---BREAKAWAY CIVILIZATION ---ALTERNATIVE HISTORY---NEW BUSINESS MODELS--- ROCK & ROLL 'S STRANGE BEGINNINGS---SERIAL KILLERS---YEA AND THAT BAD WORD "CONSPIRACY"--- AMERICANS DON'T EXPLORE ANYTHING ANYMORE.WE JUST CONSUME AND DIE.---
White House can’t justify new gun control proposals or explain how they will make Americans safer ...hey mr. prez is THAT a "j" ??? ...WTF ??? nawww man ? now give me yer guns ...
The
most anti-gun presidency in the nation’s history can’t come up with a
reasonable explanation of how stricter regulations will do anything to
decrease the number of mass shootings in the country. President Obama’s efforts to push gun control measures
through Congress have not been successful, so he has opted for issuing
an executive order to tighten background checks and is urging state
governors to also issue executive orders of their own to make guns more
difficult to purchase.
As Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple noted:
Like a true tyrant, he is simply ignoring what the
people and their elected representatives want (however flawed those
representatives may be), because he thinks we are just children that
need to be told how to live.
When White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was questioned by a
reporter regarding the fact that none of Obama’s proposed regulations
would have prevented a single instance of mass shootings in America,
Earnest was at a loss to give an adequate explanation. “The more that we see this kind of violence on our streets, the more
people go out and buy guns,” Earnest said. “That is both ironic and
tragic.” When asked why so many Americans are purchasing firearms, he answered: “I don’t know, I really don’t.” Krause’s satirical response:
Yes, it doesn’t make sense that more guns have been
sold during a Presidency that has seen more mass shootings than any
before it, and it’s just inexplicable that so many guns would be sold
during the most anti-gun presidency in American history. It’s a real
thinker isn’t it?
Biological males who identify as females can now freely undress in girls’ locker rooms ~ hehe only in crazy~ville (USA) ... ya know where the fucking "com~pass" stops work~in OMFG! ... Objective truth has now lost all meaning in today’s society. With the
increasing fluidity and subjectivity dominating people’s identities
nowadays, no one could really say who’s who or what’s what, for fear, especially, of offending those who claim they’ve been “trapped in the wrong body.” ... hehe NOW geet yer fucking helmets & mittens the fuck back ON ..boys ,girls, it's, ain'ts or what the fuck ever's
On
Monday, the federal government just proved how skewed society’s gender
standards now are, as it mandated a Chicago school to allow a fully
biological male into the girls’ locker room — without restrictions. Why?
Well, because he feels like he’s a girl, that’s why. According to the feds, this move has been mandated by Title IX of the
Civil Rights Act. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil
Rights, in fact, spent almost two years observing the Township High
School District 211 to study the young “girl’s” case. The said
transgender student filed a complaint in 2013 after the school refused
him (or is it her?) “unrestricted access” to the girls’ locker room. The
district initially acceded to his request, thereby allowing him to use
the girls’ locker room, “so long as he used a privacy curtain while
disrobing.”
The feds, however, ruled that this restriction still constituted
discrimination. According to John Knight, director of the LGBT and AIDS
Project at the ACLU, forcing the student to use a privacy curtain was
“blatant discrimination” because: “It’s not voluntary; it’s mandatory for her. It’s one thing to say to
all the girls, ‘You can choose if you want some extra privacy,’ but
it’s another thing to say, ‘You, and you alone, must use them.’ That
sends a pretty strong signal to her that she’s not accepted and the
district does not see her as a girl.” Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon agreed, saying: “All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in
school programs and activities – this is a basic civil right.
Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the
law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to
use the girls’ locker room.” The problem is, the student is a fully biological male, never mind the fact that he “identifies” as female. As reported by Breitbart,
with this recent proclamation, the government’s new policy with regard
to sex and sexuality among youngsters would now be as follows:
“If you’re a boy who shows a picture of your penis to a girl in your
class, you have likely violated both federal child pornography laws as
well as local sexual harassment laws. If this happens consistently in
your school, the school has violated Title IX.
“If you’re a boy who says he’s a girl, the girl must be placed in
position to see your penis and testicles. If the school does not allow
this, the school has violated Title IX.
“If you’re an adult who sexually touches a child with the consent of
the child, you have committed a crime, since children are incapable of
consent.
“If you’re an adult who gives a child hormone therapy or surgery to
prevent normal development of the genitals, with the consent of the
child, you are a hero.”
