Kevin Scott King
One method I use to try and ascertain what the truth is from any narrative is what I call the Possible-Probable test. The first question I ask myself; “is what I just heard/read/seen possible?” And at this point my definition of possible is very very broad, in affect I’m willing to stretch to accept that something is possible. I’m trying to keep an open mind, I’m trying to be unbiased and neutral. With an emphasis on ‘trying’. Therefor I am reluctant to use the word impossible, until I am thoroughly convinced it is.
As an extreme example. If you randomly select one person from the world’s population could they run the 100m dash in under 10 seconds? It is possible, but improbable. In fact so improbable, so unlikely, that you could safely answer ‘No’. Now change it to 20 seconds. 30 seconds. The probability changes radically with each 10 second interval. Now let’s take two cases of alleged shooters from Sandy Hook and San Bernardino. Many have claimed that Adam Lanza and Tashfeen Malik were physically incapable (impossible) of carrying out their supposed feats of shooting. I beg to differ. Not impossible. Difficult, hard to move, slow… yes. Improbable? Yes. But realistically possible. If a young malnourished Somali boy can handle an AK-47, I’m confident these two could gear up and handle the weight for the short amount of time they were supposed to have been active. For the record I don’t think either did any shooting. I just disagree with the line of reasoning that it would have been impossible for them to do so. Hence I would not use it when trying to make my case for a false-flag.
So first I judge the possibility, and then I consider the probability. And when we get to probable it then moves to a sliding scale; from highly probable to highly improbable. So once I decide if something is possible, I then decide how probable is it. And as referenced with the 100m dash question above. The probability is so incredibly low of a random person running the 100m dash in under 10 seconds, that you could then safety assume it will not happen from your selection…, and though technically not impossible, for all intents and purposes you could consider it as such.
Of course as just mentioned we can move into such high improbabilities that we then can consider the impossible. The absolute impossible exists. But rarely do we see this, because it can be so quickly dismissed. But what we see time after time after time in false-flag events is a whole bunch of improbable elements, also called ‘coincidences’. And this becomes particularly important as we start to add these different elements together that then create the larger narrative.
As an example. Let us take Flight 77, the Boeing 757-200 that supposedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
It is possible that based on the provided flight path that a 757 was able to execute this acknowledged difficult maneuver and fly into the Pentagon?
– possible, improbable
Is it possible that a pilot who could not even fly a single-engine Cessna, with limited time on a real simulator, and no time in a real large body jet fly this maneuver?
– possible, highly improbable
Taking the last question but adding the fact that numerous professional pilots with 1000’s of hours in 757s have stated that the alleged flying feat of Flight 77 would either be a) extremely difficult or b) impossible, do you think Hani Hanjour performed this maneuver.
Now many stop here but we cannot assume that Hani was flying the plane, a more plausible or probable explanation would be remote control.
Is it possible a remote controlled 757 flew the alleged flight path into the Pentagon?
– possible, neutral
Hmm. Ok, well let’s consider a few more pieces of info. There are numerous pilots who when they claim that it was impossible for the 757 to make this maneuver it is because of the reported height of the plane just before it hit the Pentagon. According to some at this very low height a vortex of air is created between the ground and the plane that will pull the plane into the ground. Another consideration is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon where the alleged plane hit, based on the photographs before the wall collapsed. Then we have the issue of having no video feeds of the plane actually hitting the Pentagon, just some still frames that actually show nothing that can be identified as a plane. As well as we have the question of why did the plane not just crash into the top of the Pentagon, instead of performing a very difficult maneuver, crashing into the side opposite the direction it came, and hitting the only section of the Pentagon that had recently been renovated and hardened to resist missiles strikes?
Pilots stating plane would crash into ground if as low as officially stated, so ultimately this gets back to could a 757 actually fly this maneuver and hit the Pentagon?
– possible (but considering impossible), highly improbable
Does the damage to the exterior of the Pentagon indicate it was hit by a large commercial airliner?
– possible, highly improbable
Is it possible the only video feeds of the plane hitting came from the gate entrance location?
– possible, highly improbable (thus raising a huge red flag. Where are all the video feeds?)
Would the pilot instead of crashing into the huge top part of the Pentagon and hence doing maximum damage choose instead to pull a very difficult maneuver and hit the only hardened section of the Pentagon which is on the opposite side of the planes flight path?
– possible, highly improbable
So when I add all these element together I get case after case of improbable, to highly improbable, to pretty much impossible. And based on this preponderance of improbabilities I am comfortable in proclaiming that no 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Taking any of the above in isolation I would be unable to say impossible. But together they equal only one conclusion: impossible.
Let’s take another classic example. The Warren Commission(WC) claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunmen using a scoped Mannlicher–Carcano Model 91/38 rifle (rifle or Carcano for short), shooting from the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. So then the question to be answered is; could Oswald use this rifle to shoot and kill JFK?
The official narrative is that 3 shots were fired; the first shot hitting JFK passing through him and hitting Governor Connally (the ‘magic bullet’ theory, which according to the WC defied physics and left the slug un-deformed, but that is another discussion). The second shot missed and this is the one that kicked up a cement fragment that struck James Tague standing beneath the underpass along Main St. The third and last shot then is the alleged shot that hit Kennedy in the head and killed him.
As part of the Warren Commissions investigation they gathered three expert shooters to test whether the actual MC rifle purported used in the assassination could could be fired 3 times accurately within the estimated time window. Frankly I still not sure what the official estimated time window is, it’s either around 5.5 seconds or around 8 seconds. Now these shooters were in a tower, though how tall is not listed. But, they were NOT shooting at a moving target. They were shooting at 3 silhouette targets placed at the appropriate estimated distance of the rifle shots.
