Faking Collateral Murder to infiltrate Wikileaks
A Controlled Opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries, notably Vladimir Lenin who said, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
— At least we are told Lenin said this. Perhaps this alleged quote is some kind of anti-Russian propaganda to make out that Lenin invented "controlled opposition". As if. Controlled opposition has been around since time immemorial and is a well-known espionage technique. The definition of espionage as "the practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information" also seems to be a kind of propaganda. Spies do not just get information from the other side. This is nonsense. Intelligence assets use monitoring techniques and infiltrate to get information but they also infiltrate to seduce with disinformation as well as spread disinformation generally - and this will often be a far more important role. The terms "spy" and "intelligence asset" do not allude to a very important role of these people namely, "spreading disinformation".
“We want our adversaries to find themselves in a wilderness of mirrors.”
James Angleton, head of counterintelligence operations, CIA
— At least we are told Lenin said this. Perhaps this alleged quote is some kind of anti-Russian propaganda to make out that Lenin invented "controlled opposition". As if. Controlled opposition has been around since time immemorial and is a well-known espionage technique. The definition of espionage as "the practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information" also seems to be a kind of propaganda. Spies do not just get information from the other side. This is nonsense. Intelligence assets use monitoring techniques and infiltrate to get information but they also infiltrate to seduce with disinformation as well as spread disinformation generally - and this will often be a far more important role. The terms "spy" and "intelligence asset" do not allude to a very important role of these people namely, "spreading disinformation".
“We want our adversaries to find themselves in a wilderness of mirrors.”
James Angleton, head of counterintelligence operations, CIA
This page is about infiltration by agents and fakery with regard to material leaked to Wikileaks. For infiltration related to Julian Assange's legal counsel see article, by prize-winning finance investigative journalist, Judy Komisar, Assange lawyers’ links to US govt & Bill Browder raises questions.
Why fake and use Collateral Murder to infiltrate?
To accept that an artefact such as Collateral Murder, a video showing US soldiers firing on unarmed Iraqi civilians, might be a fakery used to infiltrate Wikileaks it is helpful to consider the following:
We can anticipate with certainty that infiltration will be attempted so what better way to establish credibility for a would-be infiltrator than to present such a document, a serious indictment of the US military?
While Collateral Murder may look pretty bad what really goes down could be even worse so this kind of artefact can stand in the place of and distract from what might really be happening. Compared to what really happens, Collateral Murder, may, in fact, be a Hollywood, sanitised, controlled simulation of what really goes down and that if we saw what really went down we wouldn’t necessarily simply be politely discussing it online. Moreover, the presentation of the alleged violence is not especially graphic. We have always heard of things happening in war far outside the Rules of Engagement so it’s certainly not unlikely.
While the film may make the US military look bad, we shouldn’t assume that while we might, the power elite concern themselves too much about “looking bad”. Power is much more interested in maintaining power than in looking good and sometimes “looking bad” works very well for power and is not regarded as any great sacrifice. We also need to realise that only a certain percentage of the population will think it makes them look bad. Many don’t pay the slightest attention and even some of those who do will think that what allegedly occurred is not particularly bad and does not break the Rules of Engagement. We must always keep in mind that the power elite can do pretty much anything they like without fear of reprisals and that they always like to be in control of the information - that's very, very important to them - whether it's the actual truth or, generally, a faked-up example of a phenomenon that is, indeed, real - they want to control it. ... And they enjoy a chortle. Can you imagine the chortling at all us bleeding-heart liberals going nuts and the right-wingers arguing that the soldiers are not breaking the rules of engagement? The good old ancient divide-and-conquer trick doing its duty. As Antony Sutton says, "First we have to dump the trap of right and left, this is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them." Please, we are not simply buttons to be pushed.
There is really no good reason to think that such an artefact as Collateral Murder would not be used to infiltrate a group such as Wikileaks. None at all. Lots of outrage is expressed with no repercussions suffered by anyone in the US military or government. Life goes on as before and infiltration of an important organisation is achieved, infiltration which can work both to obtain information and mislead and misdirect the organisation and those who acquaint themselves with information it publishes.
A tool that helps us analyse
An extremely helpful analytic tool to analyse potential infiltration of Wikileaks is the fact that the power elite justify their crimes against us by telling us clearly with signals that include: not credible implausibilities, over-the-top ridiculousness, things that don't add up, major discrepancies between show and tell, different versions of the story, smiling grievers, the actual truth and on and on. They reason that by telling us, they shift the onus onto us to call them out and if we don't they are spared karmic repercussions. However ridiculous that may sound, the evidence shows that they give us the signs - see They Tell Us Clearly.
Outcomes
We only need to look at the outcomes. What have been the outcomes? Sure, we're told that Chelsea Manning spent seven years in jail but if she's an intelligence asset then this will simply be a lie. Very easy to say someone's in jail when they're not.
Reuters
Of course, as the evidence shows the Collateral Murder video is faked, the story about an indignant Reuters being denied access to a copy of the footage is a big fabrication. It is the same MO as the alleged suing of New York City by the New York Times to release the "oral histories" of first responders recorded shortly after 9/11 (see Point 9 on this page for more). A charming nuance of the propaganda campaign, isn't it? Making out Reuters is demanding information under the FOIA when, of course, they're completely in on it - with the sense of cover-up being enhanced by the fact the video was encrypted. As if they wouldn't be. Big media and government - they're all in it together. So much yanking us about by the nose ring. When I first twigged to the concerted propaganda campaign targeted at 9/11 truthers I had such a visceral sense of being a dumb bull being yanked viciously this way and that by its nose ring ... but then had to laugh. So clever.
Below are analyses of the items relating to Collateral Murder and the people involved.
Why fake and use Collateral Murder to infiltrate?
To accept that an artefact such as Collateral Murder, a video showing US soldiers firing on unarmed Iraqi civilians, might be a fakery used to infiltrate Wikileaks it is helpful to consider the following:
We can anticipate with certainty that infiltration will be attempted so what better way to establish credibility for a would-be infiltrator than to present such a document, a serious indictment of the US military?
While Collateral Murder may look pretty bad what really goes down could be even worse so this kind of artefact can stand in the place of and distract from what might really be happening. Compared to what really happens, Collateral Murder, may, in fact, be a Hollywood, sanitised, controlled simulation of what really goes down and that if we saw what really went down we wouldn’t necessarily simply be politely discussing it online. Moreover, the presentation of the alleged violence is not especially graphic. We have always heard of things happening in war far outside the Rules of Engagement so it’s certainly not unlikely.