Objective truth has now lost all meaning in today’s society. With the
increasing fluidity and subjectivity dominating people’s identities
nowadays, no one could really say who’s who or what’s what, for fear, especially, of offending those who claim they’ve been “trapped in the wrong body.” Source: Breitbart.com
image: http://cdn.velonews.competitor.com/files/2015/09/20144654-240522-659x440.jpg Photo: Tim De Waele | TDWsport.com (File).Editor’s note: This is an excerpt of an article by Joe Harris and Steve Maxwell on The Outer Line. The growth pro cycling has enjoyed over the past two decades has
occurred largely thanks to television. TV is the primary way that about
99 percent of cycling’s audience connects with the sport, and it
presents many great opportunities to further grow pro cycling, but there
are a number of obstacles that must be overcome. Cycling is one of the most expensive sports to televise, because it
takes place on the road rather than in a stadium. Highly specialized and
expensive equipment must be integrated to create compelling broadcast
content. This includes helicopters and fixed-wing airborne transmission
relay systems, fleets of motorcycles, high-definition cameras, and
central production and satellite uplink trucks where the transmission
feeds are mixed and rebroadcast out to the networks for the
”play-by-play” announcers to call the race. It’s no wonder that the
expenses of broadcasting a race can quickly become overwhelming. What is perhaps not as widely understood is that many cycling events
— particularly those in the United States — must also purchase the air
time to actually broadcast their event. While TV channels compete with
each other and pay huge prices for the right to televise more popular
sports like football, most bike races have to pay their own way. Indeed,
the Tour de France is the only bicycle race broadcast in the U.S. that
commands a rights payment, but even that is quite minimal. This “pay to
play” standard is known as a time-buy, which is essentially an
“infomercial” for the sport. Hence, from the race organizer’s
perspective, not only are the production costs of organizing and
televising a bike race very high, but actually getting the event onto TV
represents a significant additional cost. These two costs items are a
key reason why profitability is so difficult to achieve in a cycling
event. The underlying problem for the sport is that — outside of the Tour de
France — professional cycling does not have a large fan base and
television viewing audience in most regions of the world. In the U.S.
market, even the Tour itself averages only a 0.1 Nielsen Rating, which
means that only about 100,000 people in the whole country actually tune
in to watch each day. But pro cycling cannot survive or grow without TV
programming, and it desperately needs to get much better at both
producing and distributing media content. How can these challenges be
addressed and overcome? First, there are a number of emerging new production technologies
that should help to dramatically reduce the physical production costs of
televised cycling, in terms of cameras, transmission, and media
streaming. “Devices like the NewTek Tri-Caster video production system
represent huge leaps in miniaturization and have a one-time cost of
$30,000 — as opposed to leasing a full production truck at $25,000 per
day,” says producer Kent Gordis. The ability to mix and deliver the
video feed on standard laptop computers will continue to bring down the
costs. In terms of the all-important aerial photography in cycling
coverage, it is widely expected that drones will soon be able to replace
expensive combined helicopter camera and fixed wing transmission
systems. One complaint often heard about professional road racing is that much
of the coverage — to put it bluntly — just isn’t very exciting. Former
race promoter and marketing consultant Michael Aisner says, “We need to
think about how to make cycling television coverage more like a reality
TV show. Human interest stories are what grabs the average viewer, and
makes them more invested in the outcome.” Former NBC Sports announcer
Craig Hummer echoes Aisner: “Compelling TV coverage has to be more about
the journey, not just how fast they get there.” There are also other
structural and probably more contentious ways of making the sport more
exciting. One potential idea would be to shorten not only the total days
of racing — particularly the often boring and so-called “transitional”
stages of the grand tours — but also shortening the length of some
individual races, in order to make them more compatible with modern
viewing habits. Technology can also help to make televised racing more exciting.
On-board cameras, power meters, physiological monitors, and GPS tracking
units to follow individual riders are widely used in other sports, but
cycling has largely ignored or misused them. All of the recent talk
about efforts by both Velon and ASO to deliver on-bike video streams
only demonstrates how far behind the sport really is. In fact, neither
of these approaches is really new anyway; on-board digital cameras were
used as early as the 1999 Giro d’Italia. Yet, no enhanced and integrated
live content has been presented to television viewers to date. It
should be fairly easy for pro cycling to make better use of existing and
well-known technologies to make the sport much more interesting and
appealing to the TV audience. The real revolution would be a dramatic change in pro cycling’s
distribution model. Traditional TV is a blunt instrument for content
delivery, and its monetization model was invented when there were only a
handful of channels for consumers to watch. Internet live-streaming is
emerging as the new model, which could turn the traditional TV model on
its head and essentially drive a “gate fee” for the sport’s specialized
content. In the same way that pro surfing has built a hugely successful
online destination for its events, content archives, and fan
interaction, there needs to be a “go-to” place for all pro bike racing
content — including live and archived video coverage, but also forums,
chats, statistics, and other fan-centric pursuits. There are millions of
potential new fans out there waiting to be won over, and multitudes of
new racers who have yet to be inspired. By starting to implement some of
these changes, the future of pro cycling is bright — and unlike most
revolutions, this one may be live-streamed. Read more >>
Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/09/commentary/commentary-kill-your-television_384325#11U4fgBib8wGjm2x.99
The ASO – UCI war: Why, how, and what it means ~ man ! if "they" don't figure OUT an new biz model ? fuck !!
image: http://cdn.velonews.competitor.com/files/2015/09/SPTDW8016-661x440.jpg Photo: Tim De Waele | TDWsport.comTour de France organizer ASO announced Friday
that it’s pulling all of its races out of the UCI WorldTour in 2017.