So basically these three guys were able to pull off the exact same shooting, and would you believe but all three missed the 2nd shot on the first attempt? Hmm… I wonder that the chances of that are? But they also had unlimited time to make the first shot. But if someone was shooting from the 6th floor window they would not have unlimited time for the first shot. Just the opposite, they have to pick up Kennedy coming from under the trees, track and fire. The second issue is how high was the tower they were shooting from? The height changes the angle, the greater the angle the more difficult the shot. But lastly, and the reason why this test is invalid, they were not shooting at a moving target. I can tell you from personal experience, that shooting at a moving target is much much more difficult than hitting a stationary one, and that is at close range being level with the target. One other piece of information, whatever skill level of shooter Oswald was, he was not in the same league as the three experts who shoot numerous rounds regularly.
Much has been made of Oswald’s shooting prowess. That he did not have the skill to make these shots. Oswald was a Marine, and all Marines, regardless of role (cook, truck driver, pilot, riflemen) must qualify regularly with a rifle, which Oswald did. Oswald was an intelligent man, which is why he was a radar operator, and not a truck driver. He had enough skill to fire a weapon accurately. However, his experience would be with the semi-auto M1 Garand, and not a manual bolt action rifle. There evidence of him shooting with a .22 bolt action rifle. Did he practice shooting before the event? His wife initially denied him ever practicing with the rifle. The better question is did he or how could he practice shooting at a moving target from an elevated position?
The other bone of contention is that the rifle itself was incapable of being the murder weapon. The Manlicher-Carcano rifle is cited in particular as being a poor weapon. It seems that it was an average weapon at best, with a somewhat tricky bolt, and by that I mean it was difficult to open and drop the bolt back, which pulls the used shell from the barrel. One thing is for certain there were many far better choices as a weapon than the alleged rifle, and easily obtainable in Texas, such as other bolt action WWII era rifles like the German Kar98, the Russian Mosin-Nagant, or the American Springfield M1903.
But the real issue with the rifle is not the weapon itself but the scope. It was reported as loose when the weapon was found (I have read/heard this many times but could not confirm). Also reported during the WC tests that shims were used in order to align the scope properly on the rifle, shims that were not originally there when the rifle was found. If the shims were not present when the rifle was found this would explain the scope being loose. The rifle was not designed for a scope (which explains the need for shims), and hence in order to mount a scope it had to be offset, meaning it does not sit directly on top the barrel but off to the side. This is inherently less accurate, and makes sighting in the scope more difficult. But the most damning evidence about this ‘inexpensive’ 4x telescopic scope as it is identified in the WC report is the following.
Robert Frazier, FBI firearms expert (WC testimony)
Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself–that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
The above is particularly damming. Imo it proves unequivocally that the scope is fundamentally flawed. To the point of more accurately being labeled broken. Also interesting in the WC where the three riflemen are testing the rifle there is no mention of issues with the scope at all. Which would indicate to me one of two possibilities. The scope had been properly mounted and aligned with shims before the test, and/or possibly repaired. Or an entirely different scope was used.
The Testimony in regards to the testing of the MC rifle is given by Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
There is another serious problem. The primary purpose of the WC’s test with the three shooters was to see if the 3 shots could be performed within the time window. But what they do not mention is numerous witnesses who said they heard 3 shots, said that the 3rd shot immediately followed the 2nd. This is impossible with a bolt action rifle of any kind… period.
Would three expert shooters replicating the alleged shooting, in which the 1st and 3rd shots were hits but the 2nd a miss, all miss the 2nd shot on their first attempt?
-possible, highly improbable
Would Oswald, with experience with rifles, mail order a Manlicher-Carcano rifle, when he could easily obtain a better rifle where he lived in Texas?
– possible, improbable
Could Oswald accurately and consistently hit a stationary target, let alone moving one, with the rifle using an un-shimmed flawed scope and therefor misaligned?
– possible, highly improbable
Could anyone accurately and consistently hit a stationary target, let alone moving one, with the rifle using an un-shimmed flawed scope and therefor misaligned?
– possible, improbable
Did Oswald have the basic shooting skills to being able to make the alleged shots?
-possible, slightly probable
Could anyone get off the three shots hitting Kennedy twice, using the alleged rifle with it’s flawed scope?
Could anyone get off the three shots hitting Kennedy twice, using the alleged rifle with it’s flawed scope, where the 3rd shot immediately follows the 2nd shot?
Based on the above then I can confidently assert that Oswald did not make the three alleged shots using the Mannlicher–Carcano Model 91/38. And from there I would go to the next level. Did Oswald do the shooting at all? If the alleged rifle is not the murder weapon than what is and where did it go? Was there more than 2 bullet hits as reported by the Warren Commission? Which then leads to the next round of possible-probable questions in the fascinating JFK case.
SideNote: I need to be clear that my above examples are not an exact replication of my thought processes. It is never that orderly or precise. Quite the opposite. First, because rarely does one gather all the information together at one time. Normally you get bits and pieces. So my thinking initially can be quite scattered and non-linear. It’s only after a good deal of reading, research, speculation that I then think through the data in a more disciplined manner. But I use the basic possible-probable test to help decide where to focus. For instance, I view the ‘Magic Bullet’ theory as impossible, actually I move it pass impossible into ridiculous. Therefor I won’t spend my time there. I also try, mind you I said try, to stay open and willing to change if presented with evidence that contradicts a position I hold. I’m not trying to be ‘right’, I’m trying to discover what actually happened. And since we never do, and probably never will, get all the facts or all the testimony, then all our conclusions are made using partial evidence of what really happened. What has become important for me personally is that I can justify to myself why I believe the things I do.
The above two examples have been looking at two pieces of much larger events. Drilling down into the details. It is the piecing together of the details that allows one to view the bigger picture. Attempting then to see the bigger picture, let’s step beyond looking at one false-flag event and look at mass shootings in general. When we do so we find a common theme that happens again, and again, and again. Coincidence? Hmm. Actually there are multiple common themes as mentioned in my original article. But I want to focus on one in particular, and use the Possible-Probable test.