While the film may make the US military look bad, we shouldn’t assume that while we might, the power elite concern themselves too much about “looking bad”. Power is much more interested in maintaining power than in looking good and sometimes “looking bad” works very well for power and is not regarded as any great sacrifice. We also need to realise that only a certain percentage of the population will think it makes them look bad. Many don’t pay the slightest attention and even some of those who do will think that what allegedly occurred is not particularly bad and does not break the Rules of Engagement. We must always keep in mind that the power elite can do pretty much anything they like without fear of reprisals and that they always like to be in control of the information - that's very, very important to them - whether it's the actual truth or, generally, a faked-up example of a phenomenon that is, indeed, real - they want to control it. ... And they enjoy a chortle. Can you imagine the chortling at all us bleeding-heart liberals going nuts and the right-wingers arguing that the soldiers are not breaking the rules of engagement? The good old ancient divide-and-conquer trick doing its duty. As Antony Sutton says, "First we have to dump the trap of right and left, this is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them." Please, we are not simply buttons to be pushed.
There is really no good reason to think that such an artefact as Collateral Murder would not be used to infiltrate a group such as Wikileaks. None at all. Lots of outrage is expressed with no repercussions suffered by anyone in the US military or government. Life goes on as before and infiltration of an important organisation is achieved, infiltration which can work both to obtain information and mislead and misdirect the organisation and those who acquaint themselves with information it publishes.
A tool that helps us analyse
An extremely helpful analytic tool to analyse potential infiltration of Wikileaks is the fact that the power elite justify their crimes against us by telling us clearly with signals that include: not credible implausibilities, over-the-top ridiculousness, things that don't add up, major discrepancies between show and tell, different versions of the story, smiling grievers, the actual truth and on and on. They reason that by telling us, they shift the onus onto us to call them out and if we don't they are spared karmic repercussions. However ridiculous that may sound, the evidence shows that they give us the signs - see They Tell Us Clearly.
Outcomes
We only need to look at the outcomes. What have been the outcomes? Sure, we're told that Chelsea Manning spent seven years in jail but if she's an intelligence asset then this will simply be a lie. Very easy to say someone's in jail when they're not.
- Chelsea - topnotch transition job with magnificent photoshoots in OUT magazine and Vogue, selection as one of the OUT100 Newsmakers of the Year 2017, sympathetic interview with Juju Chang, ABC's nightline anchor. Allegedly, more jail time but easy to say, no? Does she look as if she's suffered a similar sort of hell to the one Julian's been through?
- US government, soldiers and military - zero (as far as I can tell). When you consider what the Crazy Horse pilots are allegedly guilty of beyond the Collateral Murder incident this is really very sobering (if it were true, that is). See analysis below of an article in the Telegraph telling us about the c-r-a-a-a-z-y exploits of the Crazy Horse pilots.
- Julian Assange - 7 years in the Ecuadorian Embassy, now jail in an extremely poor state of health ... and who knows what next
- The global population at large - greater control including increased censorship
Reuters
Of course, as the evidence shows the Collateral Murder video is faked, the story about an indignant Reuters being denied access to a copy of the footage is a big fabrication. It is the same MO as the alleged suing of New York City by the New York Times to release the "oral histories" of first responders recorded shortly after 9/11 (see Point 9 on this page for more). A charming nuance of the propaganda campaign, isn't it? Making out Reuters is demanding information under the FOIA when, of course, they're completely in on it - with the sense of cover-up being enhanced by the fact the video was encrypted. As if they wouldn't be. Big media and government - they're all in it together. So much yanking us about by the nose ring. When I first twigged to the concerted propaganda campaign targeted at 9/11 truthers I had such a visceral sense of being a dumb bull being yanked viciously this way and that by its nose ring ... but then had to laugh. So clever.
Below are analyses of the items relating to Collateral Murder and the people involved.
CHELSEA MANNING - INTRO
|
While I cottoned onto 9/11 (or part of it) five years ago, it never entered my mind that Chelsea Manning was an intelligence asset until the time of Julian Assange's expulsion from the Ecuadorian Embassy in April 2019. What triggered my suspicion was not the article I read about her but the very glamorous photo that went with it - it struck me as looking as if it had a lot of money behind it which seemed anomalous to her situation. The photo, by Roger Erickson, was commissioned by Out magazine to illustrate Chelsea Manning's selection as one of the OUT100 Newsmakers of the Year 2017. Annie Leibovitz also did a photoshoot of her for Vogue. Not bad treatment for a woman who was initially sentenced to a 35 year prison sentence reduced to 7 years, some of which included 22 hours a day of solitary confinement. (Dear reader, please disabuse yourself of the fallacy that when they tell you they have someone in jail this must be fact.)
The indications are unmistakeable from both Chelsea's Wikipedia entry and her first interview post-jail with ABC Nightine's Juju Chang (active member of the Council on Foreign Relations) that Chelsea is an intelligence agent. |
|
ANALYSIS OF IMPLAUSIBILITIES/IMPOSSIBILITIES IN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE
Analysis of implausibilities/impossibilities in Chelsea's Wikipedia entry
1. They really have a lend of us (as we say in Australia) with Chelsea’s chosen method of sequestering 491,000 documents (of the total 700,000) to be leaked. They really do. You have to admire their chutzpah – but then they can pass off anything at all, anything at all. They must get bored with it. I wonder if they have pushing-the-envelope competitions in the ridiculousness that will be presented to the public.
“On January 5, 2010, Manning downloaded the 400,000 documents that became known as the Iraq War logs. On January 8, she downloaded 91,000 documents from the Afghanistan database, known later as part of the Afghan War logs. She saved the material on CD-RW and smuggled it through security by labeling the CD-RW media “Lady Gaga”. She then copied it onto her personal computer. The next day, she wrote a message in a readme.txt file, which she told the court was initially intended for The Washington Post.”
2. Highly, highly implausible (my bold):
"Manning began basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on October 2, 2007. She wrote that she soon realized she was neither physically nor mentally prepared for it.[71] Six weeks after enlisting, she was sent to the discharge unit. She was allegedly being bullied, and in the opinion of another soldier, was having a breakdown. The soldier told The Guardian: "The kid was barely five foot ... He was a runt, so pick on him. He's crazy, pick on him. He's a faggot, pick on him. The guy took it from every side. He couldn't please anyone." Nicks writes that Manning, who was used to being bullied, fought back—if the drill sergeants screamed at her, she would scream at them—to the point where they started calling her "General Manning"."
