Can we start a new "crisis actor" thread?

[Nordic]

The last one got locked.

I didn't get into the one that was locked probably due to all the bickering that got it locked.

And I've been skeptical about the whole "crisis actor" notion because, honestly, the claims I've seen haven't been very good, in fact I've seen some where they were claiming 2 people who were obviously not the same people were in fact the same.

But today just sorta cruising around the Internet I found this: ( once it cuts to the Judge Napolitano section you can stop):




This is clearly the same woman who was an "eyewitness" at both the bombing in Boston and later at the police shoot out with the suspect!!

What are the odds of this NOT being a staged fake witness? Pretty damn remote! If she were at both events for real you'd think they'd play that up, or she would because it would be such a human interest angle to the story but no.

So WTF! Pretty damn brazen of them, but I guess almost nobody notices, and only way after the fact, well after the official "narrative" is carved permanently onto our minds and our culture.

Then of course, is the classic one from 9/11, obviously scripted complete with agents in suits controlling the talking head and a really bad actor rattling off prescripted talking points about the building collapse etc:



Anyway I am now very interested in this and was wondering if we could start this thread up again without the endless fighting, which seems to have largely been between 2 people who no longer post here.

[Nordic]

Okay the PTB have their response, pretty easy to find considering the way YouTube works:



This is textbook "limited hangout". You take the truth (the same woman was used in 2 events in Boston as a fake eyewitness) and you mix it in with some clearly fake stuff. In this vid, 2 out of their 4 examples are clearly NOT this woman, then they go on to make a ridiculous claim about her being some low level Colombian bureaucrat. Brilliant! Now the whole truth of what they did has been muddied and tarred and rendered silly tinfoil hat stupidity.

Well played, PTB. But it doesn't change the facts.

[Aldebaran]

At what point do you just say fuck it and throw everything you think you know out the window?

[Iamwhomiam]

The point when someone here finds it beyond probable that one of our posters has lost their only son in a mass murder.

I was called the worst thing on the web.

On edit:

Please, don't let the thought that your words might be upsetting to those who have lost loved ones in some tragedy or other hamper the progress of this thread. Really.

The potential of one's words upsetting some victim-survivor of mass murder never stopped anyone before from accusing survivors or their lost loved ones of being government pawns playing a role in a vast conspiracy.

Maybe some day someone will actually provide proof of their wild allegations. Maybe this thread will be the one where we finally see such a revelation

[Nordic]

At what point do you just say fuck it and throw everything you think you know out the window?

Well. I hit that point probably about 7 or 8 years ago. Everybody needs to hit it. Few do.

It's liberating and depressing as hell all at the same time.

[chump]

Uhhh.... Check out t this video at about 4 mins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s89y7uE9u4Q

Another limited hangout?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72eMHhSIQI
Denver, CO: VisionBox Crisis Actors - Crisisactors.org

http://crisisactors.org/

By Nicholas V. Iuppa (Belmont, CA), Andrew S. Gordon (Marina Del Rey, CA)

Recent United States Army studies have indicated that the leadership requirements of the modern war fighting force involve several significant differences from historical experience. Some factors of particular importance to the new generation of military leaders include: (i) the broad variety of people-centered, crisis-based military missions, including counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, operations in urban terrain and the newly emphasized homeland defense, in addition to more conventional warfare; (ii) the command of and dependence on a number of complex weapon, communication and intelligence systems involving advanced technology and specialized tasks; (iii) increased robotic and automated elements present on the battlefield; (iv) distributed forces at all echelons, requiring matching forms of distributed command; and (v) increased emphasis on collaboration in planning and operations.

The demographics of the military leadership corps is changing in several ways. Among the positive features of this change is a high level of sophistication and experience in computer use, including computer communication gaming and data acquisition. This means that modern training simulations should be as motivating and as well-implemented as commercial gaming and information products in order to capture and hold the attention of new military trainees.

There are currently highly developed aircraft, tank and other ground vehicle virtual simulators that realistically present military terrain and the movement of the vehicles within the terrain. Such simulators are very effective at teaching basic operational skills. Networks of virtual simulators, including SIMNET, CCTT and the CATT family, are also available to teach leader coordination of combined arms weapons systems during conventional and MOUT (Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain) warfare in highly lifelike settings. Likewise, constructive simulations such as BBS, Janus, WARSIM, WARSIM 2000 and others are very effective in focusing on the tactical aspects of leadership, i.e., representing movement of material, weapons and personnel particularly for higher echelon maneuvers.

