Quote: (03-25-2019 10:48 AM)TutorGuina Wrote:  

Not only that, but also putting police, healthcare, military, journos and neighbors on mutiple levels in for the dupe?

Everything from western governments and media is fake until proven otherwise. They are proven liars on just about everything that comes out of their mouths. They aren't real "journalists" anymore, they aren't getting to the bottom of anything. They just repeat what they're told to. It's not "hard to trick" 100 journalists because they don't do real investigating anyways.

This "mass shooting" crime scene was quickly scrubbed and swept away in a couple days by the police who are supposed to be investigating.

Yes, it's frightening the level of coordination possible, but when you consider all the people involved are:

- Under threat of losing their job
- Under threat of prison time for even mentioning anything different
- Muslims who have a code to lie to non-believers
- Media companies who won't print anything other than narrative

It makes perfect sense how all their interests are aligned. They're literally threatening prison time for questioning what they tell you, people don't have to be "duped" because the government is threatening them at gun point to not think anything different. You're assuming free-thinking and inquisitive media companies even exist. It's how they brainwash millennials so thoroughly, they can't fathom that many people lie to them with an agenda.

It's like when seth rich was murdered, many articles came out trying to shame anyone questioning the narrative. Imagine that with mandatory prison time for questioning seth rich online, you see how they can force compliance. New Zealand is just a bit further along than America in this regard.

Corporate crisis simulation event https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news...d=12163979

"Mock TV news reports, fake newspapers, social feeds going haywire, phones ringing non-stop and actors playing the roles of grumpy customers or antagonistic journalists are just some of the tactics employed during the simulations."

NZ Crisis simulation event two weeks ago https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=R9NAAW3ANN8X


How they paid for it, with a new "well being budget" https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/n...da-ardern/

https://campaignbrief.co.nz/2019/03/14/d...sx-the-re/

https://campaignbrief.co.nz/2019/02/28/p...ctivate-r/

PHD Group New Zealand has rebranded its Spark PR & Activate agency following an expansion of its service offering, unveiling the agency’s new identity, Drum, at a launch party in Auckland last night. Along with the new name comes a new ethos of helping “ambitious brands create and influence popular culture”.

https://crisisx.co.nz/#speakers

https://www.phdmedia.com/spark-pr-activa...imulation/

https://www.phdmedia.com/nz/drumcrisisx/ "sellout success"

"Spark PR & Activate of PHD Group launch CrisisX, world’s first global crisis simulation"


“We are planning this event to be as close to the real thing as possible because when it comes to crisis, talking heads is one thing, but the only way to really train for a crisis is to go through one,” he says.

Tickets are very limited. ..."

That's what we have been watching, the conclusion of a crisis conference. You will continue to see very serious problems with the criminal charges, cleanup and aftermath contradictions, as well as questions about people's identities.

Here's something interesting. Start typing "Brenton Tarrant" into YouTube. His full name doesn't come up as a suggested search as you are typing, suggesting they have removed that from suggested searches. Only mispellings such as Terrent, Tarrants and Tarant come up.

So we can watch JFK's head explode and people jumping from the WTC but not a guy shooting up a mosque. Makes sense.

Quote: (03-22-2019 04:04 PM)TutorGuina Wrote:  

I'm not a specialist in video editing, but it looked real and the song is congruent with the shooter's persona

Yes, the strangely detailed persona that has been created as a scapegoat.

Quote: (03-25-2019 10:48 AM)TutorGuina Wrote:  

I won't watch that video again, but from what I remember

Willful ignorance mixed with (poor) memory won't help you here. I'd advise to watch the video multiple times and cross-analyse it thoroughly before shooting down observations from people who have.

Quote: (03-25-2019 10:48 AM)TutorGuina Wrote:  

I won't watch that video again, but from what I remember he shot everyone inside the mosque and only one person outside, which was the scarfed woman

Watch it AGAIN. Carefully. He opens fire on multiple people outside, down alleys, at the back of the building. What he doesn't do is EVER shoot at the people (or person) wearing red who appear at key points in the video, outside of the building.