After more than a decade of battles between the two over the future of
professional cycling, this is as close as we’ve seen to a nuclear
option. If all the acronyms and political infighting have left you
confused about the implications, here’s a primer.
Who gets to race the Tour?
For 2016, it will be business as usual: The 18 WorldTour teams get
automatic bids, and ASO gets to pick four additional teams from the Pro
Continental ranks. In 2017, the entire field will be up to ASO’s
discretion. ASO’s decision to pull out of the WorldTour and run the Tour
de France as part of the Europe Tour means the race will be run as Hors
Classe (HC) event. HC fields cannot comprise more than 70 percent
WorldTour teams. In a 22-team field, that means no more than 15 WT
teams, so at least three top teams will be shut out of the 2017 Tour de
France. But ASO could invite even fewer.
What is ASO’s motivation?
Simple: Power. When the ASO has total control over whom it can invite
to the Tour, the teams are at its mercy. By pulling the Tour de France
out of the WorldTour, ASO gets to dictate terms for the Tour and, by
proxy, much of the sport of cycling.
Who’s winning right now?
ASO. Without guaranteed entry into the Tour, teams will have an even tougher time securing sponsorships. (Velon has been trying to help on that front.) The UCI tried to address teams’ financial instability by announcing
earlier this month that WorldTour licenses would be good for three
years, instead of just one — a move the ASO opposed. But with the Tour
(along with several other major races that ASO controls) no longer part
of the WorldTour, the licenses mean little, and the ASO has the upper
hand.
Who’s losing?
Everyone but ASO. Teams will no longer be able to guarantee a highly
valuable Tour spot to sponsors, potentially making them less stable,
particularly those near the bottom of the current WorldTour. Riders
suffer from unstable teams that are prone to collapse or other financial
difficulties. ASO is openly mocking the UCI’s WorldTour system.
Most likely, at least in some version. One of the main sticking
points between ASO and the UCI has been the former’s desire for an “open
system” that didn’t guarantee automatic Tour bids each year. The UCI says its three-year license program, wherein a team can be
kicked out for ethics violations at any time and is evaluated under
sporting criteria at the end of three years, is an open system. The ASO
says ‘non non!’ to that. Its definition of an open system is one in
which the poorest-performing teams are booted out of the WorldTour every
year, similar to how European soccer leagues operate. And, in truth,
the UCI favors something more like a closed league, much like the NFL or
NBA, in which teams have the stability of guaranteed spots year after
year. But ASO feels that an open system will force teams to put star riders
in more races, to make sure the team doesn’t fall out the bottom of the
rankings. There is a chance Friday’s announcement by ASO was simply a
political maneuver to pressure the UCI to accept an open system.
What’s the European Tour? What are the calendar implications?
The UCI has little leverage. As it did in 2008, the organization
could make teams choose between it and the ASO by threatening to suspend
riders or teams who participate in ASO races. But that seems unlikely
under current president Brian Cookson, who is less confrontational and
dictatorial than his predecessor, Pat McQuaid. But he UCI could built a coalition — Giro organizer RCS Sport is on its side, and most teams will be too — strong enough to make a difference.
When did these battles start?
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away … ASO vs. UCI battles stretch back decades. But this particular issue
mirrors a fight the two had in 2007 and 2008 surrounding what was then
called the ProTour, which was an even more “closed” system, with more
guarantees for teams. It came to a head at Paris-Nice (a race owned by
ASO) in 2008, when the UCI demanded that teams boycott the race or else
be handed six-month suspensions. In the end, the teams raced (though a
few riders, like Mark Cavendish and Bradley Wiggins, sat out to make
sure they could ride at track worlds a few weeks later), and nobody was
suspended. “Now we must choose between the firing squad and the guillotine,”
said Patrick Lefevre, then the manager of QuickStep, days before the
2008 event. “If we say yes to the race, then we’re sanctioned. If we say
yes to the UCI, then we don’t race the Tour. We should make them
realize that we will not race in any race until this is resolved, but I
can’t count on any solidarity among the teams.” And this is still the problem. Unless the rest of the sport stands up
to ASO and shouts in unison that the Tour needs teams and riders more
than they need the Tour, the ASO will hold the sport’s ultimate trump
card.
Are there any precedents for what happened today?
In recent cycling history, the organizers of all three grand tours
battled the UCI between 2005 and 2008 over the UCI ProTour model and
especially the requirement that all 20 ProTour teams be invited to every
grand tour. In 2008, ASO didn’t allow the Astana team of defending
champion Alberto Contador to start that year’s Tour de France. The
WorldTour, and the reduction from 20 to 18 top-tier teams, grew out of
the ProTour failure. Outside of cycling, this ASO-UCI spat is beginning to look a lot like
the power struggle that decimated Indy Car racing in North America in
the 1990s. A number of drivers and officials, led by the head of the
Indianapolis 500 — which, like the Tour de France, was the sport’s
crowning jewel — broke from the governing body (CART) over disagreements
about regulations, the balance of big and small teams, and the Indy
500’s importance in the calendar. (Sound familiar?) The breakaway Indy Racing League (IRL) had a number of smaller races
and the Indy 500, which most CART teams were now blocked from racing.
