Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

[Maat]

Re dallasgoldbug's 'instruction' on his video mash-up fakery to "Eat it."

No thanks - I'm on a low-bs diet.

Ditto, Simon. Although my tolerance threshold is actually so low now that the slightest whiff is nauseating.

With or without your endorsement, the video speaks for itself. You won't stay relevant with the "not invented here" attitude. Why you're now standing in the way of identifiable actresses is anyone's guess. I personally haven't a clue what you're up to.

"The video speaks for itself", indeed it does! What is your agenda with this game, fred, to force us to prove what should be obvious to most here already, especially you by now, in every piece of crap that's deliberately thrown in front of us?

It reminds me of the kids' joke about examining a turd on the path, "Looks like shit...smells like shit...feels like shit...tastes like shit...Gee I'm glad I didn't tread in it!"

You dodged my question on your last straw man provocations, do you really have problems with memory or MPD?
If not, what other rational explanations are we left with..?

"Bullcrap"? Is that really the finest criticism you have to offer? It's a response worthy of JREF, NIST, or Popular Mechanics. I expect more from you.

When an ongoing operation is threatened it's time to spring into action and pay for the parties and lifestyle?

Living off interest? With these rates?

You've crossed the line one too many times with this tactic, boyo!

Auxiliaries tend to be volunteer positions, and hence an easier spot to plant confederates, if that's what one was intending to do. You might be able to pull off this operation without the cooperation or knowledge of the broader Sheriff's Dept by making sure the team on the scene is packed with your hand-picked crew.

We already exposed all the "photos" & videos of the alleged "scene" of the Arizona PsyOp as FAKED, no one needed to be "on the scene", they were behind a computer screen & audio equipment! Why would they be so stupid as to risk using a troupe of "actors" AT "the scene" when they didn't have to FFS!
The agents acting as "witnesses", "family" etc. afterwards are obviously limited & very carefully managed.

Did you really miss RoyBean's post, or just trying to make sure others do?
Re photos of where "Rebecca Joy" was on specific dates:
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p2359924
@ http://www.flickr.com/photos/dlwakeman/3435021133/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/dlwakeman/ ... otostream/

Oh yeah, this big-boned, heavy-jawed woman with her mannish hands can teleport and morph into a slightly built Giffords character (changing her ears to match too, of course)



Enough is enough!

[fred]

Why does it seem like job #1 around here is protecting the actors and actresses and animators behind the Gabby Giffords hoax? I cannot endorse the the awkward "suspension" attempt to silence DallasGoldbug over "attitude" and "writing style". To me that seems heavy-handed and reeks of desperation.

To answer your question, Maat, yes I do think that the actress he identified is quite capable of playing the role of Gabby Giffords.

As for your "MPD" smear, which went right over my head: whatever it means, I'll allow you to save that conversation for a psychologist or psychiatrist: people who not only have time to talk about MPD but who will gladly charge you to have that conversation. I don't find it clever. To me it's all psychobabble.

Weirdly I have seen zero analysis from Maat and Simon on this topic to substantiate their apparent desire to downplay Dallasgoldbug's findings, only "whiff of bullshit" comments worthy of MSM Norwegian Shill Willy Ustad. Maybe it is all bullshit, and that should be fairly easy to prove: maybe this is another "Pod" or "Flash" and just a time-wasting distraction. Maybe it's like "Jeff Hill" and his fake phone calls. I do acknowledge that it's certainly a possibility.

Personally, I don't see how they can run a successful Congresswoman Sim without having an actress to play that role for the many live public appearances that Congressmen routinely make. So, just pointing out that the Gabby pictures are fake (which I agree with) doesn't tell us anything about whether or not they have an actress or two or three playing the live-action parts (showing up in Congress to cast votes, pressing the flesh, kissing babies, etc.). It's the familiar situation of fake pictures of "molten aluminum" or "plane parts" or "melted cars" not telling us anything about what brought down the towers. Fake pictures of Gabby Giffords don't tell us anything about whether or not they use real actresses to play Gabby Giffords from time to time. Many famous people use body-doubles, and it doesn't make all famous people into "CGI-only Sims"

Therefore simply protesting too much and calling names isn't good enough. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Simon and Matt have been reduced to simple name-calling. Why?