3. The description of her mother as a shocking alcoholic somehow doesn’t seem credible. It’s not as if this sort of thing does not happen – and worse – but somehow it all seems a little over-egged and stilted.
“Susan’s instability continued, and in 1998 she attempted suicide; Manning’s sister drove their mother to the hospital, with the 11-year-old Manning sitting in the back of the car trying to make sure their mother was still breathing.”
4. Usually, camping trips involve teachers and it’s hard to believe teachers would have allowed this situation.
“The students would imitate her accent,[53] and apparently abandoned her once during a camping trip; her aunt told The Washington Post that Manning awoke to an empty campsite one morning, after everyone else had packed up their tents and left without her.”
5. It makes you wonder how someone with obvious mental health issues was employed as an intelligence analyst.
“[She] gained employment as a developer with a software company … was let go after four months. Her boss told The Washington Post that on a few occasions Manning had “just locked up” and would simply sit and stare, and in the end, communication became too difficult. The boss told the newspaper that “nobody’s been taking care of this kid for a really long time”.”
“In March 2006, Manning reportedly threatened her stepmother with a knife during an argument about Manning’s failure to get another job; the stepmother called the police, and Manning was asked to leave the house.”
6. Where is the background relevant to considering a PhD in physics?
“Manning’s father spent weeks in late 2007 asking her to consider joining the Army. Hoping to gain a college education through the G.I. Bill, and perhaps to study for a PhD in physics, she enlisted in September that year.”
1. They really have a lend of us (as we say in Australia) with Chelsea’s chosen method of sequestering 491,000 documents (of the total 700,000) to be leaked. They really do. You have to admire their chutzpah – but then they can pass off anything at all, anything at all. They must get bored with it. I wonder if they have pushing-the-envelope competitions in the ridiculousness that will be presented to the public.
“On January 5, 2010, Manning downloaded the 400,000 documents that became known as the Iraq War logs. On January 8, she downloaded 91,000 documents from the Afghanistan database, known later as part of the Afghan War logs. She saved the material on CD-RW and smuggled it through security by labeling the CD-RW media “Lady Gaga”. She then copied it onto her personal computer. The next day, she wrote a message in a readme.txt file, which she told the court was initially intended for The Washington Post.”
2. Highly, highly implausible (my bold):
"Manning began basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on October 2, 2007. She wrote that she soon realized she was neither physically nor mentally prepared for it.[71] Six weeks after enlisting, she was sent to the discharge unit. She was allegedly being bullied, and in the opinion of another soldier, was having a breakdown. The soldier told The Guardian: "The kid was barely five foot ... He was a runt, so pick on him. He's crazy, pick on him. He's a faggot, pick on him. The guy took it from every side. He couldn't please anyone." Nicks writes that Manning, who was used to being bullied, fought back—if the drill sergeants screamed at her, she would scream at them—to the point where they started calling her "General Manning"."
3. The description of her mother as a shocking alcoholic somehow doesn’t seem credible. It’s not as if this sort of thing does not happen – and worse – but somehow it all seems a little over-egged and stilted.
“Susan’s instability continued, and in 1998 she attempted suicide; Manning’s sister drove their mother to the hospital, with the 11-year-old Manning sitting in the back of the car trying to make sure their mother was still breathing.”
4. Usually, camping trips involve teachers and it’s hard to believe teachers would have allowed this situation.
“The students would imitate her accent,[53] and apparently abandoned her once during a camping trip; her aunt told The Washington Post that Manning awoke to an empty campsite one morning, after everyone else had packed up their tents and left without her.”
5. It makes you wonder how someone with obvious mental health issues was employed as an intelligence analyst.
“[She] gained employment as a developer with a software company … was let go after four months. Her boss told The Washington Post that on a few occasions Manning had “just locked up” and would simply sit and stare, and in the end, communication became too difficult. The boss told the newspaper that “nobody’s been taking care of this kid for a really long time”.”
“In March 2006, Manning reportedly threatened her stepmother with a knife during an argument about Manning’s failure to get another job; the stepmother called the police, and Manning was asked to leave the house.”
6. Where is the background relevant to considering a PhD in physics?
“Manning’s father spent weeks in late 2007 asking her to consider joining the Army. Hoping to gain a college education through the G.I. Bill, and perhaps to study for a PhD in physics, she enlisted in September that year.”
ANALYSIS OF FIRST INTERVIEW AFTER RELEASE FROM PRISON WITH JUJU CHANG, ABC'S NIGHTLINE ANCHOR
Analysis of Chelsea's first interview after release with Juju Chang
In Chelsea's interview with Juju Chang, anchor of ABC’s Nightline (and active member of the Council on Foreign Relations), we are shown a snippet of the footage of an alleged airstrike on civilians included in the leaked files which partly displays subtitles and is overlaid by Juju’s voiceover and her dialogue with Chelsea. My comments are in square brackets and my initial comment is that it seems very, very odd that this highly incriminating footage with the soldiers’ words would be shown on mainstream media, very, very odd.
If you find reading the analysis a bore, simply watch the 11 minute interview with Juju yourself. If you think it favours "genuine leaker" over "intelligence asset", please write why in the comments below or email me at [email protected].
Juju’s first words to Chelsea: So many people call you a traitor; many people call you a hero. Who is Chelsea Manning?
[Pretty much equal weight to traitor and hero. Odd on MSM, no?]
Chelsea: I’m just me. It’s as simple as that.
[So not a whistleblower, not disgusted with what she’s seen. She’s just her.]
Juju’s vo: Images like these. American soldiers opening fire from an Apache helicopter …
Subtitles: “Oh yeah, look at that … Right through the windshield.” “Ha! Ha!“
Juju’s vo: “… on what would turn out to be civilians including children …
Subtitles: “Well, It’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.” “That’s right.”
Juju’s vo: … among the dead, two journalists from Reuters.”
Chelsea: Everything you need to know about warfare is right there in a 1 minute 47 [sec] video.
[How does Chelsea know how long the snippet is from the video? Did the ABC team discuss what they were going to show with her?]
Juju: What do you mean by that?
Chelsea: Counterinsurgency is not a simple thing. … It’s not as simple as good guys versus bad guys. It’s a mess.
[Not the condemnatory words you’d expect from someone who’s prepared to go to prison for them, are they? And what's so complicated here? What reason is there to think that opening fire is in any way justified? She provides no explanation.]
Juju’s vo: Manning says she read news articles about how Reuters had tried in vain to request this video for two years so she decided to bring it up the chain of command.
Juju: What did he or she say back?