Both sides were weakened, as CART lost access to its most important
event, and IRL was forced to run the Indy 500 with a weaker and much
less prestigious field. But IRL waited out the disruption, and CART
eventually went bankrupt in 2003. In 2008, IRL absorbed what was left of
CART, and the sport was once again run under a unified body, but had to
claw back audiences that had shriveled during the years of acrimony. The lessons for cycling: In the short term, everyone will lose. In
the long term, someone will lose less than everyone else and be declared
the winner. In the interim, teams, fans, and races will suffer. http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/12/news/the-aso-uci-war-why-how-and-what-it-means_391448
33 Unanswered Questions on Sandy Hook’s 3rd Anniversary
By Makia Freeman As the Sandy Hook 3rd anniversary rolls around this December 14th,
2015, it is well worth remembering what a strange, unique, manipulative
and horrific event occurred on December 14th, 2012. When I say horrific, I am not referring to what you may think was the horrific
aspect of the event: the gunning down of 20 innocent children and 6
innocent adults. That is unquestionably horrific, but to date there has
hardly been enough evidence to prove beyond all doubt that actual people
were gunned down. Sandy Hook has become colloquially known as the Sandy Hook Hoax or Sandy Hoax,
the first false flag in recent history to be exposed as an entirely
fabricated event, replete with a fake setting (a fake school) and fake
victims. It marks the first in a series of false flag hoaxes
where fake victims and fake victims’ families (crisis actors) have been
used. Since the majority of people still cannot fathom that Sandy Hook
was a staged event, the template of using crisis actors has been used
again and again (e.g. at the Boston Marathon). Now that we are passing
the Sandy Hook 3rd anniversary, it’s time to turn back the clock and re-examine some unanswered questions pertaining to the event.
By the way, if you think Sandy Hook no longer matters, ask yourself
why Amazon (on behalf of the US Government) felt so scared it had to
engage in censorship by trying to ban Jim Fetzer’s book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (available for free here).
Sandy Hook is still very relevant, because it was a scam of massive
proportions. Take a look how many false flag mass shootings are still
being carried out monthly and even weekly (e.g. Paris, San Bernardino) to terrorize the public, push gun control and achieve other political and geopolitical aims.
Sandy Hook: 33 Unanswered Questions
There are still some who cannot bring themselves to believe that criminal elements within the US Government could pull off a false flag hoax
like this. Yet, it must be remembered that in this day and age it is
all too easy to fake photographic and video evidence. Photoshop and
other software programs allow the user to construct any kind of photo
they want. If you want to know some of the truth about what really
happened at Sandy Hook, 2 of the best documentaries (out of many) that
expose the absurdity of the official narrative and provide alternative
theories are We Need to Talk about Sandy Hook (various independent media analysts) and Unraveling Sandy Hook in 2, 3, 4 and 5 Dimensions (Sofia Smallstorm). Here is a list of 33 unanswered questions about Sandy Hook:
Sandy Hook: Foreknowledge and Preparation
1. Why was a Facebook webpage for the alleged dead teacher Victoria Soto of Sandy Hook Elementary School posted before the event occurred? 2. Why was the United Way charity webpage for Sandy Hook posted before the event occurred?
Google
caught evidence of foreknowledge: this United Way charity website page
was launched on Dec. 11th, 2012, a full 3 days before the mass shooting
at Sandy Hook actually occurred!
3. How did the Arlington Red Devils website post the book on Talking With Children/Students About the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting on
12/10/2012 (which was contained in the page url), 4 days before the
event occurred? If this were some kind of technical glitch, then how
did Google’s bots manage to record a cached page for 12/13/2012, still 1
day before the Sandy Hook shooting happened? 4. How did John Trentacosta
(whose house was next to the Lanzas with a lot of activity occurring
there at the time), who was CEO of the local Newton bank, start a
victims’ fund on the same day so quickly after the event, after
receiving in his words “countless requests” to do so? Is it just a
coincidence that Trentacosta was also a member of a new council of the
New York Federal Reserve, the Community Depository Institutions Advisory Council? 5. According to various researchers, why was the Newtown community
seeded with new families in the years leading up to the event? 6. According to Wolfgang Halbig, why were 16 state troopers pre-positioned 45-60 minutes before the alleged shooting?
Sandy Hook: Media Switching Stories
7. Why did the media keep switching its narrative
as the story unfolded regarding the actual weapon used? Finally they
settled upon a rifle. But how could a rifle kill 26 people in such quick
succession?