But the same level of developmental effort has not been directed toward equally effective virtual and/or constructive simulators for training leadership and related cognitive skills in scenarios involving substantial human factor challenges. For example, driving a tank does not require the background knowledge, the collaboration or the complex political, diplomatic and psychological judgments that must be made in a difficult, people-centered crisis leadership situation. These judgments depend largely on the actual and estimated behavior of human participants, both friend and foe, in the crisis situation. Unfortunately, the complete modeling of complex human behavior is still beyond current technical capabilities.

As a result, these kinds of leadership skills have routinely been taught in the classroom through lectures and exercises featuring handouts and videotapes. It is possible for a good instructor to build the tension needed to approximate a leadership crisis, but sustaining the tension is difficult to accomplish. Showing the heartbreak of the crisis and the gut-wrenching decisions that must be made is not the strong suit of paper-and-pencil materials or low budget, home-grown videos.

Large classroom exercises such as "Army After Next" and "The Crisis Decision Exercise" at the National Defense University have attempted to give some sense of the leaders' experience through week-long exercises that involve months of planning. These exercises are effective, but they cannot be distributed widely or easily recreated without significant effort. Also, they are not easy to update and modify, and they require a large contingent of designers and developers, as well as on-site operators, to run them after months of planning time.

Story-based simulations, on the other hand, increase participant attention and retention because story-based experiences are more involving and easier to remember. Participants are also able to build judgmental, cognitive and decision-making leadership skills because the simulations provide realistic context in which to model outstanding leadership behavior. Story-based simulations can teach innovation because they are able to challenge participants by providing dramatic encounters with unexpected events and possibilities. Also, story-based simulations overcome the limitations of current constructive and virtual simulations in modeling complex human behavior, which is an increasing aspect of today's leadership challenges.

Crisis-based leadership training requires an awareness of human factors that has been especially difficult to teach through printed materials or the classroom. Giving complexity to an adversary's personality or turning a political confrontation into a battle of wits and will (things that, in fact, represent much of today's military decision making) are easier to discuss than to practice or simulate.

From a computational perspective, the term simulation is commonly used to refer to computational systems that compute subsequent states of a modeled environment by applying some transformational rules to the current model state. For example, weather simulations are computed in this manner--by first describing the current meteorological conditions and then applying knowledge about atmospheric conditions to make a prediction about what will happen in the future. Likewise, the U.S. military uses simulations to make predictions about the outcomes of battles and to give soldiers experience in simulations of potential future battles. The phrase `constructive simulations` has been used to describe simulations that compute subsequent states by applying transformational rules to the current state. Constructive simulations easily accommodate run-time interaction on the part of human participants. That is, at any moment in the simulation, a trainee can make a decision that changes the state of the modeled world and causes a change that will be propagated by transformational rules, and which may ultimately cause drastic changes in the final outcome of a simulated warfare environment.

The important disadvantage of the use of constructive simulations in military training is the surrender of pedagogical and dramatic control. While it may be desirable to use a simulation to provide pedagogically valuable experiences to trainees, there is little that an instructional designer can do to ensure that certain experiences will occur within the environment. As the trainees have free will and control over the course of the outcome of the simulation, it is impossible to ensure that a specific situation or set of situations will arise once the simulation has begun. The only direct control that instructional designers are given over the simulation is its starting state. Accordingly, there has been an increasing amount of interest in the notion of scenario development, where this has come to mean the specification of initial states for constructive simulations that are likely to lead to pedagogically valuable experiences for trainees.

While well-crafted initial states have a certain utility, particularly when training tactical skills for force-on-force warfare, other types of skill training suffer greatly due to the lack of pedagogical control. This is particularly true of military leadership skill training, where the lessons to be learned by trainees have less to do with timing and positioning of troops, and more to do with complex interrelationships among superior and subordinate officers and enlisted soldiers. In short, it is much easier to ensure that a tactical problem will arise given an initial simulation state than a leadership problem.

Given the autonomy of the actors' characters in a storyline, the story composer is additionally faced with numerous critical problems: how can the composer prevent the actor from taking actions in the imagined world that will move the story in a completely unforeseen direction, or from taking actions that will derail the storyline entirely? How can the composer allow the actors to make critical decisions, devise creative plans, and explore different options without giving up the narrative control that is necessary to deliver a compelling experience? Also, in the case of interactive tutoring systems, how can the composer understand enough about the beliefs and abilities of the actors to create an experience that has some real educational value, i.e., that improves the quality of the decisions that they would make when faced with similar situations in the real world?

