divideandconquer » Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:46 am wrote:
That's hard to answer because if it is real, I believe it was
staged to look like a hoax. I mean from the all too prepared cameraman to the Nike sneakers sticking out of cheap looking vestments to the lack of ceremony to the all too willing victim to the conveniently timed panic attack which makes it impossible to see what really happened...I mean, overall it looks silly. Maybe that's how it's supposed to look.
My own initial response was neither to believe it was real nor that it was an obvious fake. It looked to me like it
could be a real murder, but most likely wasn't (I'll get to why in a minute). If someone who saw the same video had told me they were sure it was real, I would have thought they were jumping to conclusions & being hopelessly naive. BUT, when someone says they are sure it is a hoax and that it is
obvious just by watching it, then I have a similar sort of reaction. I think a large part of the second response (sweeping disbelief) has to do with the belief that, if something like this were really enacted, it would not wind up as an amateur video on Youtube. This seems like a reasonable assumption, unless of course it were intended that way from the start. Another equally large part of the disbelief, I think, has to do with how
no one wants to be seen as a sucker. To even suggest that this video might be real is to risk a barrage of mocking voices telling you that ANYONE can see it's a fake and only a complete moron would think otherwise.
One question: can the possible fakeness of the event itself be examined as a separate question to the possible fakeness of the person filming it? At first I thought no, but on second thought, it clearly can, if we allow that a real event was staged with the intent to film it and make it look as though it had been captured by a random observer. This means even if we think that the guy filming it seems kind of fake, there's no need to conclude that the murder itself is fake.
Regarding the sneakers, details like this are interesting to me because, when they come up as evidence for the fakeness (& they raised my eyebrow too), they reveal certain assumptions we have that may be baseless. Here the assumption is that a real blood sacrifice as part of an occult ritual would not entail people wearing sneakers under their robes. Why not? Because serious occultists take these things seriously and we can expect they would follow one of the principles of ritual which is only wearing a single garment, hence the robe, and so really they
should be barefoot. But this itself requires an assumption that the only group that would perform a ritual sacrifice of this sort is what we think of as a "serious occultist" one. Maybe there are some occult groups that allow sneakers?
Even if we admit that the sneakers indicate that these are not "serious (by the book) occultists," clearly this enactment, even if a prank, required some very serious planning and could hardly have been a casual affair. So why be so sloppy as to allow for details such as the sneakers that make it appear somewhat silly? Either the robed actors wanted it to look fake or they didn't care if it did, and this is consistent both with a theory that it was actually fake and one that it was actually real. So then, the sneakers don't really prove much besides that, if these are actual occultists, they are pretty cavalier when it comes to the devotional rules.
I think the strongest point that the whole thing is bogus is what D & C calls the lack of ceremony: it all happens too damn fast for any sort of energy to be built up, so basically, if it was a real murder, then that's all it was, a murder disguised as an occult ritual. It's fair to ask why anyone would want to disguise a murder as an occult ritual and film it, unless the primary goal was the create a snuff film, one that wouldn't even show the murder in much gore or detail, so basically an anti-climactic snuff film. (Though there could have been a second cameraman.)
If we deduce from this that the murder was most probably faked (but even if it wasn't), and that the aim of the enactment was to create a video that would go viral and cause a bit of a scandal around CERN and lots of debate in the "conspiracy" community, then we are still left with the question
cui bono. The notion of a prank conveniently sidesteps this question, because pranks aren't about who benefits, they are all done for lultz. The all-for-lultz explanation doesn't seem to add up, however, because of the high-security location for the enactment. We are then left with a "psy-op," and psyops have a lot in common with pranks, except that they aren't all-for-lultz & it's the all-for-lulz part that really makes a prank a prank. A psyop is an organized head-fuck with specific intent, i.e, with a set desired outcome. That's the part of this that interests me personally, and it's also the part that we can examine first hand, because
we are the target of the psyop. Even if by some bizarre chain of random events, this was a prank for lultz, we can still look at the outcome and how it dovetails with what we have already deduced about the desired aims of TPTB.
Besides the points already raised at this thread, there's another which struck me yesterday, which is that psyops of this sort have a cumulative effect of normalizing bizarre & sinister behaviors and making them easier to get away with, without the need for concealment. Next time you pass a ritual sacrifice after midnight, Hey, never mind, it's just another of those wacky pranks! The less these activities have to be concealed, the less we are going to want to investigate them, because an attempt to conceal signals a mystery, even a crime, and attracts our attention. On the other hand, if we see people committing bizarre dodgy acts casually, as if nothing is happening, we tend to assume it's not what we think it is. (Every good shoplifter knows this.)
This then raises an even more interesting question for me: how our perceptual faculties seem to be designed to filter out serious anomalies, to the extent that we have no conscious awareness of seeing them (remember the man in the gorilla suit on the playing field example?). I recently spoke to an RA survivor who claimed that, when she was young, she was part of child abuse "parties" that occurred
in broad daylight in public places (parks generally). I expressed disbelief & asked for an explanation. She didn't really have one, she just stressed that this was her recollection. I don't personally feel like I can completely rule out the possibility that things are occurring on this scale right under our eyes, and that we simply don't see them. If so, a staged event of this sort might be playing into human perceptual mechanics in some hard-to-understand way, tweaking our assumptions this way or that to make us more amenable to consent of whatever sort facilitates the programs, goals, & desires being pursued...