Sandy Hook: Inconsistencies with Witness Stories
8. Why did known actor and Sandy Hook witness Gene Rosen keep
changing his story about how he encountered the 6 kids who allegedly
came to him? In different interviews he variously claims he found the
kids just after feeding his cats in the loft, just after going to
breakfast and just after coming home from breakfast. His testimony
completely conflicts with that of the school bus driver and the official
report. There is also video of him near the fire house walking around slowly, plus a video of him rehearsing his lines with the cameraman …
Sandy Hook: Lack Of Evidence
9. How was a skinny 19-year-old boy with no military training capable of killing 26 people clean
while injuring none? (Trained military veterans have claimed it was
highly unlikely or even impossible for someone with the weight of Adam
Lanza to execute that many people in so short a time.) 10.
Why was there no evidence of blood? A total of 26 fatalities (children
and adult) would produce at least at a conservative estimate 20 gallons
(75 liters) of blood. Thus would require a concerted blood cleanup
(blood is considered a biohazard in this type of situation), yet when
Sofia Smallstorm asked who did the cleanup, all the departments were
ignorant of it and even claimed that no one did the cleanup. 11. Where are the alleged 600+ children of Sandy Hook Elementary
School? Why is there absolutely no photo or video evidence of any dead
bodies? Why did coroner Wayne Carver say the following?
Uh, we did not bring the bodies and the families into
contact. We took pictures of them, uhm, of their facial features. We
have, uh, uh—it’s easier on the families when you do that. Un, there is,
uh, a time and place for the up close and personal in the grieving
process, but to accomplish this we thought it would be best to do it
this way and, uh, you can sort of, uh … You can control a situation
depending on the photographer, and I have very good photographers. Uh,
but uh—
12. According to Wolfgang Halbig, why do the records show no social security numbers for the dead students? 13. According to Wolfgang Halbig, why do the records show no report of actual shots fired? 14. According to Wolfgang Halbig, why does the Sandy Hook shooting crime not exist on the FBI 2012 crime report? 15. According to Wolfgang Halbig, why does the tax accessor’s website
shows the victims’ families got free houses on Christmas day when all
Government offices are closed? 16. Why were all the ambulances parked at the fire house away from
the crime scene (except one on Dickinson Dr. which was also too far
removed to be helpful)? Why were so few EMTs (Emergency Medical
Technicians) allowed in the school?
Sandy Hook: Faked Photos and Evidence of a Drill
17. Why does the iconic image of the teacher leading kids out of school contain evidence of Photoshop doctoring and fakery?
The iconic image of Sandy Hook – the evacuation – shows numerous signs of fakery, from Photoshop doctoring to EXIF data.
18. Why does the Sandy Hook Timeline of Evacuation not match the video evidence from the trooper’s car stationed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School car park? 19. Why was there a big electronic sign erected at the entrance to
the Sandy Hook Elementary school stating “EVERYONE MUST CHECK IN” if the
event were real and not a drill? 20. Why was there an active shooter drill at around the same place and the same time as the Sandy Hook event? Every recent false flag since at least 9/11 has had this element. 21. Why are people walking around the Sandy Hook fire house in circles like a movie set?
Why was there such a lack of urgency in the emergency personnel who
were responding for many hours after 10am when people were still
unaccounted for (e.g. nurse Sally Cox who claims she hid in a closet for
4 hours until 1:15pm)?
Sandy Hook: Coverup
22. If Sandy Hook Elementary School was a legitimate and operational
school at the time of the event, why is there evidence that the school
shut in 2009 due to asbestos, was reinspected in 2011, and was flooded
again with Hurricanes Irene and Sandy? We know FEMA and the US Federal
Government supplied money to Newtown to revitalize it. Why does the
local business Apex Glass claim they were using the school premises for
their glass business (apologies but the interview revealing this
information has been taken down by YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9vLEzNsI00])?
Sandy Hook: If this were a real mass shooting and not a drill, why must everyone check in?
23. Why were the entire school grounds of what we were told was “Sandy Hook Elementary School” demolished
and rebuilt? Does this remind you of how the metal scraps from 9/11
were immediately shipped off to China before they could be examined for
evidence? 24. Why did Town Clerk Debbie Aurelia and Connecticut State Attorney
Kevin Kane refuse to release the death certificates and the names of the
“victims”? Why did Connecticut officials conspire to pass an
unprecedented bill banning FOIA requests and access to death
certificates and other information, normally part of the public record
as a matter of course for centuries? Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed the bill on June 5th, 2013. 25. Why were there so many black and silver (Government-type) cars around the school and fire house in place before the event? 26. According to Sofia Smallstorm, why were the exact number (26) of
Christmas trees for the memorial already sitting outside the fire house
before the event occurred? 27. Why do so many of the victims’ family members appear to be
acting, smirking, giggling, snickering and outright laughing after the
event, such as Robbie Parker?
