, but cracks can definitely lead to collapse.
Sorry for interrupting your hopelessly-cynical circle-jerk. Carry on, doomers.

you're so very entertaining

Right we're only here to be entertained by spooky campfire stories about The Evil Establishment That Could Never Be Detected So Why Bother. Right, sleuthing is so boring. Better to be frightened shitless by pigs in glorified humvees. Better to not even look for seams, because they're probably seams intentionally left there to trick you. "It's a trap! That's a trap, too! Everything is a trap!" And that needless extreme of what ought to be healthy paranoia becomes, ironically, a trap.