Jan 9 2015
Another smoking gun
DEAR CHARLIE: You cannot screw up a cue line in a world where people know you lie and then proceed to look for the obvious!
Inconsistency #984 (in addition to inconsistency #983, the cue line)
Why are the attackers speaking perfectly clear American English in France? You cannot do that in France – you will starve. They clearly say "cops are bullshit" with a perfect American accent before "shooting" the cop. Most likely military contractor ISIS, which is based in America, did this job. [AD note: In fact, the dialogue here seems to be in French. Fake gunman: "Tu voulais nous tuer?" Fake victim: "Non, c'est bon, chef."] Additionally, the soundtrack is unrealistically clear, with perfect audio compression: an obvious studio job. There were two cameras: the cell phone cam which produced poor video, and a second camera with a professional shotgun mic. The video and soundtrack were then merged. There is simply no other way the sound could be so clear from a cell phone: the impact, frequency response, clarity, could only have been produced with a professional setup.
THE CUE LINE :-) This clinches it yet again. This wag the dog is so blatantly obvious, they totally butchered it.
Take a look in front of the car. There is a marker line there. Some have said this is just a fluid leak, but it is obviously not, because in the next frames we see the continuity error: another line magically appears on the road at a 90 degree angle. Fluid leaks will not do that; they are obviously painted lines being used as cue marks for where to put the car, and this terror scene was done in multiple takes.
Since our "terrorists" only got out once, the mysteriously appearing cue line needs some explaining. 90 degree angles with the other line prove it is not a fluid leak, which would flow in only one direction. This totally busts the lie. I am NOT CHARLIE; Charlie can go to hell. They screwed this up big time.
I have looked at the related newscast and the Freudian slip, where the Sky News reporter says in clear English "the blood on the ground, which has been put there": the screw up is real. He stumbles and tries to cover it up, but a Freudian slip is exactly what it is; and done as clearly as this reporter did, there is no going back.
More details
The final showdown and hostage taking was irrational. I guess that sold. However, if you really did shoot a place up, the last thing to do is keep running around in stolen cars. That does not wash AT ALL. Proper procedure? Ditch the car, ditch the jihadi outfit, get on the subway or bus, and go to a place to hide out until things cool off. The fact this did not happen makes no sense to me, unless someone wanted a Hollywood-style script for max effect.
They flooded Mexican television with this crap until I wanted to puke.
Farganne found two additional videos that destroy this psy op; in one video, which was supposed to be in the aftermath of the police officer shooting, when they were discussing where to put the flowers, one reporter can be heard saying, in a questioning tone, "Where they put the fake blood?" This is on the Forum
I was very irritated by the theme "I am Charlie" fronted in France, and how fast such massive rallies were staged. How fast all the signs were printed. How fast all the light shows with that phrase got set up. Not rational at all; that made no sense at all to me. And the "I am Charlie" theme was no doubt fronted to make everyone feel touched by "Islamic terror". That just chapped me. They really took it over the top and no doubt had it all scheduled ahead of time. France scammed that better than the U.S.
Need I mention the common theme of the lost ID? Could it be any more obvious?
Charlie was going under, probably had layoffs scheduled, and now has a million magazines (far more than the usual number) going out to stores to handle excess demand caused by this publicity stunt. COME ON NOW, IF YOU JUST GOT SHOT UP, THE NEXT EDITION IS CANCELED. Sickeningly reaping it every way possible. Filthy rotten disgusting people. The layoffs (if they still happen) will be the "dead".
Jan 8 2015
UPDATE: The final SLAM on Paris terror attack added below these top 10 problems with the story
Updates continuing, discuss this on the Forum
BUSTED: Shooting scene done Hollywood-style in multiple takes, complete with continuity errors, road markers, botched audio, EVERYTHING.
The final bust: I thought the police officer shooting scene (the only shooting scene of any substance) was too perfect to not be staged. Now forum reader NT1 sewed it up nicely – moving markers, cue points, botched soundtrack, everything that could possibly be wrong if you only knew what to look for. Shooting was done in two or more Hollywood-style takes that were edited together – all the proof is here:
NT1 posted the following to the forum:
I was unfortunate enough to see a film clip from the Biafran War on a late-night, BBC programme presented by Ludovic Kennedy many years ago. The victim had been stripped and was lying bound, begging for his life. A shot from off-screen silenced his pleas as his head and upper body were shifted violently due to energy absorption from the bullet. Another shot a second or so later produced the same head and body movement, but by that time the man was dead. Shortly afterwards, the soldier who had shot him strolled into view, with a look of extreme satisfaction on his face. This was before the days of modern high-velocity weapons, but illustrated all too clearly that the kinetic energy from a bullet has to go somewhere. There was no such movement of the policeman's head and body during the attack, and I have to agree with Stephan at Post #94 that the smoke emission appears to emerge from his hand.