Sandy Hook: Strange Comments by Officials
28. How does one explain the highly strange behavior of Wayne Carver, the chief medical examiner and coroner? Why did Carver say that “You can control a situation depending on your photographer, and I have very good photographers”? Why did Carver say that “I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their heads later”? 29. Why did Lieutenant Paul Vance threaten to prosecute as a crime anyone who reported information that contradicted the official narrative? 30. Why did the Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy say that “The
Lieutenant Governor and I have been spoken to in an attempt that we
might be prepared for something like this playing itself out in our
state”?
Even Sandy Hook is infected with one eye Illuminati-Masonic symbolism. Just a coincidence?
Sandy Hook: Aftermath
31. Why did no one sue the school or the estate of Nancy Lanza? 32. How is it that no parent wanted to see the dead bodies of their children in the school? 33. Why were all the funerals conducted with closed caskets?
Conclusion: Sandy Hook – The Template for the False Flag Hoax
Sandy Hook smells rotten, and just as 9/11 was a template and
justification for future transgressions against liberty, so too was
Sandy Hook to become the template for the false flag hoax.
Let us always remember what happened and continue to investigate it, so
that future false flag events, and false flag hoax events, can be
quickly spotted.
*****
San Bernardino: What Did Gov Know About Shooters? ~ hehe ONCE "again" Our vaunted spying "sis~dum" (ya know that WE U.S. cit's pay $$$$$$$ 4 ) ...has failed ! ..but need~ain't worry folks "their" (ass pipes in D.C. degenerate city & "their" elite degen's ass pipe sock pups ) we say IF we the peeps would'da,should'da had thum "trobes" UP our ass's ...THIS would've been "foiled" & only here on the main~land "crazy~ville" would ALL the res~is~terd's dummy cocks & repub li pubes Alllllllllllllll go ummm yeaaaaaaa Oops i guess um NOT geet~in yer ...vote :O fuck ! i mean god bless crazy er errr um ...amerika ...ah vote fer me is ...free health~care , 3 day work week ,free internet ,tv, sat ..tic's 2 U2 & blah blah ,fucking blah blah ...cue that musik .... :)r hail 2 the cheeef ..bring that baby over here sssshhh ~moooch
Mass-Murdering Couple May Have Been Known to Law Enforcement Despite Denials
It’s starting to look like there are some eerie parallels between
the San Bernardino shooting and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. After
the Boston bombing, authorities were quick to deny any previous
knowledge of the men they identified as the bombers. Then, over time,
the public learned that — oops — maybe law enforcement did know
significantly more than they initially let on. After the San
Bernardino suspects died in a hail of bullets, federal and local law
enforcement officials alike claimed to have had no previous interaction
with or interest in Syed Farook or his wife, Tashfeen Malik, at any time
before last week’s attack, which killed 14 and wounded 21 others. Now that story may be changing. James
Comey, director of the FBI, faced questions from reporters soon after
about possible “intelligence failures” concerning the Farooks. “Folks have focused on reports,” Comey said at a media briefing
in Washington, “that at least one of the killers was in contact with
subjects of FBI investigations. I would urge you not to make too much of
that. There were no contacts between either of the killers and subjects
of our investigations that were of such significance that it raised
them on to our radar screen.” However, two different anonymous law enforcement
officials told CNN that Farook was in the social circle of Sohiel
Kabir, an individual who has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for
his role in recruiting others for a 2012 plot to attack US soldiers in
Afghanistan. Interestingly, that’s around the same time Farook was
allegedly planning an earlier terrorist attack in California — an
attack he decided not to go through with, according to his longtime
friend, Enrique Marquez. Law enforcement officials have identified
Marquez as the man who purchased the two AR-15 assault rifles used in
the San Bernardino shooting. Marquez claims to have had no prior
knowledge of this latest attack. Why the FBI didn’t look more
closely at Farook, who was socializing with individuals under
investigation for terrorist activity, is unclear. Additionally, recorded radio conversations between responding police and the dispatcher immediately after the shooting suggest that Farook was known to law enforcement. As reported in The Weekly Standard,
upon hearing Farook’s name, at least some of the officers involved were
under the impression that Farook had been investigated the week prior
to the shooting. According to information obtained by Inside Edition, police interest in Farook stemmed from the suspicion that he was casing a high-rise building in Los Angeles. If
local law enforcement did indeed suspect Farook of casing possible
targets in downtown Los Angeles, it’s hard to believe information like
that would not be passed on to the FBI. We have seen this step-by-step walking back of institutional denials before.