Something's not right here.

[fred]

the slightest whiff is nauseating.

What is your agenda with this game, fred, to force us to prove what should be obvious to most here already, especially you by now, in every piece of crap that's deliberately thrown in front of us?

[...]

It reminds me of the kids' joke about examining a turd on the path, "Looks like shit...smells like shit...feels like shit...tastes like shit...Gee I'm glad I didn't tread in it!"

[...]

You dodged my question on your last straw man provocations, do you really have problems with memory or MPD?
If not, what other rational explanations are we left with..?

[...]

You've crossed the line one too many times with this tactic, boyo!

What means "boyo"? I really don't see anything worthy of responding to here. You can type the word "shit". You can call names.

Does a shill really need any other skills?

[nonhocapito]

Why does it seem like job #1 around here is protecting the actors and actresses behind the Gabby Giffords hoax? I cannot endorse the the awkward "suspension" attempt to silence DallasGoldbug over "attitude" and "writing style".
(...)
I don't see how they can run a Congresswoman Sim without having an actress to play that role for the many live public appearances that Congressmen routinely make.

Pff. So we would have secret reasons to protect these alleged actors? What a joke. You always drop these hints about members of this forum, is that your childish way to win an argument? Why are you even here if this is what you think?

Your arguments are getting really old. We are not condemning DGB and not just for his writing style. Plenty of arguments have been made against the merits of his research, to which no proper answer has been given.

As to the sim-congresswoman. I don't know how they did it. Maybe she never ever was in congress. Maybe it is all CGI and the other congress people don't butt in because they all belong to the same masonic circles or something.

Do you really think they are not bought and sold each and everyone of them? How come fakery is never discussed by any parliament or congress in the whole world? They discuss 9/11 truth (on some parliament at the periphery of the empire), but somehow never discuss how things in the news are faked?

Then again, sure, maybe there is an actress. The point is that DGB research is too flimsy and contradictory to be endorsed. His resemblance game has all the defects of the resemblance games that have been played on this and other forums for so long. They are time-wasters, to give you the illusion that you are about to grasp a guilty person that you will never grasp, while there is no judiciary system out there left with enough integrity to condemn anyone involved, not until there will be popular recognition of media fakery.

Or do you really expect to see DGB bringing Rebecca Joy to justice tomorrow, and a trial being held against the Tucson fakery job? Did Ozzy bring the Harley Davidson t shirt guy anywhere? (BTW: "DallasGoldBug": a nickname with three names in it, one of which is related to the JFK assassination. Guess whose other nickname had these characteristics? )

The fact that DGB makes a video against the cluesforum where he blathers about his face-recognition algorithms is not reassuring. It suggests profound phoniness and malice. This is not science but pure speculation, and yet all his evidence is built like this.

We are protecting the forum here, and not censuring his research, considering that he has his own website so there is no censoring jackshit. You should get your priorities straight. Either you want this forum to survive, and keep it floating above the shit, or you want it to sink into the shit following any stimula from the outside that you somehow decide we should follow.

[fred]

OK, I see what's going on.

Unlike Oslo and the Moon Landing and 9/11, which already happened and are over and done with:

THIS PSYOP IS STILL UNDERWAY. THEY HAVE PLANS TO USE GABBY GIFFORDS!

Is that the real reason for the bodyguards? We observe and comment, but what we don't do here is mess up ongoing operations. I get it now. We're supposed to be archeologists digging up "clues" about the past. The vicsims that are already dead are fair game. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fair game. But try to shut down a crime in progress and it's another story.

[fred]

Then again, sure, maybe there is an actress. The point is that DGB research is too flimsy and contradictory to be endorsed.

I never asked anybody to endorse his research. Nobody ever asked YOU to endorse his research. Yes, maybe there is an actress, indeed.