Our last two mass shooting events (Paris Friday 13th, San Bernardino) had this identical occurrence, that of some kind of emergency services drill occurring on the same day, or time and at the same location or close by. Emergency services can include Police, Firemen, EMT, and go from local, state, to national organizations being involved. In particular the specific kind of drills performed can include mass shooting events. In which Law Enforcement practices response actions to such an event, and Fire and EMT practice how to deal with mass casualties. In order to make these drills more realistic, and hopefully then more effective, they often times employ crisis actors. Who can simulate perpetrators, victims, or injured. Or emergency personnel for that matter.
These drills tend to be rather elaborate affairs, and if they are simulating a mass shooting with mass casualties then they will involve a large number of personnel and their associated vehicles. One other important point. These drills are government sponsored. And they cannot run these drills just anywhere. For instance a Mall is not going to allow a drill like this to occur, as they tend to be all day events. Therefor since these are Government drills the easiest place and least disruptive to the public is to conduct them at government controlled locations. Such as a school that is closed, like during the summer, or closed permanently… such as Sandy Hook. Or like the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, a government funded facility providing services for developmentally disabled persons.
Let’s then consider two items. How many potential soft target locations are there that could be chosen by a perpetrator? This number is huge. Churches, schools (public, private, college), restaurants, retail stores, banks, convenience store, pharmacies, office parks, grocery stores, etc. Many, many, many locations that have a large number of potential victims in a relatively small area.
Now let’s compare that to potential number of locations that could be used for drills. You can rule out many simply because the location is not or cannot allow an all day drill to disrupt their business. So then the potential number of drill locations is but a very small subset of all possible locations.
Lastly, and let’s just stay in the USA for the time period, a mass shooting could happen anywhere and anytime where a large numbers of people congregate. But for any one day in the USA there is only going to be a small number of drills being conducted. So potential targets in the USA would be in the 10’s of millions, and number of emergency services drills in the… hundreds, thousands maybe?
Simple math will show that the probability of a mass shooting taking place at the same location and time period as a drill are ridiculously small. I’ll be super generous and say 10,000 drills are occurring everyday in the USA. So let’s say there are 10 million potential targets. 10,000/10,000,000 = .1% (or 1 chance in 1000). Let’s go crazy generous and say 100,000 drills and 1 million targets, 100,000/1,000,000 = 10%, still a very low percentage.
A 1% chance of the perpetrator(s) picking the same date/time/location as an emergency services drill is being extremely generous, but let’s use it since it keeps it simple.
Is it possible that perpetrators for any one event picked the same date/time/location where drills were currently occurring, occurring at the same time close by, or occurred within 24 hours?
– possible, highly improbable
For events where the drill was actually occurring at the same date/time/location as the shooting, what are the chances that the perpetrators would not notice personnel/activity related to the drill?
– possible, improbable
For events where the drill was actually occurring at the same date/time/location as the shooting, what are the chances that the perpetrators would notice personnel/activity related to the drill and choose to go ahead with their plan regardless?
– possible, highly improbable
One last tidbit of information here, we’ve been focusing on mass shootings and drills practicing for mass shootings. Did you know on the morning of 9/11 there were multiple drills practicing an airplane hijacking? Did you know that during the London 7/7 bombings they were practicing the EXACT same scenario that actually occurred? Did you know there were bomb drills occurring during the Boston Marathon on the day of the bombing? Did you know on the morning of the Paris, Friday 13th attacks that emergency personnel practiced a large scale terrorist attack involving multiple locations?
What are the chances that numerous mass casualty events could be having drills occurring at the same time and of the same type if these events are perpetrated by people completely unconnected with one another?
What are the chances that numerous mass casualty events could be having drills occurring at the same time and of the same type if these events are perpetrated by the same or similar groups of people?
– possible, highly probable
You can write off one coincidence, or a couple. But not numerous ones, not one after the other at a single event. And not the same ‘coincidence’ happening at these supposed unrelated events time after time after time.
When researching or doing deep study of potential false-flag events one keeps running into all these ‘coincidences’. To the point, as stated above, that it’s simply impossible to have so many. Which led me to create my ‘coincidence’ theorem.
1 coincidence: possible
2 coincidences: suspicious
3 coincidences: a plan
10+ coincidences: False-flag event
100+ coincidences: Massive False-flag event (9/11, JFK)
Using then this theorem in regards to drills at mass casualty events one can but only conclude that this is no ‘coincidence’ but a deliberate plan. That these events are not unrelated. That specific groups are conducting these false-flag events for specific agendas. These groups have national and international reach. They at the least have access, control within the Government(s). They are either creating the drill to create the event, or piggy backing onto an already scheduled legitimate drill. This requires Federal(National) level of involvement.
I want to reiterate that at any event, regardless of how large. It only takes a relatively small number of individuals to control the ‘scene’. The insiders, the secret society members. Most participants are simply knowing-willing participants in a legitimate practice ‘drill’, who then become unknowing-unwilling participants in a drill taken ‘live’. But the ‘controller’ of these events does have to be high up the chain of command, they have to have the requisite authority to control the situation. And usually this person(s) will be at the Federal (National) level of Government. DHS, FBI, FEMA, etc.
In the above examples the focus was on one element within a much larger event (9/11, JFK), or looking at false-flags in general. Going from the specific to the broad, or highly focused vs looking at the big picture. When researching one event both are done. First looking at individual elements within an event and determining possible-probable, and then taking all the elements together to see the big picture. By doing this one is able then to determine for themselves the likely hood of whether any particular event has been staged or is legitimate.
If you have never spent serious time investigating any one false-flag event I would highly encourage you to do so. I would avoid 9/11, JFK at first simply because they are both so huge. Pick one of the smaller events. And do a detail study of it. Make a concerted effort to stay neutral. Investigate all sides. Be open, then be critical. Ask yourself questions as you investigate. Does this make sense? Is this possible? Why would they do this? Who benefits? Question your sources of information, are they bias, or possibly misinformation agents? By making the investment to study one event in detail you can then be certain in your own convictions as to what did and did not happen, and be able to justify your positions. And by becoming an expert in one event, it makes it easier to study others.