Quote: (03-22-2019 04:04 PM)TutorGuina Wrote:  

Even if it was some tricky psychological manipulation of a deranged loony by intelligence agencies, which is possible and already done before, you'd need some good evidence to support your claims
With an entirely fake shooting, the evidence must be nothing short of extraordinary

1. My claims aren't that the shooting is "entirely fake", you are attributing those "common" claims to me.

2. I (and others) are pointing out details that are *more* than a little weird, fake or gay. Some of these details point to this being a black op with more than just the POV shooter involved.

3. The aftermath of this event and new evidence popping up makes these observations credible. Goals were accomplished. Moves have been made.

By the way, someone else has done a video about the people in red. Don't worry, there is no gore, it's just still pics:

We've all known nutters who take things too far, we all know there are some downsides to Islam and mass-migration.

The real issue is how the authorities are exploiting this to push a preprepared agenda.

Quote: (03-25-2019 11:36 AM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Everything from western governments and media is fake until proven otherwise.

What kind of proof would you require to believe that the Christchurch shootings were real? (i.e. neither a hoax nor a false flag)

"Some of the world's most deadly sharpshooters were in Christchurch when New Zealand's worst ever terror attack unfolded on Friday, with NZSAS taking to the streets to help hunt the rampaging mosque shooter.

Snipers from the New Zealand military, as well as professional snipers from Australia and Asian countries, had been at the Defence Force shooting range at West Melton, 25kms west of the city, the Herald has been told.

When the massacre unfolded, they were sprung into action and understood to have been granted special powers to take up arms in order to protect the public."

NZSAS soldiers were photographed with weapons and balaclavas masking their face near the Al Noor Mosque by Hagley Park where a gunman stormed Friday prayer and shot dead more than 40 people.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz//nz/news/arti...ref=clavis

I guess we'll have to wait until the trial for a lot of the information.

Oh what's this ?


"The judge who presides over the case of the accused Christchurch gunman may invoke a rarely used order and hold the trial behind locked doors to protect “the security or defence of New Zealand”.

.....
Concerns were raised earlier this week when the Herald revealed accused mosque gunman Brenton Tarrant will represent himself in court, potentially turning his trial into a platform for his extreme beliefs — detailed in his manifesto.

.....
However, the High Court judge who will preside over what will be an unprecedented trial will have a range of laws at their disposal to maintain order — one of which could be holding the trial behind locked doors, with even members of the press banned from attending.

https://www.news.com.au/world/pacific/th...6bbe137e0a

If Tarrant is tried in secret it will be in contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.


From the New Zealand Bill of Rights

"25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure


Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:

(a) the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:"


http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publi...whole.html

No public trial its for your safety!
No crime scene its for your safety!
Show blurry face in court its for your safety!

Told you all that video was fake as hell

Click on the links I posted above, then you see why there cannot he a public trial.

How can you have a real trial for a fake character who did a fake event?

They will have a few evidence problems...

What if people in red were some kind of triggers (like used in MKUltra)?

What I don't understand is that if the video is simulation, what about gun shots? Did anyone actually seen with their own eyes this massacre or we are told it happened behind closed doors and we just heard shots fired?

Good analysis of the video here - quite a bit of which we've discussed or mentioned already:

https://jamesfetzer.org/2019/03/post-new...europeans/

I don't think anyone here has remarked on this though - from the article - the non-responsive bystanders:

"Non-Responsive Bystanders

Continuing, after the Shooter turns the vehicle around and parks, he loads up with weapons proceeds up the street to the Mosque, where here we see more irregularities, for example, when the Shooter appears for the first time on the street outside of the Mosque he encounters two bystanders appearing to be members of the community of people visiting the Mosque. But remember the gunman is wearing a full headset with mounted camera, is dressed in full military garb with attachments and is carrying at least two strangely painted military style weapons plus a fully loaded chest pouch of magazines, and yet he approaches the two people, standing a few feet away, without causing any concern or obvious fear. The man in photo does not even take his hands out of his pockets as the Shooter approaches (remember, the scene is first person from the perspective of the Shooter) Was the man an “observer” signaling it is all clear to begin the game?"