Chelsea: “It’s just another incident. The only reason it sticks out and is prominent is because it was two journalists. There are thousands and thousands of videos like that.
[Thousands and thousands!?! It’s hard to determine if Chelsea is reporting what the higher up said or if it’s her own words. If, at that stage, the footage was only accessible internally why would the higher up be saying “the only reason it sticks out … is because it was two journalists”? If there are “thousand and thousands” of videos like that why, internally, would this footage seem particularly prominent? And why wasn’t Chelsea privy to these “thousands and thousands” of videos. Why has she only seen this snippet? Could we infer this is the power elite telling us, “Hey, we do this sort of heinous stuff whenever we like – suck it up. What are you – yes you – what are you going to do about it?” And isn’t Chelsea concerned that this is just one snippet of thousands? Shouldn’t she make some noise about all the others she didn’t leak to Wikileaks. Did she not try to track any others down? We’ve just got the one even though she managed to leak 700,000 documents?]
…
Chelsea: I stopped seeing just statistics and information and I started seeing people.
[Rather pat, no?]
…
Chelsea: I tried to go to the Washington Post first and I tried to go to the New York Times.
[Oh really? What was their response? They didn’t report her?]
Juju: … Were you ready to pay the price?
Chelsea: I’m not focused on consequences or what this means or what that means. I’m focused on the day to day.
[“day to day”? She was an intelligence analyst who managed to leak 700,000 documents before being caught!!!!!! and she’s focused on the “day to day” – whatever that means in this context.]
…
Juju: So you didn’t think any of it was going to threaten national security?
Chelsea: No.
Juju: There are some higher ups in the intelligence community who would argue you’re a low-level analyst, there’s no way you could have known what the outcome of that would have been.
Chelsea: Right, but these are the reports that I work with. I’m the subject matter expert for this stuff.
[She’s all of 22 at the time and she’s the one and only “subject matter expert”.]
…
Juju’s vo: Turns out some of the low-level army battlefield reports were found in Osama Bin Laden’s compound after his death.
[No one believes that do they?]
Juju to Chelsea: You may have been motivated to get the information into the public sphere but you might have also given it to our enemies.
Chelsea: Right but I have a responsibility to the public. It’s not black and white, it’s complicated.
[Oh come on. This is just complete say-nothing nonsense.]
[Move to gender transition.]
Juju: “So your despair was not with the 35 year prison sentence. It was …”
Chelsea: “… much more immediate.”
Juju: “It had more to do with your need to be Chelsea.”
Chelsea: “Yeah, I’d never done that. I’d never been able to be who I was.”
[As we see at the start and again partway through the video Chelsea positively bounced from the courtroom to start her 35 (commuted to 7) year sentence. She wasn’t in the least worried about that, nope, the only thing in her life that was of concern was transition. I get that people who feel they are in the wrong-gendered body feel suicidal if they are unable to transition but to not be concerned about a 35 year sentence is not credible.]
In Chelsea's interview with Juju Chang, anchor of ABC’s Nightline (and active member of the Council on Foreign Relations), we are shown a snippet of the footage of an alleged airstrike on civilians included in the leaked files which partly displays subtitles and is overlaid by Juju’s voiceover and her dialogue with Chelsea. My comments are in square brackets and my initial comment is that it seems very, very odd that this highly incriminating footage with the soldiers’ words would be shown on mainstream media, very, very odd.
If you find reading the analysis a bore, simply watch the 11 minute interview with Juju yourself. If you think it favours "genuine leaker" over "intelligence asset", please write why in the comments below or email me at [email protected].
Juju’s first words to Chelsea: So many people call you a traitor; many people call you a hero. Who is Chelsea Manning?
[Pretty much equal weight to traitor and hero. Odd on MSM, no?]
Chelsea: I’m just me. It’s as simple as that.
[So not a whistleblower, not disgusted with what she’s seen. She’s just her.]
Juju’s vo: Images like these. American soldiers opening fire from an Apache helicopter …
Subtitles: “Oh yeah, look at that … Right through the windshield.” “Ha! Ha!“
Juju’s vo: “… on what would turn out to be civilians including children …
Subtitles: “Well, It’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.” “That’s right.”
Juju’s vo: … among the dead, two journalists from Reuters.”
Chelsea: Everything you need to know about warfare is right there in a 1 minute 47 [sec] video.
[How does Chelsea know how long the snippet is from the video? Did the ABC team discuss what they were going to show with her?]
Juju: What do you mean by that?
Chelsea: Counterinsurgency is not a simple thing. … It’s not as simple as good guys versus bad guys. It’s a mess.
[Not the condemnatory words you’d expect from someone who’s prepared to go to prison for them, are they? And what's so complicated here? What reason is there to think that opening fire is in any way justified? She provides no explanation.]
Juju’s vo: Manning says she read news articles about how Reuters had tried in vain to request this video for two years so she decided to bring it up the chain of command.
Juju: What did he or she say back?
Chelsea: “It’s just another incident. The only reason it sticks out and is prominent is because it was two journalists. There are thousands and thousands of videos like that.
[Thousands and thousands!?! It’s hard to determine if Chelsea is reporting what the higher up said or if it’s her own words. If, at that stage, the footage was only accessible internally why would the higher up be saying “the only reason it sticks out … is because it was two journalists”? If there are “thousand and thousands” of videos like that why, internally, would this footage seem particularly prominent? And why wasn’t Chelsea privy to these “thousands and thousands” of videos. Why has she only seen this snippet? Could we infer this is the power elite telling us, “Hey, we do this sort of heinous stuff whenever we like – suck it up. What are you – yes you – what are you going to do about it?” And isn’t Chelsea concerned that this is just one snippet of thousands? Shouldn’t she make some noise about all the others she didn’t leak to Wikileaks. Did she not try to track any others down? We’ve just got the one even though she managed to leak 700,000 documents?]
…
Chelsea: I stopped seeing just statistics and information and I started seeing people.
[Rather pat, no?]
…
Chelsea: I tried to go to the Washington Post first and I tried to go to the New York Times.
[Oh really? What was their response? They didn’t report her?]
Juju: … Were you ready to pay the price?
Chelsea: I’m not focused on consequences or what this means or what that means. I’m focused on the day to day.
[“day to day”? She was an intelligence analyst who managed to leak 700,000 documents before being caught!!!!!! and she’s focused on the “day to day” – whatever that means in this context.]
…
Juju: So you didn’t think any of it was going to threaten national security?
Chelsea: No.