Therefore, what is needed is a method and apparatus for advanced leadership training simulation that allows the participants to make real-time critical decisions, devise creative plans and explore different options without relinquishing the composer's narrative control and while allowing the composer to create an experience that improves the quality of leadership decision-making and delivers a compelling experience, preferably using story-driven simulation.

Story-driven simulation is a technology that expands on previous research efforts to create interactive experiences in virtual worlds where the outcomes are known and specified in advance by instructional designers (e.g., Cleave, 1997). This approach allows instructional designers to work with storyline writers to create a training experience that is dramatically engaging and includes a specific set of training experiences, but to do so in a manner that allows for a high degree of interactivity.

--------------====================
http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/04/11/cr ... andy-hook/

Updated April 14, 2013

A Memoryholeblog reader who wishes to remain anonymous has submitted the following Internet Archive captures of previously-published profiles from the CrisisActors.org website. These have been juxtaposed by the contributor with stills from news interviews with individuals appearing in various footage of the Sandy Hook massacre aftermath.

The following is presented with the caveat that since a good deal of forthrightly misleading digital image comparisons have circulated regarding Sandy Hook, researchers should exercise care when presenting and analyzing photographic evidence. These image comparisons are by no means posted as conclusive proof of a connection between CrisisActors and Sandy Hook and are for research and discussion purposes only.

The Internet Archive presently retrieves pages from CrisisActors.org only for Dec. 23, 2012 and thereafter...

=================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V1G4-7J4cw
911 and Boston marathon Bombing Super Witness Steve Silva

[JackRiddler]

Can anything stop you from starting a new "crisis actor" thread?

It is far from a certainty (I just saw a picture of someone online who looks exactly like a friend of mine but isn't), but:

Assuming that the woman filmed by one TV crew among the bystanders at the marathon is also the woman filmed by a different TV crew at the manhunt for Tsarnaev (which shut down a whole neighborhood) then you are well on your way to establishing that some lady who lives in Boston is some lady who lives in Boston.

I think it's very important to hunt this miscreant down! Perhaps a courageous truth-teller will do so and cause her some heartache and distress for no reason, like the moron who stole the memorial sign at Newtown the other day.

I can't decide if such behavior is worse or better than what most such truth-tellers will do: absolutely nothing. Except that they will spread the link all over the place for the enlightenment of "sheeple." They will remain impervious to the idea that there's no actual story here, and that there would not be a story even if the two clips do show the same woman in Boston who also lives in Boston. They will resist the temptation of the naive to apply reason in considering any alternative to "crisis actor."

They will especially resist the temptation to investigate, like a real "researcher" might, questions like: who is this; is it the same person in both clips; how (if she's a "crisis actor") does anything she say differ from what a genuine bystander would say; why, what function does she play as a "crisis actor"; in the service of which interest, pursuing what agenda, etc.?

Because that's hard! And besides, we already know the answer, and anyone who tries to stop us from insisting on it is T.H.E.M.

Our courageous truth-tellers will insist on the importance and relevance of this "finding" for dozens of pages on boards like RI. Also, they will associate their promotional activity with a deeply personal "waking up" to how everything's bullshit, therefore nothing is real, therefore statements are lies simply if they are delivered by the hated mainstream sources, therefore revolution against THEM, hooray. Except all these dumb Americans just don't see it, so oh well, let's masturbate.

Also, anyone who makes fun of this is a) violating their rights to free speech, and therefore equivalent to Hitler and Stalin, b) an agent dispatched by the bad guys, c) stopping people from asking questions, preventing valuable inquiry through close-mindedness, d) incredibly mean to stupid people, therefore wrong.*

It's not the inherent impossibility of the "crisis actor" theory that's so objectionable -- since it's not impossible, and there are documented examples of propaganda fakes, like the girl delivering the Kuwaiti "incubator baby" testimony. And we know corporations and governments engage in massive PR efforts and psychological management of the Internet through the deployment of fake personas and planned talking points on message boards, article comments, FB, etc.

The real problem, first, is the gullibility with which any and all examples advanced no matter how insignificant or irrelevant or implausible (like "Harley Guy") are taken up by a small sect of consumers of conspiracy merchandising, who then ride them brainlessly forever, for years.

