Maat wrote: Well said, Teryaki! Yes, the old strawman technique of hyperbole and misrepresentation seems to be the default 'fall-back' position for all such "useful idiots" and "truther" controlled ops alike, doesn't it? I guess they know it works to dumb it down, and too confusing for most to grasp how they purposely mix & match their fakery methods, from agent/actors with & without partial cgi to photoshopped stills of layered objects/people/props/sims etc.
I agree that they didn't need to literally set up all the sites and operatives now chanting the counter-play, of course, they only had to water a few pre-existing weeds to have them propagate exponentially. That's what I really meant by 'deliberately devised'; only needing that initial push to pick up momentum.
McGowan also likes to use the term 'photographically verifiable' without realizing that before anything else besides the existence of an ongoing Media Fakery PsyOp becomes 'photographically verifiable,' first the photos themselves must be verifiable. What's 'photographically verifiable' is whether the bogus story peddled by the PsyOp is logically consistent within its own script as depicted in the photos & videos shot for that script. As soon as glaring inconsistencies are found with the script or official narrative within the images, inconsistencies that no 'real event' should have, then a 'real news event' is no longer being analyzed but the extent of the 'big lie' fraud inflicted by the entire 'movie made up of photographs and images and fake news stories' cut up and presented in many pieces on an ongoing basis (sometimes for many decades as in the Moon Landings Hoax, or over a decade like the 9-11 PsyOp).
To then infer from this proven existence of fakery and laughable inconsistencies between the images and the official narrative that the movie was staged 'live'
in one take and somehow photographed by real people on the scene who 'caught the acted fakery' is absolutely absurd. There is no need to go through such ridiculously restrictive troubles. Who in the controlled mainstream media is going to call them out on it and say 'hey, you didn't shoot this live, you shot this stuff in advance ?' That's why the crucial portions of these PsyOps are simply shot in advance and aired as 'live' news stories through total media control. Whether any real 'live stories' are later aired with the same actors in the mainstream or alternative media (as in the case of William Rodriguez on the 9-11 PsyOp) peddling further details of their bogus stories is no different than Bruce Willis in "Die Hard" or Steve McQueen in "The Towering Inferno" elaborating on their roles in those movies. Their entire testimony is already discredited as soon as one instance of fakery is conclusively proven. This would be good enough in any properly functioning court of law win your case against fraudsters without having to hear any more BS testimony pushing the same discredited narrative.
As Simon has posted elsewhere on the forum:
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
False in one particular, false in everything.
This principle of Roman law is still respected and has been appropriated by other disciplines. The concept is that
if a witness has been shown to lie in one particular respect in a case, he is not to be trusted in anything else he says. This is why it is important for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court:
it discredits the rest of their testimony. The object behind the principle is
to reject questionable testimony (even if it might be true) before accepting falsehood into evidence.
The legal principles of interrogating witnesses have been drawn into the task of evaluating historical sources. Just as a witness in court can be impeached by being shown to have lied, an historical source likewise loses much of its authority
if its author can be shown to have deliberately falsified something--how can we trust an author concerning fact X when we know him to have lied about fact Y? Such an author may corroborate something a better witness says, but has forfeited our trust where he speaks without corroboration.
So, too, a manuscript bearing copies of ancient works is called a witness: not to a crime, obviously, nor to a contract, nor to historical facts, but rather to an earlier version of its text. Many of the same principles have been drawn into this field as well. A manuscript which contains many errors or bad readings (for example, a simpler phrase replacing a more difficult one which the scribe did not understand, or frequent spelling blunders) cannot be trusted without corroboration from an independent manuscript (i.e., one which is neither its copy nor its descendent).
http://everything2.com/title/falsus+in+ ... in+omnibus
So whether it was a joke, dumb mistake or deliberate test, who knows
) strolling around the Boston area, getting drunk on a Saturday night and spilling the beans. That is, of course, unless those shills are not made of flesh-and-blood...but I doubt they'd have such sophisticated robot softwares if they can't even produce decent fauxtoshop imagery!