As noted above, the FBI initially denied knowing anything about the
Boston Marathon bombers until Russian authorities revealed, soon after
the bombing, that they had warned the FBI and the CIA about Tamerlan
Tsarnaev two years earlier. Then, in testimony to Congress, former
director Robert Mueller revealed that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had in fact
been known to the FBI from two different investigations conducted before Russia brought him to the Bureau’s attention. So,
is the FBI’s assertion that it knew nothing about Farook before the San
Bernardino shooting just a case of reflexive institutional
self-protection? Or is this another attempt to keep from the
public the likelihood that, in the tangled web of the FBI’s
counterterrorism effort — the tens of thousands of paid informants,
provocateurs, agents, and possibly even double agents — things sometimes
go terribly, tragically wrong? Related front page panorama photo credit: Tamerlan Tsarnaev (Bob Leonard / Wikimedia), FBI badge & gun (FBI / Wikimedia) and Syed Rizwan Farook (DMV / Wikimedia)
By Makia Freeman A false flag formula is becoming readily apparent in the face of so
many mass shootings and bombings in the US. The phenomenon has become so
commonplace in the last 3 years that it’s becoming more American than
apple pie. According to ShootingTracker.com,
there have been 353 mass shootings in the USA for 2015 so far. However,
as scary as that number is, the good news is that you don’t have to be
afraid of them like you may think. A very large number of them – and all
of them with any mass media significance and attention – are false flag staged terror events. Some have real victims, some do not, but either way, the most
criminal of all institutions – the Government – is the orchestrating
force behind them. They are scripted, pre-planned operations which are
definitely not the result of random gun violence. Just as Obama stated
(by hiding the truth in plain sight), there is a pattern behind these mass shootings. The Controllers are following a definite false flag formula. Below is a list of the top 15 elements of this formula, which you can now use to detect a false flag operation as it occurs:
False Flag Formula #1: Drill at the Same or Nearby Time and Place
The exercise or drill – at the same time, at the same place – has became the sine qua non or
indispensable element of the recent false flag operation. Sometimes
there are slight variations on this when the Government plans a drill
nearby (a few miles away) rather than at the exact place, or plans a
drill earlier on in the day, so it can just coincidentally “go live”.
There was a twist in the case of the recent San Bernardino shooting: the
Government planned regular drills in the building where the shooting
took place every month! (Think about it – what are the chances of a real mass shooting occurring in a building used for mass shooting drills?) As Captain Eric H. May, a former US Army military intelligence officer, stated:
The easiest way to carry
out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that
simulates the very attack you want to carry out.
Distract and remove key personnel who would otherwise be at the scene to contain and investigate it;
Confuse other personnel who will treat the whole event in a different way if they think it is a drill rather than a real event;
Slow down, reduce or eliminate an effective response, especially of
police and other law enforcement, given the removal and confusion of
personnel;
Distract and confuse witnesses, the media and the public in general;
Provide a great cover and period of lower defenses and security to
carry out an attack, which would otherwise be difficult or impossible if
defenses were at their usual or optimal operating level.
False Flag Formula #2: Foreknowledge
Another way you can tell that a mass shooting is a false flag op is if you find proof of foreknowledge
of the event. As it so happens, all of the notorious and publicized
mass attacks of late have had evidence of foreknowledge. Going way back
in time, there was foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack of 1941 that got the US into World War 2. There were many aspects of foreknowledge on 9/11, including the BBC reporting WTC7 falling before it actually did,
and mysterious calls to people like author Salman Rushdie and San
Francisco Mayor Willie Brown advising them not to fly to NYC on Sept.
11th. Sandy Hook had blatant foreknowledge (with various webpages put up days before the event), as did the Boston Marathon.
False Flag Formula #3: Eyewitnesses Have Conflicting Accounts
You
can also spot a likely false flag operation when you see or hear of
multiple conflicting witness accounts. In the case of the Aurora
Colorado “Batman” mass shooting, eyewitnesses claimed they saw an entire team of shooters,
rather than the single shooter James Holmes of the official narrative.
With Sandy Hook, we saw multiple scenes of law enforcement chasing men
into the surrounding forest, yet the official narrative declares the
only shooter was Adam Lanza. In San Bernardino, too, witnesses stated
they saw 3 white athletic men, not the 2 brown husband-and-wife team we were told did the shooting. Conflicting eyewitness accounts can destroy the official narrative no matter what the detail is. On 9/11, various fireman told us there were bombs in the building, contradicting the official story that planes alone took down the Twin Towers. With Sandy Hook, Gene Rosen’s testimony itself was full of holes and was contradicted by that of the school bus driver and the official report.
False Flag Formula #4: MSM Quickly Name and Demonize the Patsy
Have you ever wondered how quickly the MSM (Mainstream Media)
discovers the name of the patsy? They had somehow deduced that Osama bin
Laden was responsible for 9/11 just hours after the attacks. Have you
ever wondered why the Government is so good at telling us who supposedly
executed these attacks right after they happen, with almost no time to
investigate, yet can’t seem to manage to actually stop these
alleged terror attacks? Without any evidence, the MSM endlessly repeated
“bin Laden” like a crazy mantra after 9/11, despite the fact bin Laden
himself denied involvement in the attacks and that in the end he was
never formally charged by the FBI. Have you ever wondered why many of
the patsies, or sorry, deranged mass shooters, are Muslim? That wouldn’t
have anything to do with the fact that the Zionist Government and MSM
are trying to paint all Muslims as crazy and scary, would it? Nothing
like a good dose of Islamophobia to take your freedom away …
False Flag Formula #5: Patsy Has No Military Training, Yet Shoots Extremely Fast and Accurately
Another element of the false flag formula is the skilled and lethal patsy.