Juju: There are some higher ups in the intelligence community who would argue you’re a low-level analyst, there’s no way you could have known what the outcome of that would have been.
Chelsea: Right, but these are the reports that I work with. I’m the subject matter expert for this stuff.
[She’s all of 22 at the time and she’s the one and only “subject matter expert”.]
…
Juju’s vo: Turns out some of the low-level army battlefield reports were found in Osama Bin Laden’s compound after his death.
[No one believes that do they?]
Juju to Chelsea: You may have been motivated to get the information into the public sphere but you might have also given it to our enemies.
Chelsea: Right but I have a responsibility to the public. It’s not black and white, it’s complicated.
[Oh come on. This is just complete say-nothing nonsense.]
[Move to gender transition.]
Juju: “So your despair was not with the 35 year prison sentence. It was …”
Chelsea: “… much more immediate.”
Juju: “It had more to do with your need to be Chelsea.”
Chelsea: “Yeah, I’d never done that. I’d never been able to be who I was.”
[As we see at the start and again partway through the video Chelsea positively bounced from the courtroom to start her 35 (commuted to 7) year sentence. She wasn’t in the least worried about that, nope, the only thing in her life that was of concern was transition. I get that people who feel they are in the wrong-gendered body feel suicidal if they are unable to transition but to not be concerned about a 35 year sentence is not credible.]
ADRIAN LAMO - ANOMALIES
Adrian Lamo anomalies - Wikipedia entry
We are told Adrian Lamo was 22 (magical multiple of 11 - September 11, 2001, JFK - 22/11/63) when he reported Chelsea, also 22, in 2010. (Doncha love his surname? and how about Chelsea’s?) We are told he died last year at the age of 37 which adds up according to his year of birth (1981) given in Wikipedia, while the age of 22 in 2010 does not. (Compare Malcolm Quantrill, witness at the Bologna station bombing in 1980 who the BBC tells us was 44 (magical multiple of 11) when according to Wikipedia he would have been 49. The age of another witness at Bologna, Simon Gray, is given as 22.) Wikipedia also tells us 'Nearly three months later, the Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center reported that “Despite a complete autopsy and supplemental testing, no definitive cause of death was identified."' Mysterious, no? The rest of Adrian’s bio is the usual stilted nonsense-sounding stuff. Note also that Chelsea received 22 charges and she was said to spend 22 hours a day in solitary confinement. You wouldn't read about it but the age of the Reuters news photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, allegedly killed was - you guessed it - 22! His driver/assistant Saeed Chmagh was 40 (4=2x2, zeroes don't count - think that's pushing it? It's really not.)
We are told Adrian Lamo was 22 (magical multiple of 11 - September 11, 2001, JFK - 22/11/63) when he reported Chelsea, also 22, in 2010. (Doncha love his surname? and how about Chelsea’s?) We are told he died last year at the age of 37 which adds up according to his year of birth (1981) given in Wikipedia, while the age of 22 in 2010 does not. (Compare Malcolm Quantrill, witness at the Bologna station bombing in 1980 who the BBC tells us was 44 (magical multiple of 11) when according to Wikipedia he would have been 49. The age of another witness at Bologna, Simon Gray, is given as 22.) Wikipedia also tells us 'Nearly three months later, the Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center reported that “Despite a complete autopsy and supplemental testing, no definitive cause of death was identified."' Mysterious, no? The rest of Adrian’s bio is the usual stilted nonsense-sounding stuff. Note also that Chelsea received 22 charges and she was said to spend 22 hours a day in solitary confinement. You wouldn't read about it but the age of the Reuters news photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, allegedly killed was - you guessed it - 22! His driver/assistant Saeed Chmagh was 40 (4=2x2, zeroes don't count - think that's pushing it? It's really not.)
ANALYSIS OF COLLATERAL MURDER
I would have liked someone with expertise in this area to provide an analysis but it seems people do not want to touch the Collateral Murder video with a 50 foot barge pole so I will present my own non-expert analysis. I contacted Vince Emanuele, an alleged Veteran for Peace, on Messenger who gave a talk I attended in Marrickville in 2013. I believed every word he said at the time but now it's obvious he's controlled opposition. Read our revealing exchange here.
[I have just found (29/5/2019) this analysis on a defunct blog which describes in great detail many anomalies that, effectively, show that the video simply makes no sense, however, the author still believes the killing is real which is understandable as the idea of it being fake is so counterintuitive and so outside our paradigms of how the world works ... until you know that the power elite have no problem with "looking bad" - as long as they're the ones in control they're all good about looking bad.]
11/05/22: Have found this comment by someone who knows a little about weaponry:
https://www.survivalistboards.com/threads/wikileaks-collateral-murder-video-a-fake.225339/
"I just stumbled across the Wikileaks video "Collateral Murder" and I have to say that I think it is a fake. The US soldiers are supposed to be firing a 30mm "cannon" at these people which in itself is creates a sense of sensationalism. Second I would think that there would be more devistation to the bodies were they to be really hit with a 30mm round. Considering that it is an anti-armor/anti-aircraft/anti-material/anti-bunker round it is going to do major damage when it hits someone. For those who don't know the size difference between something like a 9mm to a 50 cal -> 20mm -> 30mm there is a MASSIVE difference. I would think it would take off limbs or even worse were it to hit someone. JMO. Can anyone chime in?
Oh, a lot of the backgound talk like the rude comments, laughs etc sounded out of place as well."
--- Callsigns
We are told that two Apache helicopters are involved but even taking into consideration possible ground control (and it is difficult to determine what callsigns would apply there nor does it include a callsign for the ground crew of Ethan McCord) there are simply too many callsigns - 13:
Bushmaster Five, Bushmaster Forty, Bushmaster Four, Bushmaster Seven, Bushmaster Six, Bushmaster Six-Romeo, Bushmaster Three-Six, Bushmaster Two-Six, Copperhead One-Six, Crazy Horse One-Eight (one helicopter), Hotel Two-Seven, Hotel Two-Six (the other helicopter), Victor Charlie Alpha
Note: These callsigns are from the long version (see transcript), I'm not sure if they're all in the short version I analyse below.
Interestingly, in the Wikipedia entry, July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike, we are told that there are two Apache helicopters one with callsign Crazy Horse One-Eight and the other Crazy Horse One-Nine but there is zero mention of Crazy Horse One-Nine in the Wikileaks transcript and in the transcript the two Apache helicopters are identified (indicated above) as Crazy Horse One-Eight and Hotel Two-Six. A number of items are referenced with footnotes in the Wikipedia article but the callsigns are not and we might wonder why.