Quote: (03-25-2019 05:31 PM)rockoman Wrote:  

If Tarrant is tried in secret it will be in contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.


From the New Zealand Bill of Rights

"25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure


Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:

(a) the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:"


http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publi...whole.html

Hah!

That Bill of Rights is weak as piss by design, because it's an act of Parliament, not an element of the NZ Constitution. Want proof? Have a look at section 4 of your so-called Bill of Rights:

Quote:Quote:

4Other enactments not affected

No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights),—

(a)hold any provision of the enactment to be impliedly repealed or revoked, or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or

(b)decline to apply any provision of the enactment—

by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights.

What that means is that if the NZ Government passes a law that says "Trials of fuckheads shall be held in secret", a judge can't override that law on the basis that it conflicts with the Bill of Rights. In other words, they can fucking legislate for trials in secret and your shitty, pissweak Bill of Rights can't do fuck-all to stop them.

And if that didn't weaken the shit down enough, have a look at section 5, right after it:

Quote:Quote:

Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

You know what this is, my friends? This is a fucking weasel-out provision that says if a judge thinks the Bill of Rights keeps him from doing something he wants to, all he does is say that the rights are subject to what he thinks are reasonable limits and are demonstrably justified by reason of his own bootstrap levitation.

Oh, sure, there's section 6 which says an interpretation consistent with the Bill is to be "preferred". Oh, sure, there's your section 7 which says the AG has to shriek to Parliament if an Act appears inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. Doesn't fucking matter. Section 205, Criminal Procedure Act 2011, that's the authority for trials in secret, and I'll bet the moment the Bill of Rights is brought up, it'll be knocked down on the basis of sections 4 and 5.

The NZ Bill of Rights is a joke. The US got the way it structures its laws exactly right in this respect: they didn't leave the Constitution open to easy amendments or easy overrides for expediency by Congress -- you basically need two thirds of the states to agree on changes to it. Your governments do not actually want you to have rights that can be meaningfully exercised against them, meaningfully exercised in such a way that stands a chance of beating the State at the justice game.

No argument from me there Paracelsus.

But if they really do opt to try the accused in secret, then it will be another step on the road away from the Anglo-Saxon tradition of due process.

The expression 'trial behind closed doors' is more at home in a sentence also containing the words 'Soviet Union' or 'Military dictatorship'.

Let's look at the list:

Censorship of the video - backed by draconian threats of 10 years imprisonment.
Suppression of the 'manifesto'
Blurred pictures of the accused
Trial in secret and closed to the public (possible)

Is it truth or lies that fears the gaze of scrutiny?

^
BECAUSE IT WAS A TRAINING EVENT REPORTED AS REAL. THEY CANNOT HAVE REAL TRIALS. THE EVENT IS OVER AND THE REST WILL BE BRUSHED UNDER THE RUG.

https://www.phdmedia.com/nz/drumcrisisx/

What if the shooting was real but all this suppression of the evidence is just icing on the cake for the globalists to get the conspiracy theorists on the right worked up? Think about it, every time something like this happens all the right-leaning forums explode with hypotheses about how it might be a government action instead of a lone nutter. Then the left uses that to demonize the right as being either crazy or cruelly insensitive to the victims. Look at how they latched onto Alex Jones and wouldn't let go over him not initially believing in Sandy Hook.

Quote: (03-26-2019 03:17 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

What if the shooting was real but all this suppression of the evidence is just icing on the cake for the globalists to get the conspiracy theorists on the right worked up? Think about it, every time something like this happens all the right-leaning forums explode with hypotheses about how it might be a government action instead of a lone nutter. Then the left uses that to demonize the right as being either crazy or cruelly insensitive to the victims. Look at how they latched onto Alex Jones and wouldn't let go over him not initially believing in Sandy Hook.

Gotta admit, this makes sense. What is the best way to discredit your opposition? Make them believe in various "conspiracy theories" which will put people into wacko category.

NPCs (most of world population): "These guys actually think that massacre didn't happen? Huh, they are probably same guys who think Earth is flat!"

Next up, it is announced that Tarrant has waived his right to a public trial. He will be tried, convicted, and punished in secret; trust us on that, NPC.