This shtick is so transparent. You're not protecting the forum, you're protecting the actress.

How is DGB and his little website any threat at all to this forum? Why is it more threatening than say, Naomi Klein or Noam Chomsky or Willy Ustad?

No other media fakery topic is taboo, but suddenly Gabby Giffords is an existential threat to this forum, and I have to get my priorities straight or this place won't survive. Huh?

[nonhocapito]

Then again, sure, maybe there is an actress. The point is that DGB research is too flimsy and contradictory to be endorsed.

I never asked anybody to endorse his research. Nobody ever asked YOU to endorse his research. Yes, maybe there is an actress, indeed.

This shtick is so transparent. You're not protecting the forum, you're protecting the actress.

I'm done following you. But thanks so much for the laughs.

[fred]

I'm done following you. But thanks so much for the laughs.

Typical shill. I had you pegged from day one. You can't think of a good reason to stop investigation into the actress who plays Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and so you ban the guy looking into it and call a bunch of names and it's all done in the name of "survival of the forum"?

How could investigating some potential actress possibly be a threat? How?

And then when you're confronted, you run and hide because you know you've got no merit. It's classic! Just like Alex Jones has to run and hide and cut the phone call whenever "Media Fakery" comes on the line...

We're forbidden to even consider looking into the possibility that some actresses are playing the role of Gabby Giffords? If DallasGoldBug is doing such a lousy job of investigating the actresses that play Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and Jared Lee Loughner, then I guess we need a lot more people to look into this topic. Because it's certainly not a threat to the survivial of the forum here, unless it threatens the forum in some way that I cannot understand.

[nonhocapito]

Fine, if you really really want this (and it seems that you do), you're suspended as well. If you need some other place to plug DallasGoldBug research and declare how much of a shill I am, I am sure letsroll will be happy to have you. Ciao...

[Maat]

I guess we're both "shills" for wanting to protect this forum and the integrity of our research from contamination, eh Nonho?
If I cannot ask obvious questions prompted by persistently bizarre, illogical or aberrant behavior without being accused of "calling names", or quote anything that contains mild profanity, or use any British equivalents for 'pal', 'buddy', etc. there's obviously no way to communicate rationally with such a mindset at all.
Prognosis negative. Q.E.D

[joey]

.

[nonhocapito]

That being said, I don’t agree with censoring him from this website. I can understand the need for suspending/banning people in the past who were blatantly here to disrupt, but DGB is actually contributing, what appears to be, meaningful research. However, I realize this is Simon’s forum and trust he knows what’s best for it even if I don’t agree.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here:

We are not censoring anything. Everyone is still free to discuss DGB findings as much as they like. On this forum or elsewhere.

Anyone suggesting that we are censoring him is either very confused or is deliberately using the situation to stir trouble.

People are suspended or banned because they make the climate on the forum unbearable, not because they maintain one thing or the other.

What just happened and that caused the suspension of two members is that the discussion had turned into a time-wasting confrontation, aimed at dividing and disrupting the forum. We cannot have any of that.

As to DGB's research, people had looked into it long before this whole craziness, and the discussion didn't last long. When this happens, it is only because a topic is not interesting enough. I can foretell that the discussion will not last long this time either, unless certain characters do not decide that we all should be forced to "eat it".

We all have our taste and our preferences, and there is no forcing a topic to anyone.

And now please let's all move on, there are cases of media fakery out there that need our help to be cracked open.

[joey]

.

[brianv]

DGB can open his own bloody forum! With his computer skillz, it should be a doddle for him! Which makes me wonder what he's doing here in the first place!

[Doomday/Heinz]

Great so not ony has dallas been banned now Fred has!
Great, this thread wil go nowhere then.
So zero % of dallas's work is feasible ?

So you see NO similarities whatsoever between Pittman and Loughner?
So you see no similarities between the mourners and the sherrif department?
You see no similarities between the first responder and Joe Zamudio?

If the answer is no to all these questions I dont know what to say.
I will be truly flabbergasted.