So many callsigns and yet no callsign for the ground crew that Ethan McCord formed part of. It is never explained why there was a failure of communication between Ethan McCord's ground crew and the Apache crews.
--- The audio track seems as if it's bits of genuine audio from different sources stitched together.
As indicated by the numerous callsigns, it sounds as if we hear more voices than we should and there's a feeling of "made-to-fit" to the footage which I think could easily be faked, especially as the audio does not match the footage very well (sloppiness being one of their little "signs").
We are told that there are two Apaches so this might explain that when we hear a voice, it's not from the Apache from which we see the footage. This, of course, is very convenient. My question is though where are these two Apaches in relation to each other?
Seeming anomalies in the first minute, notably where what is said does not match what we see on the ground
2:48 - There's more that keep walking by and one of them has a weapon [cannot see people or weapon]
2:53 - Arab-sounding voice says "two-oh-eight" [not in transcript - where does this come from?]
2:55 - See all those people standing down there [can't see anyone]
3:19 - That's a weapon. [seemingly directed at "Namir" with camera. This is supposed to make us believe that in very unprofessional lack of recognition of camera, the soldier is looking for an excuse to kill, however, obviously if it's stitched-together audio snippets the soldier saying "That's a weapon" could easily be referring to a person genuinely carrying a weapon. I have to say that the soldier sounds to me as if he's perfectly serious and is not misidentifying a camera as a weapon as an excuse to kill.]
3:30 - Fucking prick [from both an audio and semantic point of view this sounds very much inserted]
3:35 - Have individuals with weapons [I cannot see any weapons at this point]
3:39 - He's got a weapon too [who is being referred to?]
3:42 - Have five to six individuals with AK-47s [5-6 with weapons? - looks like only 2 with weapons]
First strike - 80 shots: is the ordnance real?
4:50 - At 4:50 we hear 20 rounds and at 4:52 we see dust coming from the left side that looks as if it's coming from devices but could these be devices made from a harmless explosive such as Tannerite made to look real but, effectively, only spraying the men with a lot of dust. To me, the dust is coming in very laterally which doesn't seem in line with the angle you'd expect at such seeming close range.
4:52 - At 4:52 we hear 20 rounds again and at 4:55 we see a couple of explosions on the ground which could also be caused by a harmless explosive. The number of explosions does not seem to match the number of shots.
At 4:57 and 5:00 - We hear another 2 sets of 20 rounds.
8 of the 10 men were killed, one of whom died in hospital.
80 30mm cannon fire rounds from an Apache arsenal but only 8 of the 10 men all bunched together were killed!?!
Compare this Apache helicopter firing.
[I have just found (29/5/2019) this analysis on a defunct blog which describes in great detail many anomalies that, effectively, show that the video simply makes no sense, however, the author still believes the killing is real which is understandable as the idea of it being fake is so counterintuitive and so outside our paradigms of how the world works ... until you know that the power elite have no problem with "looking bad" - as long as they're the ones in control they're all good about looking bad.]
11/05/22: Have found this comment by someone who knows a little about weaponry:
https://www.survivalistboards.com/threads/wikileaks-collateral-murder-video-a-fake.225339/
"I just stumbled across the Wikileaks video "Collateral Murder" and I have to say that I think it is a fake. The US soldiers are supposed to be firing a 30mm "cannon" at these people which in itself is creates a sense of sensationalism. Second I would think that there would be more devistation to the bodies were they to be really hit with a 30mm round. Considering that it is an anti-armor/anti-aircraft/anti-material/anti-bunker round it is going to do major damage when it hits someone. For those who don't know the size difference between something like a 9mm to a 50 cal -> 20mm -> 30mm there is a MASSIVE difference. I would think it would take off limbs or even worse were it to hit someone. JMO. Can anyone chime in?
Oh, a lot of the backgound talk like the rude comments, laughs etc sounded out of place as well."
--- Callsigns
We are told that two Apache helicopters are involved but even taking into consideration possible ground control (and it is difficult to determine what callsigns would apply there nor does it include a callsign for the ground crew of Ethan McCord) there are simply too many callsigns - 13:
Bushmaster Five, Bushmaster Forty, Bushmaster Four, Bushmaster Seven, Bushmaster Six, Bushmaster Six-Romeo, Bushmaster Three-Six, Bushmaster Two-Six, Copperhead One-Six, Crazy Horse One-Eight (one helicopter), Hotel Two-Seven, Hotel Two-Six (the other helicopter), Victor Charlie Alpha
Note: These callsigns are from the long version (see transcript), I'm not sure if they're all in the short version I analyse below.
Interestingly, in the Wikipedia entry, July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike, we are told that there are two Apache helicopters one with callsign Crazy Horse One-Eight and the other Crazy Horse One-Nine but there is zero mention of Crazy Horse One-Nine in the Wikileaks transcript and in the transcript the two Apache helicopters are identified (indicated above) as Crazy Horse One-Eight and Hotel Two-Six. A number of items are referenced with footnotes in the Wikipedia article but the callsigns are not and we might wonder why.
So many callsigns and yet no callsign for the ground crew that Ethan McCord formed part of. It is never explained why there was a failure of communication between Ethan McCord's ground crew and the Apache crews.
--- The audio track seems as if it's bits of genuine audio from different sources stitched together.
As indicated by the numerous callsigns, it sounds as if we hear more voices than we should and there's a feeling of "made-to-fit" to the footage which I think could easily be faked, especially as the audio does not match the footage very well (sloppiness being one of their little "signs").
We are told that there are two Apaches so this might explain that when we hear a voice, it's not from the Apache from which we see the footage. This, of course, is very convenient. My question is though where are these two Apaches in relation to each other?
Seeming anomalies in the first minute, notably where what is said does not match what we see on the ground
2:48 - There's more that keep walking by and one of them has a weapon [cannot see people or weapon]
2:53 - Arab-sounding voice says "two-oh-eight" [not in transcript - where does this come from?]
2:55 - See all those people standing down there [can't see anyone]
3:19 - That's a weapon. [seemingly directed at "Namir" with camera. This is supposed to make us believe that in very unprofessional lack of recognition of camera, the soldier is looking for an excuse to kill, however, obviously if it's stitched-together audio snippets the soldier saying "That's a weapon" could easily be referring to a person genuinely carrying a weapon. I have to say that the soldier sounds to me as if he's perfectly serious and is not misidentifying a camera as a weapon as an excuse to kill.]