I consider myself well versed with the JFK story. With that being said when writing this article I forced myself to back-up some of the often cited ‘evidence’ concerning Oswald’s shooting acumen and the accuracy of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The common themes being Oswald was a terrible shot, and the rifle could not hit the broad side of a barn. So I did some digging, or more digging to be precise. Jumped back into the hole, as it were. Imo, and this is backed up be evidence, Oswald was an intelligent man. Most persons with the time and proclivity can become an accurate, consistent shot with a firearm. It seems to me what I was reading about Oswald and firearms is that he had no particular interest in them. Possibly found it boring, and hence his effort was unfocused or half-assed. I think if Oswald wanted to be a good shot he could have been, it just was not his thing. So I don’t buy into the common sentiment that Oswald was incapable of making the supposed shots. Now how probable, that is a different issue.
As for the rifle. As stated there were much better WWII era rifles than the Carcano, and all readily available. Not to mention a plethora of hunting/deer rifles. An excellent question to investigate is why the Carcano? And there is plenty of information available that gives a good explanation as to why for those who wish to dig deeper. Was it a POS? No, nor was it a tack driver either. Tack driver means when shooting multiple times at a target the grouping of shots is so close as to be on top of each other. It was accurate enough at 100yds to get the job done. (This is a change of opinion for myself).
However, and I was not aware of this until diving deep, and in particular diving into the Warren Commission report, and specifically the Testimony parts. It is here where I discovered and confirmed that the real problem with the alleged assassination weapon was not the rifle itself but the scope. In which it had 2 huge issues. One, it was essentially broken (it was a POS), and two it was not mounted properly when the rifle was found. Either of which would have made the rifle inherently inaccurate, but combined it renders the Carcano it was mounted to incapable of being the assassination weapon. I do not consider myself a JFK expert, but I am knowledgeable, and I can’t remember any serious focus within the JFK community on the real issue concerning the alleged assassination weapon, that of the scope. And that raises a flag for me… but that’s a different discussion.
This leads me to another point. In my experience from studying potential false-flag events it is relatively easy to prove that the official narrative of the event is incorrect, or impossible. However, what is extremely difficult is piecing together what actually happened. This is where one must ‘theorize’. And one must do so with incomplete, missing, or deliberately tainted information. This is also where disinformation agents move in to muddy the waters. The JFK case in particular has some very thick dark muddy waters. Therefor there are two separate elements when studying false-flags events. First one is disproving the official narrative, the second is a theory as to who and what really happened. Because of this reality some people get hung up in the fact that the official narrative seems to be false, but they cannot or will not accept the proposed theory and therefor decide to stick with the official narrative even if they no longer really believe it either. Better the devil you know? Those who want to keep an event concealed deliberately introduce false information, spurious theories, and illogical conclusions. The point is to distract, generate confusion and thus create doubt… and keep the doubters planted in the official narrative camp.
Less than a month after San Bernardino we get Trenton the blacksmith trying to somehow relate his test of a 1/2 steel bar, using a Furnace!, with inches thick steel girders, exposed to office fires. The timing of this video is interesting. I suspect that the quick and for the most part solid debunking of the San Bernardino event led people to ‘rethink’ 9/11. This video was an attempt to bring those new ‘doubters’ back into line. Of course the creator itself is a solid indicator of who the target audience was for the video. Remember, we are in an information war. One other quick item. You do realize how ridiculously easy it is to create ‘Views’ and ‘Likes’ for a video, right? It’s a simple as typing this sentence. Social media, and that includes YouTube (and it’s comments), is now the primary information war battleground.
But the Trenton video is a common tactic of taking one piece, one element trying to disprove it and then applying it to the whole. This is a type of logical fallacy called the Composition Fallacy; ‘What’s true for the individual part of a whole is true for the entire whole form.’ Technically this would be a Reverse Composition Fallacy. So Trenton supposedly debunking the ‘jet fuel fires can’t melt steel beams’ assertion as ‘ridiculous’ is thereby inferring ALL 9/11 theories challenging the official narrative are false. The test he did is full of holes, but furthermore you cannot compare a thin steel rod to inches thick steel girders. Tied together in a lattice work of crossbeams and support beams. The interior framework of the WTC towers was VERY sturdy, extremely strong. It was the main support structure for the tower, it only housed elevator shafts. The jet fuel burned off quickly, it was offices fires after that. And regardless of how hot the office fires got they were BETWEEN the internal steel grid framework and the external walls, which means their heat was not focused on either. And even if office fires could melt or soften steel to a point of collapsing this still does not explain how the towers completely collapsed and disintegrated.
Go do some research on your own. It’s one thing to read a book where a person makes an assertion based on, say, the Warren Commission, even citing the page and section. It’s another thing to read the Warren Commission document yourself. If you are interested in becoming at least knowledgeable on one false-flag but not sure which to chose from I’d suggest first avoiding 9/11 and JFK just because they are so massive. My suggestions; for recent ones dive into San Bernardino or Paris Friday 13th, they are very fresh and certainly could stand some more scrutiny. Charlie Hebdo earlier this year. Then farther back I would suggest the OKC Bombing, Port Arthur, Australia shooting, or what I think is an overlooked one and possibly would fall under the failed attempt category is the WTC bombings in ’93.
67 thought on “False-Flag Terror Research: The Coincidence Theorem”
Reblogged this on Today,s Thought.
James Tracy harassed with email hack & obscene post card
Unbelieveable. These people are sick.
How many readers here, personally, have initiated contact with any of the Sandy Hook parents? In fact, I don’t think Dr. Tracy has. Anyone?
(Sorry, I don’t mean to high jack the comments of this article.)
Well, I have not. In a sense, it really isn’t about them. It’s about us being victims of a government hoax. Those who willingly participate are disgusting, but they have to carry their own crosses.