However, that is not the only anomaly in this video, which appears to have been made in two takes. The video on the LiveLeak site: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668 is the best version for this, but the video linked at Post #97 is the next-best. My comments are made with respect to the LiveLeak video. You need to watch it in hi-res (720p). Someone needs to download that video before it disappears.
At the beginning, we see the two gunmen who have just emerged from their car – it would be even better if we had seen them driving up and stopping. Anyway, note that their car has stopped astride a black line drawn in the road. These are the clues you have to look for and, if you have read about the Woolwich 'murder' of Lee Rigby, especially the excellent, in-depth analyses by Chris Spivey: http://www.chrisspivey.org you will know what to expect. For the moment, I'll just concentrate on the main part of the action, but just try to think of a reason why the trainer [running shoe] has been placed carefully in the road when, as you can see from the rest of the video, both men are still wearing boots.
The right-hand gunman (looking at the video) disappears behind the van, and the sound of shots is heard. The first three are presumably from one gun, and the following five are supposed to be from another. There is far too much echo, and there seems to be too much low-frequency content. This action is taking place with a park area in the background, with nothing to reflect the sound – not in a canyon. After this, the camera tracks to the right and we see the policeman just finishing falling to the ground, facing in the direction of his attackers. This is not the right direction for the smoke effect.
The policeman then goes out of shot (no pun intended) as the camera tracks left, waiting for the men to appear. As it follows the men, the policeman comes into view but has totally changed position and is now facing away from his attackers – but further to the left and looking over his shoulder to see where they are. He seems to synchronise his head turn-back with the progress of the man on the pathway. The 'fatal' shot is fired, with no apparent effect on the body, and the shooter moves back into the road to join his companion. Both run back to the car – but something has changed. When we saw the car at the beginning, it was astride a black line. On their return, another line has appeared in the road at right angles to the first and facing out from the left-hand front wheel (looking at the video). How did that get there?
No one is going to walk out into the road to mark the position of the car when there are two rampaging gunmen in the area. We have to assume that it was necessary to retake part of the action, and the line was added to enable the car to stop in exactly the same place before the scene was repeated. The view we see is not the only view that would have been taken at that time.
There is also a short black line in the road by the front wheel of the nearest rental van. If you now look carefully through the footage again, you should be able to see various cue marks in the road and on the pathway. Note the two white marks level with the front of the car between the rental vans, for example. Can you see the white mark at the base of the vegetation, roughly in line with where the policeman collapsed after being 'shot' the first time? Note the two black dots on the pathway where the policeman fell initially but became exposed when he turned over and moved to the left. Look at the white dot on the pathway, just to the left of the green pillar, and check the timing of the shot as the gunman passes it.
There seem to be other marks at various points. See if you can find them. There should be much more for this video to reveal and more questions to be asked.
My comment: This certainly explains the perfect positioning of the cameraman I made note of earlier!
Top 10 (now 12) inconsistencies tally:
1. 10 people were supposed to have died, with others injured. Yet at the scene, a max of 2 ambulances showed up, when well over 10 would have been needed for such an event.
2. It looks like they did fire some real rounds, from the looks of one of the police cars for this "drill"; however, the pictures are not clear enough to show if the bullet holes are just gangsta stickers. In one of the photos, the police officers are laughing and joking next to the shot-up car where someone supposedly died. Additionally, images on Google of shot-up windshields have cracks going all through the windshield. In this France event, all damage is limited to where the holes are. Is that possible?
3. All people who responded to the scene had French Foreign Legion haircuts. Odd for ambulance drivers and EMTs.
4. (a good one) – If the perpetrators got away and have not been captured, HOW did the French police identify them within hours, when they did not turn up elsewhere? Sort of like the passport on 9/11 or all those pristine passports from Flight MH17. That works. Gotta have a positive ID on them to "prove" they are "Muslim" and not just the Mossad out on a field trip. Gotta do it when the shock factor is at max. And no one dropped a passport this time: HOW did the police figure it out? TIMES THREE?
5. I never saw any bloody photos from this, not even fake blood, not even from a police officer who was shot by an AK and lying on the sidewalk for 10 seconds before being "shot" a second time, and still no blood. Very odd if this is real.