3:30 - Fucking prick [from both an audio and semantic point of view this sounds very much inserted]
3:35 - Have individuals with weapons [I cannot see any weapons at this point]
3:39 - He's got a weapon too [who is being referred to?]
3:42 - Have five to six individuals with AK-47s [5-6 with weapons? - looks like only 2 with weapons]
First strike - 80 shots: is the ordnance real?
4:50 - At 4:50 we hear 20 rounds and at 4:52 we see dust coming from the left side that looks as if it's coming from devices but could these be devices made from a harmless explosive such as Tannerite made to look real but, effectively, only spraying the men with a lot of dust. To me, the dust is coming in very laterally which doesn't seem in line with the angle you'd expect at such seeming close range.
4:52 - At 4:52 we hear 20 rounds again and at 4:55 we see a couple of explosions on the ground which could also be caused by a harmless explosive. The number of explosions does not seem to match the number of shots.
At 4:57 and 5:00 - We hear another 2 sets of 20 rounds.
8 of the 10 men were killed, one of whom died in hospital.
80 30mm cannon fire rounds from an Apache arsenal but only 8 of the 10 men all bunched together were killed!?!
Compare this Apache helicopter firing.
Those c-r-a-a-a-z-y Crazy Horse Pilots
Googling "Crazy Horse", I came upon this article in the Telegraph, Wikileaks: US 'Crazy Horse' helicopter troop involved in string of fatal attacks in Iraq, which did make me chortle. These guys really do sound a c-r-a-a-a-z-y bunch and have been seemingly let loose to do as they please.
We are told: "It is not clear whether the call-sign 'Crazy Horse' relates to a particular crew or just a particular helicopter."
[Wouldn't they have protocols in the army such that reporters know what a callsign refers to?]
These are some of the things that c-r-a-a-a-z-y bunch got up to:
We are told: "It is not clear whether the call-sign 'Crazy Horse' relates to a particular crew or just a particular helicopter."
[Wouldn't they have protocols in the army such that reporters know what a callsign refers to?]
These are some of the things that c-r-a-a-a-z-y bunch got up to:
- "Crazy Horse 18 was the call-sign which, after taking legal advice, refused to accept the surrender of two insurgents it cornered while they were firing mortars from a flatbed truck."
[Legal advice?] - "In June that year [2007], Crazy Horse 18 fired a string of missiles at two more flatbed trucks it thought were carrying missiles, despite recording that it had seen four women in a nearby house waving a white sheet. Six "enemy" died."
[... "it thought", "it had seen" - poor grammar (one of the "signs"); "... four women in a nearby house waving a white sheet" somehow lacks plausibility; sloppy - both the use of the word enemy and putting it in inverted commas.] - "In another incident the same month, Crazy Horse 18 fired at a suspect van from which material is being unloaded into a car, and stayed on location "due to possible colatural [sic] damage" – a euphemism for civilian casualties, though the report does not record any."
[Poor grammar again; strange that Crazy Horse would "stay on location" in a helicopter - you'd think they'd direct ground staff; strange that they would report verbatim to include the spelling error.]
Ethan McCord - Anomalies
In this video, WikiLeaks’ Collateral Murder: U.S. Soldier Ethan McCord, Ethan addresses the United National Peace Conference, July 23-25, 2010. His highly anomalous testimony provides another angle supporting the hypothesis that Collateral Murder is a fake.
At 4:26 he says about his platoon’s setting off for door knocking to check for weapons in the early morning:
“You could get caught up in the silence if you weren’t so afraid of being shot in the throat or in the thigh by a sniper. Snipers usually went for these areas because they were unprotected. The throat for obvious reasons and the thigh for your femoral artery. Many of us usually walked with the butts stuck up our M4s close to our neck for an almost futile attempt at protecting ourselves.”
Then at 5:14 he says:
“The hours passed at doing this and we were finding absolutely nothing, getting extremely hot and agitated. Some of us began messing around taking pictures because there was nothing else to do … We started funnelling into an alleyway to leave the area when some locals on rooftops above us started firing their AK47s at us … we could hear other fire coming from another platoon just a few blocks from us as well. On the net we could hear that they were taking small arms as well as RPG fire.”
Comments:
1. As I say, they always give us the clues, and one type is misspeaking. Of course, misspeaking happens naturally so it is up to the individual to decide whether the misspeaking is natural or deliberate. In the following case I say deliberate but, of course, you may say natural:
When Ethan says “the butts stuck up our M4s close to our neck” he surely means “the butts of our M4s stuck up close to our necks”.
2. The expression of extreme caution in relation to snipers followed by saying that they started messing around taking pictures doesn’t make sense.
3. “… getting extremely hot and agitated”. Why agitated? Were they frustrated at not finding weapons in homes? Perhaps bored but agitated?
4. “… nothing else to do?” If they’d done all the searching they needed to do why would they hang out in an unprotected area?
5. So Ethan’s crew were being fired on from rooftops and another platoon was firing and receiving fire but all of this escaped the Apaches’ attention. They were focused on guys with cameras? And the two ground crews were oblivious to the Apaches?
6. I don’t know what is referred to by “On the net we could hear that they were taking small arms as well as RPG fire”. Ethan seems to say prior to this that they could hear fire FROM another platoon but on the net heard they were TAKING fire from small arms and RPGs (that is, from Iraqis). Wouldn’t Ethan’s crew hear both the fire from the other platoon and the fire they were receiving from small arms and RPGs in real life – why would they only be hearing the fire the other platoon was taking from the net? Perhaps someone can explain.
7. So they’re hearing stuff “on the net” but they’re not in communication with the Apaches?
8. And then there is, of course, the $64 million dollar question. If they were in an allegedly unprotected area where they felt in danger why on earth weren’t they in contact with the Apache helicopters. Could anything make less sense than that?
At 4:26 he says about his platoon’s setting off for door knocking to check for weapons in the early morning:
“You could get caught up in the silence if you weren’t so afraid of being shot in the throat or in the thigh by a sniper. Snipers usually went for these areas because they were unprotected. The throat for obvious reasons and the thigh for your femoral artery. Many of us usually walked with the butts stuck up our M4s close to our neck for an almost futile attempt at protecting ourselves.”
Then at 5:14 he says:
“The hours passed at doing this and we were finding absolutely nothing, getting extremely hot and agitated. Some of us began messing around taking pictures because there was nothing else to do … We started funnelling into an alleyway to leave the area when some locals on rooftops above us started firing their AK47s at us … we could hear other fire coming from another platoon just a few blocks from us as well. On the net we could hear that they were taking small arms as well as RPG fire.”