This is how TPTB win. There aren’t enough of them to do it alone. They enlist the services of morons. There’s no shortage of morons. All they have to do is pat them on their nappy little heads.
It’s sick, but not surprising.
“How many readers here, personally, have initiated contact with any of the Sandy Hook parents? In fact, I don’t think Dr. Tracy has. Anyone?”
The question is a non-starter. People believe that they are acting on behalf of a benevolent government master. This theory of the beneficial dictatorship goes back to, at least, Plato in The Republic, where he suggested that children should be taken and raised by the state from birth so they would have sole allegiance to the state (how different are the current day Scottish “government minders”?). The road to hell is paved with good intentions. These families are the government. I have researched this issue enough to know that a prima facie case for fraud has been made. It is up to the government to prove the truthers wrong. This won’t happen because of widespread apathy. When they try to take away the guns, and its only a matter of time, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with blood.
I doubt that its apathy. You could bring this case all tied up with a bow. Who’s gonna prosecute the President, Attorney General, the Governor of Connecticut, et al?
We have to be creative. There are no “others” to turn to. We take control of our lives or someone else will Believing that someone is going to ride in on a white charger is delusional.
In this case, the “knights” work for the other guy. Did they break the law. Yes, but not how most think. The lie is not illegal. Now, falsifying records, conducting fraudulent charity efforts, etc., are almost certainly crimes.
It doesn’t matter because no one will prosecute. The best product of all the research is that some people who currently are asleep will awaken. If they no longer believe the tripe they’re being served, there will be no benefit in it for the fraudsters.
Frankly, if no good comes of it there really aren’t any other options. If we don’t believe something, we don’t believe something. No one has to. Faith-based reporting is a loser.
I’m not a philosophical dreamer waiting for a white knight to bring down the system. I’m pragmatic enough to disdain liberals who believe that anyone is capable of great power without becoming corrupt and tyrannical. I think that the whole checks and balances idea presumes that we are all capable of being monsters if given unchecked power. I’m waiting for a Watergate moment to release all of that energy created by the cognitive dissonance between the people and their representatives in government doing one thing while proclaiming to believe in the opposite. On my blog, I write about community mobbing, and, after a lot of research, I believe that a Stasi system is now in place in this country. About one in six households is engaged in intensive surveillance and harassment of targets nationwide. A large percentage of the criminal element is engaged in this, as are the local police, emergency services, etc. If Anonymous and other groups are not controlled opposition, then I find it hard to believe that this abomination has not been exposed.
Hmm. I’ve been convinced for awhile now that American is divided into 2 primary camps. Those who spy, and the spied upon. I also was becoming more convinced that the ‘spyers’ was a larger group than I first imagined… 15% would not surprise me in the least.
One other thought. I’m not convinced that all the spyers are blackhat or malevolent. But since I have a fundamental issue with any invasion of privacy or mass surveillance I make no distinction. It is the invasion of privacy that is the crime, intentions are immaterial.
I do not think that the civilian spy is necessarily bad, in some instances, he or she is caught up in a system that’s gone bad. It is not different than the citizens who took orders in the past from the Stasi/KGB, etc. I am convinced that we are becoming a closed society as described by Hannah Arendt, and, more recently Naomi Wolf.
About the scope of the community spying that they admit to, this manual on Neighborhood Watch by the National Sheriffs’ Association is revealing:
Kevin, that’s an interesting point. I think that I see it slightly different. There are, of course, the controllers. The “spies” may be those who actively seeking acceptance and/or special treatment. The “vast unwashed” fall into those, as Patrick said, who are terminally stupid and those who are willfully ignorant.
It doesn’t help that the controllers exert pressure to ensure that knowledge is a dangerous thing. Most are frightened and think that by keeping their heads down and at least feigning support they will be spared.
Well, the slaughterhouse doesn’t care if the cattle are docile or rambunctious. The end is the same. No matter what a person’s reasoning is for their actions, if they allow others to decide their fate they are doomed.
Reliance on the forms we were schooled to believe existed will be our undoing. We need to stop asking. We need to simply DO. Every time we ask “please, don’t do that to me”, we are further bolstering their authority.
Has anyone noticed how frightened they are of the so-called “patriot movement”? Why do you think that is? It is because they don’t care what they say or do. There’s a lesson here. Of course the problem they have is that they think they can organize this.
Any organization will quickly be infiltrated and destroyed. You don’t get extra points for “bravery” by making yourself a target. Patrick’s example of the guy at the bar is a good one. Being “stupid and proud” is a formula for extinction. Using one’s brain might help one survive.
As usual, lophatt, you make eminent sense. Here’s something I would tweak, though, in your remark:
“Well, the slaughterhouse doesn’t care if the cattle are docile or rambunctious. The end is the same. No matter what a person’s”
If you saw the excellent, true, movie, of Temple Grandin’s life–and having an adult autistic daughter I have no doubt you did–you remember the scenes where she tries to convince the guys who slaughter cattle that it is in their interest to set up the operation to make the cows happy to walk that plank. They resisted, those guys, having no interest in the feelings of the animals. She felt the emotion in the mooing, and the big shots mocked her–but she was right. She said that listening to her would save them money, even if it cost more up front. Happy cattle are the way to go.
Last I heard, half of cattle operations use her methods today.
So, they want us to walk into the FEMA camps docile, I’m guessing. They are pure evil, but they don’t want disruptions. They are slow learners, being necessarily unpredisposed to treating us kindly, but if it is in their interests, they can reluctantly be convinced to trick us into being happy on the way to that bolt shot to the temple.
Can we be accused of apathy regarding the drive for prosecution of the guilty parties? Are we conceding that the perps are too big to fall?