6. Target was a group of Jews, who belong to a greater whole which stages B.S. terror attacks frequently. That stinks.
7. How did the road miraculously have no traffic? The scene is set up as if staged. It is as if the area was cordoned off prior to the "attack" for a drill, so the "terrorists" simply parked smack dab in the middle of the road because they knew there would be no traffic.
8. How did the attackers know there would be a giant staff meeting with everyone important for the publication present to be shot all at once? A little help from the NSA, or what?
9. The publication had serious prior financial trouble – and if it was going to close anyway, why not use it to stage a psy op? That would "explain" why it closed, would it not?
10. There is no recoil on the AK as it shoots. I initially assumed blanks, but what about rubber bullets? At any rate, there was no sign of blood at any point from the police officer; an AK round goes all the way through, and bulletproof vests are for handguns, not AK rounds. If he was wearing one, it would not work. LACK OF ANY RECOIL AT ALL SCREAMS BLANK.
Inconsistency 11:
All video initially posted was shot from rooftops. FOR A SCENE THAT LASTED LESS THAN A MINUTE. How did anyone get up to the roof that fast to get video of this, times several people shooting from different places? The rooftops were just regular rooftops, with no reason for anyone to be up there. It is not like there was a rooftop Starbucks or something. Why were people up there to begin with – how did they figure out what was going on and have their cell phones all ready to shoot video from perfect angles from start to finish?
ANSWER: They went up ahead of time, got in position, and shot video of a drill they knew would happen. It is the only rational answer. Even if they were a roofing crew, they would not have figured out something was going on and had camera phones (times several) shooting clear video in under 15 seconds to capture this less than a minute long event. The staged camera angles and time frame alone nails this as a fraud: such timing and positioning is flatly impossible. Even the robot android Data from Star Trek could not have gotten up to the roof that fast, found where to shoot the best video from, and captured this so well.
Inconsistency 12: Getaway driver was in school at the time of the "incident"
Classmates stand up for him
The classmates of an 18-year-old suspect in the Paris shooting, that occurred yesterday afternoon at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine, have protested his innocence by saying that he was in class at the time of the incident in which 12 people were murdered.
Hamyd Mourad was reported to have handed himself to the police at around 11pm last night after he saw his name mentioned on the news; his friends and acquaintances have said that he has an alibi, as they claim he was present in the classroom that day.
It won't matter, just like the Boston bombing, where dorm roommates said Tsarnaev was not at the bombing scene when it happened. Once they name a patsy, he is TOAST. What an innocent dupe Hamyd was for turning himself in, expecting the system to be just when running a Jewish scam! Gitmo time!
Updates continuing, discuss this on the Forum
Mous3000 wrote:
Hi! Jaime:
How many pounds pressure does a bullet from an AK-47 produce on a human body? I read than a .45 ACP produces almost 900 kilograms impact – that's why victims fly several meters. I'm finishing with the Paris affair, I'm looking through this info, and I cannot find it.
My response:
JFK was shot with a similar weapon. Look at what happened there. "Thrown several meters" and "flying" are not necessary to call b.s. on all of this when the guy did not even move an inch in the direction the bullet came from. Six inches, a foot or so, that would be plausible. Look at the JFK video for reference. The guy should have moved significantly (flown, no – but moved significantly) and there should have been huge body pieces knocked off.
Trolls are saying your head won't explode like a melon if it gets hit by a rifle round, and that is why there is no evidence of injury on that police officer. All I have to say to such scamming idiots is LOOK AT THE JFK ASSASSINATION; people cannot possibly be stupid enough to swallow such trollage. Or at least, DEAR GOD, I HOPE NOT.
Jan 8 2014 – The FINAL NAIL in the Paris terror scam (final definitive proof they used blanks)
Many people have analyzed the police officer shooting video very carefully, and have noticed something I missed, but they do not know what it is. I do. Something flies out of the gun and flits around behind the police officer's head. Shills have said it is obviously a skull fragment. But that would not happen with no blood, and there is a far better explanation which, when put along with the rest of the scene, proves beyond all doubt they were shooting blanks.
A blank round has a paper wad, where the bullet would be, to hold the powder in place. When fired, this paper wad comes out of the gun and goes nowhere; it stalls near the barrel and flits around for a while. This mystery object many have made note of is simply the paper wad from the blank.
.jpg)
Here is the scenario:
The cameraman was all set up with his cell phone (why use more if it is supposed to be raw) in the perfect location to film the event perfectly. The police officer was given earplugs so the muzzle blast would not be too loud. An expert shooter made sure the paper wad did not hit the police officer's head. In this scenario, we have: "terrorists" who pull up for no reason at all (they are not being chased) and get out and shoot the police officer at random. There is no logic in this, other than to get a show. The officer falls down for the first part of the show, and to prove how bad the terrorists are, is "killed" while wounded and lying down. Only BAAAAD people kill the already wounded. Good psychological effect.