Comments:
1. As I say, they always give us the clues, and one type is misspeaking. Of course, misspeaking happens naturally so it is up to the individual to decide whether the misspeaking is natural or deliberate. In the following case I say deliberate but, of course, you may say natural:
When Ethan says “the butts stuck up our M4s close to our neck” he surely means “the butts of our M4s stuck up close to our necks”.
2. The expression of extreme caution in relation to snipers followed by saying that they started messing around taking pictures doesn’t make sense.
3. “… getting extremely hot and agitated”. Why agitated? Were they frustrated at not finding weapons in homes? Perhaps bored but agitated?
4. “… nothing else to do?” If they’d done all the searching they needed to do why would they hang out in an unprotected area?
5. So Ethan’s crew were being fired on from rooftops and another platoon was firing and receiving fire but all of this escaped the Apaches’ attention. They were focused on guys with cameras? And the two ground crews were oblivious to the Apaches?
6. I don’t know what is referred to by “On the net we could hear that they were taking small arms as well as RPG fire”. Ethan seems to say prior to this that they could hear fire FROM another platoon but on the net heard they were TAKING fire from small arms and RPGs (that is, from Iraqis). Wouldn’t Ethan’s crew hear both the fire from the other platoon and the fire they were receiving from small arms and RPGs in real life – why would they only be hearing the fire the other platoon was taking from the net? Perhaps someone can explain.
7. So they’re hearing stuff “on the net” but they’re not in communication with the Apaches?
8. And then there is, of course, the $64 million dollar question. If they were in an allegedly unprotected area where they felt in danger why on earth weren’t they in contact with the Apache helicopters. Could anything make less sense than that?
Seth Rich
Seth Rich is an intelligence asset, too, though a different kettle of fish from Chelsea. His case is very intriguing. The power elite let us know clearly that he wasn't murdered by presenting the truly bizarre family tableau ABC interview after his alleged death as well as in the strange anomalies and variations from one source to another in the reporting of his death.
Comment on the video:
"WTF? Watch this video many times. Something stinks. The first few seconds in, the brother is cracking up and trying not to laugh. He does this throughout the whole video. 30 seconds in, the dad says the police called him and stated that Seth was alive when they arrived and MAYBE stable when Seth got to the hospital. No, no, no, no, no. A cop would not say he was MAYBE stable. You are either stable or, you are not. 40 seconds in, the mom starts to talk and just as the camera is panning left towards mom, dad is actually mouthing her lines. He knows what she is about to say. One minute 3 seconds in, the mother says something off script? The dad subtly moves his right arm and taps her on the back and then he quickly takes over her conversation. WALLS COVERED WITH DISNEY AND MOM, HOLDING A GD PANDA! C'mon people."
Did the power elite decide that they wanted Trump in so hired Seth to infiltrate the Democrats and leak the incriminating DNC documents? Obviously, Hillary would realise after the fact so was it a case of her having to stick that smile on her dial, knowing she couldn't call it out or was it all somehow pre-agreed? Or ...? Hillary is part of the power elite herself so you have to wonder - I guess there are factions as there are everywhere else. Any suggestions welcome - either in Comments or email [email protected]. Thus Seth is not controlled opposition but an example of the power elite taking advantage of Wikileaks' raison d'être for their own purposes. Whatever he says now, Trump did say, "I love Wikileaks." Isn't it ironic? - all the Russiagate nonsense when a major coup was using Wikileaks to dish the dirt on the Dems which they were stymied from calling out or was some sort of Hegelian dialectic thing they were complicit in.
This is an 8-minute analysis of the alleged Seth Rich murder that includes a numerological component and seeming images of Seth Rich alive and well at an anti-Sharia march.
Stella Moris, Julian Assange's wife
We cannot but wonder why Stella changed her name from Sara Gonzalez Devine to a name one letter different from Stella Maris which has certain occult associations. There could be a perfectly reasonable explanation and I'm not accusing her of anything - just to say it is not so uncommon for infiltrators to form relationships with their infiltrees, eg:
Seth Rich is an intelligence asset, too, though a different kettle of fish from Chelsea. His case is very intriguing. The power elite let us know clearly that he wasn't murdered by presenting the truly bizarre family tableau ABC interview after his alleged death as well as in the strange anomalies and variations from one source to another in the reporting of his death.
Comment on the video:
"WTF? Watch this video many times. Something stinks. The first few seconds in, the brother is cracking up and trying not to laugh. He does this throughout the whole video. 30 seconds in, the dad says the police called him and stated that Seth was alive when they arrived and MAYBE stable when Seth got to the hospital. No, no, no, no, no. A cop would not say he was MAYBE stable. You are either stable or, you are not. 40 seconds in, the mom starts to talk and just as the camera is panning left towards mom, dad is actually mouthing her lines. He knows what she is about to say. One minute 3 seconds in, the mother says something off script? The dad subtly moves his right arm and taps her on the back and then he quickly takes over her conversation. WALLS COVERED WITH DISNEY AND MOM, HOLDING A GD PANDA! C'mon people."
Did the power elite decide that they wanted Trump in so hired Seth to infiltrate the Democrats and leak the incriminating DNC documents? Obviously, Hillary would realise after the fact so was it a case of her having to stick that smile on her dial, knowing she couldn't call it out or was it all somehow pre-agreed? Or ...? Hillary is part of the power elite herself so you have to wonder - I guess there are factions as there are everywhere else. Any suggestions welcome - either in Comments or email [email protected]. Thus Seth is not controlled opposition but an example of the power elite taking advantage of Wikileaks' raison d'être for their own purposes. Whatever he says now, Trump did say, "I love Wikileaks." Isn't it ironic? - all the Russiagate nonsense when a major coup was using Wikileaks to dish the dirt on the Dems which they were stymied from calling out or was some sort of Hegelian dialectic thing they were complicit in.
This is an 8-minute analysis of the alleged Seth Rich murder that includes a numerological component and seeming images of Seth Rich alive and well at an anti-Sharia march.
Stella Moris, Julian Assange's wife
We cannot but wonder why Stella changed her name from Sara Gonzalez Devine to a name one letter different from Stella Maris which has certain occult associations. There could be a perfectly reasonable explanation and I'm not accusing her of anything - just to say it is not so uncommon for infiltrators to form relationships with their infiltrees, eg:
- the based on true-life story of a German spy forming a relationship with a Canadian Special Operations Executive in the film, Allied,
- activist Helen Steel, of McLibel fame, with whom an undercover policeman formed a relationship and other women targeted similarly
Widget is loading comments...