Your writing makes me wonder if characters like Malloy and Carver, are, indeed, totally controlled by higher ups? Does Malloy think he will get a lofty position in the new Clinton government if he pledges allegiance to the flag and corruption for which it stands? Carver has written a couple replies in the Courant Letters to the Editor column,nothing deep or provocative. These were expendable tools during Sandy Hook, barely above useless eaters themselves. As were many other state employees, Connecticut is being used as a spearhead for the gun confiscation event if/when it comes, Malloy wants to be the first to deliver the “good news” to his citizenry.
Pretty clear that nearly total anarchy is here accompanied by its bastard son, tyranny. Not a legitimate judiciary on the horizon no matter how far you look. It was always clear to me that if “they” couldn’t do things by rule of law, they’d skip it and take the dirt road.
Recynd….that Head Cop threatened to arrest anyone attempting to contact any family members. I read an article where he even had a bonafide reporter run out of town for asking inconvenient questions. That type of behavior tends to put a damper on inquiring minds.
disgusting. there is no evidence that a government organ isn’t doing the harassing, since there appears to be concerted attack. but it may just be sickos.
I personally doubt that any Liberty Tree is going to be watered anytime soon (or ever). Sad, but true. Nobody was willing to fight when it was still possible for the battle to be won; now that it’s a losing proposition (let alone by the time they come for our guns), THAT’S when the Patriots will spring into action? I’ll believe it when I see it.
There are a few possibilities re: the culprits of the hate mail: the Feds, a lone loony, an Anonymous group, someone involved in SH or BMB, someone in the MSM, or someone in FAU administration (that’s my husband’s theory). Those are the possibilities. (Did I forget anyone?). I doubt it’s Anonymous or an unaffiliated lone nut.
My point was that this is out of the “Rules for Radicals” handbook: project behavior (make accusations of harassment) then turn the tables (do the harassing). Who comes to mind?
Reblogged this on happytailswag.
9/11 possible/probable: This among my favorites – “The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.
Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers…” – BBC News 2-28-03
Wow! Lucky they got the names of those guys that afternoon and could get to those rental cars and hotel rooms before the maid service showed up. Man, the FBI can really move. When you are willing to believe, anything will do.
Possible? Maybe. Probable – Nope. And for 10 – impossible. However, this misses the point: “Men believe what they wish to be true.”
1st, determine what men wish to be true. 2nd, offer anything that can provide that place. 1/2″ bar heated in a furnace works very well.
I want to see that anvil warmed up!
— in an hour!
The other way in which the FBI was seen to really move on 9/11 is that on the very same morning they collected every security camera film in range of the Pentagon. So, who told them to do that? Who thought, in the middle of an emergency, to tell them to do that?
its highly probable that almost everything on the television, radio, in print via mass media is a scripted production either made by filming a drill & televising it or is a total false flag attack perpetrated on site by the nefarious organised crime syndication that is working hastily on gaining control of & destroying America. The people better wake up & quickly because we are in dire straights unless they do. & Thank God for James Tracy & his Memory Hole site ( & all the Authors on it ) for being a prime source for waking up thousands of people with the continual strikes from this site against the horrible EVIL that is apon us : MAINSTREAM MEDIA BEING USED AS A MILITARY WEAPON – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bets2iwgQMI – please keep up the great work , I share these articles far & wide to bring as much awareness as possible with the outstanding research & hard work the Authors are doing to wake up the population. Thank You ALL .
It seems to me at this point in time the safe assumption is ‘scripted production’, until proven otherwise.
Based on what I’ve picked up on in regards to just the CIA alone and it’s role or influence in the media, ‘MSM as a weapon’ is a most accurate and appropriate description.
Social engineering is where my focus at TruthShock will be for the foreseeable future.
I really liked your article. I go through the same thought processes asking ” how likely is it?”
Reblogged this on The PPJ Gazette and commented:
When it is all laid out in this fashion, it would appear that the “conspiracy therorists” are those who cling to the theory of 9/11 as told by the government. They would also be the same conspiracy nuts who think Oswald actually killed JFK.
PPJ and All:
The following say sit all.
Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.
Kevin Scott King:
I don’t know if you did an outstanding or brilliant analysis here, so I’ll just say you did both.
The only fact I could add is that the Carcano was a $12.95, mail order piece of junk and, as you say, couldn’t hit the side of a barn door.
The American people aren’t stupid, just afraid. Fear has its followers, but I cannot understand why and how tens of millions are afraid.
Based on my direct knowledge, if you have a desire to receive and write about public corruption and government crime stories, let me know.
As you say “The American people aren’t stupid, just afraid” – I would say that applies to a small segment however. The minute those people begin to investigate on their own, they find intimidation. Then the fear kicks in.
The question as to whether it is worth it comes from how it will affect their otherwise serene existence (minus TSA, etc.). They are in the bath, some say, which boils the frog. Hard to look back and see how much has been accepted which would have been beyond the pale.
People in really lousy parts of the world, where mere survival might lead them into leaky boats for parts uncertain, would not have let our fears stop them. And has it has often been said when we few kick against the traces of our false narrative society, they’d happily exchange their circumstances for ours and probably avoid all confrontation with authority if it would leave them alone.
A critical point has not been reached for the American people to put our fears of the makers of these pageants into sharp focus. Somehow, its a nuisance we live with here – so far. Of course, it is valuable to enmesh the society in false narratives because actual critique of our system would shake up a lot of it. For instance, we’d probably have more work but also more pollution. The warehouses of the port of Los Angeles receiving Chinese goods would become workshops instead. There’d be industries that would create internal competition and controversy. Perhaps the model on infinite growth would be turned on its ear – but I think that is happening anyway, with different propaganda around it.
I would swear while researching for the article I saw it listed as $19.95 w/ scope… I have no inclination to confirm as it is immaterial. And my conclusion was the rifle was adequate enough to get the job done, it was the scope that was a POS.
I agree the American people are not stupid, stupefied though thanks to the MSM. Americans are afraid. The reason why was just mentioned… MSM. ‘Fear’ is quite possibly the most ‘sold’ product on TV. With it’s only real competitor for the top spot being ‘Sex’.