Problems:
The cameraman was so perfectly positioned that he got a perfectly clear line of sight to where the terrorists' car stopped AND to the police officer at the same time. Not probable in the real world.
AND HERE IS THE KICKER THAT REALLY NAILS IT: How did the cameraman know where to point the camera? How did he know THAT is where the terrorists would stop and get out? How did he even know what car they had to begin with? Their getting out was captured in full; why would anyone have a camera ready and rolling to capture a scene when they were not supposed to even know it was going to happen? That proves it all pure BULLSHIT in a single whack.
And we have no recoil on the gun. We have the exact same white smoke that blanks cause, the wad out of the blank, no blood from the police officer at all, only a small response from the police officer when the gun goes off (about what you would expect as a startle response from a man wearing earplugs and doing a drill), and a perfectly placed cameraman who magically knew it was all going to happen ahead of time.
Jan 7 2015
Terror attack in France?
UPDATE: BUSTED, THEY ARE SHOOTING BLANKS.
I just saw the key video that clearly shows a police officer getting shot in the head by an AK-47 at point blank. Problems: No brain splatter, no blood splatter, white smoke off the barrel dispersing in a wide cloud (which blanks do), no body lurch at bullet impact.
Updates continuing, discuss this on the Forum
Update: Month 1, day 7, hour 11. Here is the 11 theme again. Supposedly the "terrorists" struck at that time because they somehow knew all the top people for the publication would be there in a big meeting at that time. QUESTION: How would they know this? That is the type of info only an insider would have: how did an obviously professional hit team get that info?
Update: In THIS VIDEO there is no blood, and it looks like a drill. When the guy is shot, he just falls down like cops and robbers.
I got sick of cops and robbers as a kid because even if you got the other guy, he probably would not fall down. So I made a rule: everyone had to wear safety glasses, and we used BB guns because you would always jump if you really got hit. One pump only on multi-pump guns. No one could fake not getting hit. WHY DID THIS GUY NOT JUMP WHEN SHOT? A game of cops and robbers (my style) calls B.S. on this.
Question:
Do Muslims always scream "Allahu Akbar" while they shoot places up? With no one identified, and only that phrase for incrimination, ANYONE COULD HAVE DONE IT, and that is IF it even happened and it is not just another psy op.
Another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duM2St6vNj8
Another video Livecast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlQJbsVs48
Supposedly they had a rocket launcher. How did they get that through customs?
UPDATE: Supposedly they were obvious professional hit men, and there was decent video shot of the whole thing. Video links here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bTD0lJ5Tv4
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668
Comic magazine Charlie Hebdo produced anti-Islamic cartoons.
Three well-armed "terrorists" stormed the place with machine guns ablaze while screaming "Allahu Akbar".
Terrorists escape completely, while shooting at police all over Paris, 10 dead.
Updates continuing, discuss this on the Forum
_______
A government bailout for a trashy, tasteless, low-selling magazine?? Aux armes, citoyens!
French government donates $1.2 million to ensure Charlie Hebdo lives on
Will help magazine to not only remain open, but also to be able to respond with largest-ever print run
http://www.infowars.com/french-government-donates-1-2-million-to-ensure-charlie-hebdo-lives-on/
Hard Proof of Use of Fake Blood in Paris Terror Hoax
http://nodisinfo.com/hard-proof-use-fake-blood-paris-terror-hoax/
Netanyahu's warning to France last November came true
http://smoloko.com/?p=4103
_______
Sky News Reporter Says Blood Has Been
PUT THERE? Paris "Terrorist Attacks" 2015
PUT THERE? Paris "Terrorist Attacks" 2015
Charlie Hebdo Shooting: French police
conveniently KILL GUNMEN in twin standoffs!
Zeekly EXCLUSIVE! Charlie Hebdo Shooting HOAX! FULLY EXPOSED [some profanity, but no blood!]
http://zeeklytv.com/video/13951/Zeekly-EXCLUSIVE-Charlie-Hebdo-Shooting-HOAX-FULLY-EXPOSED-Banned-Youtube-video
"No one can know what really happened because what is certain – as [Aymeric] Chauprade states very well – is that every suburban 'jihadist' is a guy who is in the hands of the [intelligence] services." – Alain Soral
L'attentat contre Charlie Hebdo et l'affaire Merah:
Alain Soral, la vérité
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.