It's, second, the repellent way in which this fashion has settled upon the practice of targeting, consistently and almost exclusively, the victims of some pretty horrible shit.

And third, the package deal mentality, the collusion between the "anti-conspiracists" and the people who tend to actually accept the "conspiracy theorist" label in pretending every form of deviation from conventional wisdom comes from the same source and somehow goes together.

The below graphic gives an example. My problem is that, since you do have fake testimony about incubator babies and fake Internet personas trolling boards on behalf of Monsanto and the U.S. military, those of us who wish to alert others to such activity are discredited through the false association with such moronic and thoughtless treatments as that advanced in the "crisis actor" video of the OP.



======

*( I'll accept e, spiritually weak in attacking stupid people and not being nicer when doing so, thus affectively wrong.)

[Wombaticus Rex]

^^And at the center of your bullshit Mega-Venn is MKULTRA, the most absurd, fraudulent, non-existent and wholly fabricated conspiracy fantasy in human history, with no documentation whatsoever to back it up. Worse than Icke's wildest confabulation.

Snark is often poisoned.

[JackRiddler]

^^And at the center of your bullshit Mega-Venn is MKULTRA, the most absurd, fraudulent, non-existent and wholly fabricated conspiracy fantasy in human history, with no documentation whatsoever to back it up. Worse than Icke's wildest confabulation.

Snark is often poisoned.

It's not mine! I'm posting it because it's a bullshit Mega-Venn. (See the "brainpan" thread, in which I deconstruct it.)

I wonder if you read what I wrote above the Mega-Venn? My point's not even that "crisis actor" is not possible. It's that the indiscriminate irrational deployment of such ideas ends up associated with all other ideas critical of the status quo, so that in the end we are stuck in a poisonous false dichotomy culture, wherein we are either with Alex Jones or for James Randi.

I'm saying it's on us as a truly skeptical community to protect the truth of things like MKULTRA against the "anti-conspiracists" by not accepting association with standardless, non-evidentiary, gut-feeling bullshit like the "crisis actor" video in the OP.

[Wombaticus Rex]

That is a really grim indication of my reading comprehension / frontal lobe processing.

Gonna take some time off to Just Stop.

[82_28]

Why do "crisis actors" only seem to "show up" during high profile events? Would we even notice the crisis actors were it not for the Internet and social media? Are there crisis actors?

I would say yes. I am not totally swayed with the clips presented above. However, there does remain the phenomenon that someone is clearly "crisis acting" and I can't tell which side. FOX guy, I totally think was a crisis actor.

Yet, why don't the crisis actors show up to "regular" crimes? A few people were shot to death in Seattle over the weekend. Nothing. If there are indeed crisis actors they certainly must be going to where they are told insofar as national psychological impact. I also think that the incipid media just views this kind of thing as a matter of course. They don't give a shit when they're getting footage of who the fuck they're talking to is. It's probably a known quotient that they are trained to ignore and just do their job which is present the spectacle.

[ShinShinKid]

Now Snowden...He's a crisis actor!!

[82_28]

Could be!

[MacCruiskeen]

Crisis actor? I'll give you crisis actor (complete with 1,000 enthusiastic claqeurs):



"Harley Guy" is Mister Authenticity by comparison. Seriously. I mean, ffs, he actually got away with that! I don't even mean the dirty deed, I mean the acting. Yet not one of the nation's elected representatives was seen to laugh, groan, bury his head in his hands, or even cringe discreetly. Instead, they gave him 53 unanimous* standing ovations.

*Presumably Max Cleland abstained.

[Searcher08]

The 4 minute mark of Chump's video gave me the creeps. Her body language was not congruent. So the woman was good friend's with Lanza's mother and went up to Boston with her and didn't know that she worked? Seriously WTF?

I think this is a really tricky difficult subject, designed with a shed load of disinfo built into it.

Given the history of US sponsored false flags (I have been watching the excellent 'Strategy of Tension') the idea of some form of potential hijacking of genuine events from a psyops point of view seems feasible to me. Not in the nonsense of 'it didn't happen (a la NoPlanes!!), but in a true LIHOP sense.

I think it would require very very cool heads steeped in deep politics to investigate it dispassionately - sure as fuck Alex Jones et al doesn't come to mind in that regard... Sites like 911myths.com totally fall apart when it comes to deep state aspects.

I wonder what ol' HMW would have made of it?