My bad, ‘Pharmaceuticals’ called and asked for consideration as well…
Sorry, Kevin. Americans are stupid.
And they definitely are not afraid.
Americans swagger around, convinced they know it all. Go to a neighborhood tavern. Sit at the bar. Chat with the fellow next to you. Chances are, he’s a swaggering chap, afraid of nothing. Tell him the truth about Sandy Hook, or any of the other hoaxes, and you’ll invite a punch in the nose.
Why is that? Because he’s stupid, and unafraid. He wants us to turn the sands of Arabia into a vast sheet of glass. He’s proud of his stupidity, and would boldly volunteer to push the button that would make that happen.
Mencken wrote essay after essay about the stupidity of the average American, in the 20s, and they were a lot smarter then than they are now. But Tocqueville wrote the same in the 1830s, and those specimens were a whole lot smarter than the ones in the 1920s.
We should not romanticize the people around us. We need to admit the truth. They are stupid, and fearless. They LIKE Obamacare enough that they do not complain when the politicians they enthusiastically vote for refuse to make it go away.
Think about that.
WC Fields said “never wisen up a chump.” Try it some time. Sit at the neighborhood saloon’s bar stool, and try to persuade he’s all wet about the most recent media pageantry. Then, duck.
Maybe, that stupido, deep down, will try to deck you because he’s unconsciously afraid what you say is true. But who cares? He’s stupid enough not to know that about himself.
We are SO screwed.
Pat, your comment brought to mind a video from Adam Kokesh a while back: http://youtu.be/fv9u6Eh8wHs
For the record, I am not a proponent of NVC (though it worked well here, if that in fact is what he used). Rather, the video’s a good example of what you need to be prepared for in the face of a big, dumb, certainly-not-afraid American.
I understand your point of view patrick but disagree. You’ve identified a subset of America, who imo is afraid, he certainly is afraid of Muslims, his bravado is his cloak. They are not stupid. They’ve been mentally manipulated and misled their whole lives. They, like most, don’t really understand why they believe what they believe.
Imo by labeling as stupid it gives others the right to disparage, ignore, or give up on. I refuse to do this. The spell they are under can be broken, and minds can be restored to rational thought. Not saying that is easy, possible yes, probable…?
The more dynamic approach is not to add up improbabilities but to multiply them, which quickly brings you to impossibility. If something, and then another thing are both 1/10 possible, if you are adding up you might get 1/5 possible. But it is more likely that you will get 1/10 X 1/10, which is 1/100.
This improbability does not settle the whole thing, because there are unique situations which are highly improbable, but true. That’s why people suspend disbelief when watching a fictional scenario because after all, it could happen. But we go beyond that – we accept many magical things, quite fiercely – such as religious dogmas, because they meet some emotional needs and we were taught them in childhood. We have the choice of seeing them as unique and exceptional, something we personally choose to believe or we can dogmatically insist that they are reality.
As I see it, the world of false flags depends heavily on prior prejudice, a lot based on religious affiliation. It’s simply a reinforcement of myth. The rational mind shuts down and turns its trust over to the authorities (even if they are lame television personalities). Thus, highly improbable events are swallowed whole.
“…not to add up improbabilities but to multiply them,…”
You are correct, and this actually what one is doing mentally. I debated about getting into the ‘math’ side but chose to keep it simple.
I concur with your sentiments. It is this shutting down of the mind, the turning off of ‘thinking’ that allows one to swallow these illusions as real.
The MSM and the Education System are designed to discourage rational/logical thought. Just consume, trust authorities, ask no questions, believe what you hear, and everything will be fine…
and ignore that man behind the curtain.
I think you are so right and what we all can do is to always think critically comment non-judgmentally and ask tactfully in our conversations with friends and family, like Confucius or Jesus would when confronted with opposition of some of these very unlikely scenarios, This is especially true of younger people who are in our orbit and need to know that sometimes it is OK to question authority
Just as Mother Theresa said, ” I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.”
[…] December 26, 2015 admin Leave a comment December 26, 2015 […]
I like a newly coined term by Jeff C.
“coinky-dink”. He looks at the timelines of various false flags and exclaimed, ” it’s just a coinky-dink”. ( from the diminuative slang adjective Rinky-dink)
Reblogged this on David Visentin's Web Log, Links & Commentary Towards Real Democracy and commented:
Brilliant article, hardest part deciding which paragraph to excerpt, I’ll go with this one: “If you have never spent serious time investigating any one false-flag event I would highly encourage you to do so. I would avoid 9/11, JFK at first simply because they are both so huge. Pick one of the smaller events. And do a detail study of it. Make a concerted effort to stay neutral. Investigate all sides. Be open, then be critical. Ask yourself questions as you investigate. Does this make sense? Is this possible? Why would they do this? Who benefits? Question your sources of information, are they bias, or possibly misinformation agents? By making the investment to study one event in detail you can then be certain in your own convictions as to what did and did not happen, and be able to justify your positions. And by becoming an expert in one event, it makes it easier to study others.” But every paragraph a brilliant example of concise prose to enliven the mind to the improbability of all the coincidences in the “official narratives”. For my work on Port Arthur, see towards end of http://tiny.cc/myrudeawakening
Off-topic and only for those with tough stomachs, here’s the latest from Delphi Deanna (sure looks like she got the memo to start churning out more shows promoting the official MSM version of SH):
Quick summary of topics: Deanna continues her discussion of Jim Fetzer’s book, School drills in Illinois, Waste, Capstone, Template for Fetzer’s FEMA Manual (Click Exercise Plan (ExPlan) or here (document), Deanna’s SH Research, FAERS, new book, Wolfgang Halbig, the Hoax of a Lifetime, download
Just a little thought.