I initially found the video pretty compelling, but I remain bothered by the people in the mosque (to the right as Tarrant entered the final room) who just kind of stood there not really moving or doing anything, 10-15 feet in front of Tarrant as he fired away. Rockoman has called them the non-responsive bystanders, above. That is gnawing at my brain. This whole thing may be bs.

Quote: (03-25-2019 06:52 AM)rockoman Wrote:  

From July 23rd 2018

"Survivors of one of the United States' deadliest school shootings have arrived in Christchurch.

The 28 students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida were welcomed to the city by the Student Volunteer Army (SVA) on Monday.

The students will take part in a summit focusing on connecting and enhancing youth leadership movements."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/1056995...hurch?rm=m

The article doesn't ask the obvious question: WHO paid for this trip?

It's a safe bet that Soros is behind this. It's not every day that an American decides to fly over 10,000 miles.

Quote: (03-26-2019 03:17 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

What if the shooting was real but all this suppression of the evidence is just icing on the cake for the globalists to get the conspiracy theorists on the right worked up? Think about it, every time something like this happens all the right-leaning forums explode with hypotheses about how it might be a government action instead of a lone nutter. Then the left uses that to demonize the right as being either crazy or cruelly insensitive to the victims. Look at how they latched onto Alex Jones and wouldn't let go over him not initially believing in Sandy Hook.

I take your point, but they then face the problem that trial evidence has to be congruent with the video AND with any actual murders and other events that took place.

I take the view that many more people are sceptical of the Establishment narrative on these events than we tend to think and I think this portion of the population is growing.

Let's see if there is a public trial. My current view is that murders took place but that this video is absurd.

Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that our opponents are omnipotent. Operations like this are difficult to carry out and in real life things have a way of going wrong, which I think is what happened here - the best laid plans of mice and men and all that. That those who are ultimately responsible go unpunished is not because these operations go perfectly, but because they hold all the levers of power - especially including the mass media and of course they have the whole legal system and the security state at their disposal.

Quote: (03-26-2019 10:03 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

Quote: (03-25-2019 06:52 AM)rockoman Wrote:  

From July 23rd 2018

"Survivors of one of the United States' deadliest school shootings have arrived in Christchurch.

The 28 students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida were welcomed to the city by the Student Volunteer Army (SVA) on Monday.

The students will take part in a summit focusing on connecting and enhancing youth leadership movements."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/1056995...hurch?rm=m

The article doesn't ask the obvious question: WHO paid for this trip?

It's a safe bet that Soros is behind this. It's not every day that an American decides to fly over 10,000 miles.

Absolutely - who paid? should always be way up there on the list of questions. In this regard it is very convenient that Tarrant is alleged to have made money with Bitconnect. This is very hard to prove either for or against Of course it would be interesting to see his tax returns, since if he really did make that money, then it would have been taxed.

In the context of Christchurch being the latest incident of this type after Parkland, two things in particular caught my eye about this.

1. Of all the places in the world that those Parkland students could have visited they chose Christchurch.

2. In the nine days following the Christchurch events two Parkland students committed suicide, although I don't know if those two were on the trip.

I just looked into the Bitconnect thing - I'm pretty ignorant in the crypto area. I didn't realize that it had collapsed.

The only proof we have that the accused made money with Bitconnect is the assertion in the manifesto.

As far as I know the manifesto is only digitally available. It could have been typed by anybody.

The beauty of such a 'manifesto ' thing is that it enables the architect of the event to construct a legend about the alleged perpetrator, which is then accepted as gospel truth by the same media which condemns unreservedly the alleged writer.

None of the facts asserted in the manifesto, ie sources of income or countries visited, can be accepted as true only on that basis.

They must be independently verified. That would mean such things as interviews with people who met Tarrant in the countries he visited, a paper trail in regard to his income etc etc.

One of the Prominent Muslim leaders in NZ named the Jew and blamed the attack on Mossad at a public rally.
There is a video out there but cant find easy on mobile.

Also:

This is the extent of New Zealands firearm problem that warrants a gun grab...