Unless the “Left” join us as a team,
And realize their “Utopia” of the Nanny State and Regulations is getting co-opted by TBTB,
Anything short of a full fledged ground Revolution will not stop everything the progresses have planned. ( That’s the Top of Both Parties)( New world Odor)
It was the “Left” that stopped Obama from bombing Syria when the “Red Line” was crossed. ( we know that that whole thing was all bullsh&t) But the Left screamed and MSM reacted because they didn’t want to upset their Base they’ve spent 50 years grooming.
No One in the MSM, or for that matter anyone with a huge paycheck, will say or do anything because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Yes, there’s lots of people trying to wake people up and do their part and some manage to make some money but are all ignored by the Govt./MSM
Has everyone forgotten the original reports from San Bernedino specifically said THREE shooters?
Of Course Not.
I am going to pretend this is Free Forum Friday, and share this absolutely amazing music here, utterly and completely off topic:
Normally it’s Toni, Ric, Recynd and lophatt presenting the music.
Lew Rockwell published this article by Gary North, where the song wa embedded: http://www.garynorth.com/public/14655.cfm
Patrick, thanks for bringing up Eva. I’ve posted a video of hers here before, but I don’t think I told the story. Her live performances are amazing.
Here’s one you might like, and perfect for a Monday morning, I think.
Mark Steyn often says that Sinatra invented the “standard” song, by which he means that a great song can be reinterpreted in many ways. Slow, fast, ballad, swing. Jazz. Bossa Nova. No one ever did that before.
To prove the point, here’s where this song began. Entirely delightful. Completely different. Which is better? Who could choose?
I love Fred Astaire. My favorite song/dance of his is from “The Sky’s the Limit” (1943). Fred’s drunk and pissed, and starts trashing the place with his dance moves.
“One for My Baby” was written for Astaire, but of course, became the big signature song for Frank, too.
Hell, since I mentioned Frank, we might as all take in his take on the song. Heaven, again, in another form.
I’m going to seem like Ric, here leaving behind restraint, but here’s another Frank take on the song. Pay attention to the arrangement (the “Frankisms” are a hoot, too)
Oops, the two Franks are the same recording. Fun to listen to twice, though, anyway.
LOVE this arrangement. Who is it? Frank’s stabbing the staccato notes and hanging just behind by the beat, and then floating over other notes completely untethered. He totally owns the song and makes it sound new though he’s sung it one thousand times probably.
Defining and redefining and making the standard, like you say.
I am always amazed by the amount and level of talent out there in the world. There truly is beauty all around, isn’t there?
Patrick, too funny, I was going to start this post, like you, with, “Hell, might as well play another one.”
This is Eva singing the old spiritual from the days of the Underground Railroad, “Wade in the Water.”
Listen to this while I work through Fred and Frank.
This woman is so fantastic. In the documentary, her friend said she’d prefer it this way, her success coming after she was gone. But 33?
Sinatra, brilliant and talented as he was, was a scumbag. I get the impression Eva was a fine person. Imagine the wonderful work she would have blessed us with if she had lived as long as Frank. And she would not have harmed so many lives, presumably.
Another dead at 33? Amazing any of us made it through that cursed year.
I saw that Eva does a version of “Wayfaring Stranger” which reminded me of this version, which I love.
The movie it’s from is the Belgian (Belgish? Ha!) “Broken Circle Breakdown” available on Amazon Prime. Tearjerker, that.
Recynd and Patrick, thank you both for this fine Musical Interluding.
Eva’s version is VERY similar to the magnificent rendition done by Susan Boyle for the 2012 release of her album Standing Ovation ….
simply stunning …. another fab version is by Jane Monheit’s … she sang At The Rainbow Room in NYC and included original lyrics rarely heard. It is on the web too.
Hate mail sent to Prof. James Tracy for being a Sandy Hook skeptic
Please help spread the word, via email, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Thank you.
In being congruent with your 100m analogy…
If an athlete were to break 10, and it happens more frequently than you think, it would be a hoax staged by the government.
You must not believe anyone has broken 10. Such a dumb argument
I wanted to get this out.. Our very unfortunate village is going to now dump purses and take off coats, and limit size of purses, into our 2 local forums left. Due to “the Paris attacks.” In a small village such as this this should raise alarm bells everyone. [BTW most Americans cannot point out where Paris is and most do not have passports.] Truthful sociology is the greatest gateway to thinking perceptively, that is why I add the stats. Berman may be correct in that it seems most people do not care period. (It could be easily argued so I;m afraid.)
It is ridiculous logic to tally a number of unlikely or improbable events, and then conclude that the event could not have taken place. Highly improbable events happen all the time. Let’s go back in time to 1990 and a young British woman idly thinking about writing a book about a little boy who goes to wizard school. What is the likelihood that she will actually complete that book? What is the likelihood that she will find an agent? What is the likelihood that the book will actually get published? That it will sell well? That it will become a best-seller? That it will be turned into a movie? That she will write six more best-selling sequels? That it will become the highest grossing book series ever? If you take it step by step, every event is improbable to highly improbable. Under your logic, one could conclude that, therefore, it is impossible for it to have happened. But it did happen.
Interesting article. But I just find it absolutely incredibly that people comment under it, derailing this important investigation going on about music videos? Why spam a thread with that when there is a VERY important investigation is going on? Less of course you are Sunstein shills.
Anyway enough of that. I am always surprised to disover things online. I recently watched these two VERY good videos which really will make eyes open. For example they will you the utter crass contempt the BBC (which out of all mainstream media puts on a mask of being very highbrow and Oxford and Cambridge education. But when you see the gross incompetence of this organization spelt out to you it must shock you:
The ‘BBC v 9/11 Truth Court Case’ – What The Judge Saw…
Incontrovertible – New 9/11 Documentary by Tony Rooke
ALSO I reckon this is a very good article also: Top Ten Reasons: Jim Fetzer and Friends are Sunstein Shills http://www.takeourworldback.com/fetzersunstein.htm
Who’s the shill now?
Say what you want about him, Cass Sunstein taught me everything I know about music.