According to the official narrative of false flag ops like Sandy Hook
and Aurora, we are supposed to believe that skinny and non-muscular
youths, without any discernible military training, were able to acquire
expensive military gear (including armor, guns, ammunition and more),
wear that gear without getting bogged down in speed, and shoot
incredibly fast and accurately. In San Bernardino, we are supposed to
believe that a young mother was strong and skilled enough to participate
in killing 14 and injuring 17 people while she was strapped up with
body armor and holding heavy weaponry! In these cases and more, the
official story would have you believe that it’s no big deal or just a
coincidence that the patsy can acquire all this high-end gear and use it
so well.
False Flag Formula #6: Patsy Gets Killed, Drugged or “Suicided”
It is also part of the false flag formula to ensure that the patsy,
who is earmarked before the event to take the fall, cannot speak out
to rationally defend themselves. This is achieved in a number of ways.
The simplest is to have the patsy kill himself or herself by committing
“suicide”. Another favorite way is to take the patsy out in a thrilling
high speed chase, which has the added benefit of drawing clueless people
in through the MSM and gushingly promoting the police state. Sometimes a
patsy is killed in plain sight, just because it’s so important to
suppress his testimony (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK
assassination). A third way is to mind control and drug the patsy to
such an extent that they become a zombie vegetable unable to articulate
anything, as was the case with James Holmes.
False Flag Formula #7: Shooter Leaves Manifesto
In this day and age, writing a manifesto is a
strange and anachronistic thing to do. Yet, for some strange reason,
shooters’ manifestos seem to crop up an awful lot after mass shootings.
Conveniently for the Controllers, these manifestos provide a perfect
explanation for the official narrative, and help fill in the missing
(non-existent) motive for the attack – which probably pushes those on
the fence over into believing the Government’s version of the event.
While the manifesto is not an element in every false flag operation, it
is present in enough of them to be regarded as part of the false flag
formula.
False Flag Formula #8: Evidence Gets Conveniently Destroyed
Another element of the false flag formula is the deliberate destruction of evidence, so that the Controllers can cover their tracks. In 9/11, the scrap metal (in the smoldering ruins of the WTC towers) was immediately shipped off to China right from the start; with Sandy Hook, the entire school was demolished; in San Bernardino, the supposed landlord of the supposed shooters actually allowed MSM reporters into the suspects’ house
to poke around and touch all their stuff, in complete disregard for
what could be a possible crime scene! Could it get any more blatant?
False Flag Formula #9: No Obvious Motive for the Mass Attack
Have you ever wondered why there is no obvious motive in any of these
mass shootings? Crimes are supposed to be solved on the merit of motive and opportunity,
yet to hide the reality of a false flag op, the MSM just lies about the
motive part, and chalks it up to a deranged shooter. Other times we are
offered the flimsiest of motives, such as people going on an all-out
rampage because they had a grievance with a co-worker. In San
Bernardino, we were told the young mother, with a 1-year-old child, was
aggressive and psychotic enough to help kill 14 and injure 17
people – at the risk of never seeing her child again! Meanwhile, the
real purveyors of these operations profit immensely from the ensuing
fear, yet somehow the majority of people don’t seem to see that motive …
False Flag Formula #10: Immediate Calls for Gun Control
Gun control
is obviously one of the key agendas behind all of these false flag mass
shootings, since a disarmed population is far easier to exploit and
manipulate than an armed one. It is an obvious aspect of the false flag
formula. Sometimes gun control is even pushed in the immediate aftermath
of the event when people are still in a highly emotional and
suggestible state. Take a look at the behavior of Andy Parker, who we
were told was the father of a victim killed in the Virginia mass
shooting of 2015. Within hours of hearing the news of the death of his
child, Parker had already contacted and talked with the Governor of
Virginia, and then appeared on TV saying he would be devoting his entire
life to gun control. In a similar fashion, Richard Martinez, the
alleged father of a Santa Barbara mass hooting victim, appeared on TV
right after the death angrily pleading for more gun control. In both
cases, the political agenda of gun control angrily dominated their
reactions, rather than grief or other emotions.
False Flag Formula #11: Fake “Victims” = Crisis Actors
The above 10 points are a useful outline of the false flag formula as
it pertains to mass shootings with real victims, i.e. where real people
die. However, ever since the surreal Sandy Hook event, which still contains many unanswered questions, we have entered the twilight zone of the false flag hoax.
This is a term used to describe the false flag mass attacks where no
one dies – where fake bodies, fake blood and fake victims are used
instead. In this way, the entire operation is more tightly controlled
and less messy. A hallmark of the false flag hoax is that the
authorities never produce a credible piece of evidence showing an actual
dead body of a victim. The following 5 points relate to false flag hoaxes, and specifically to the people employed to pull them off – crisis actors. It is truly a testament to just how utterly fake our normal world is (the Matrix) that false flag ops have now descended to the level where we have to question whether the event even happened at all. There are organizations of crisis actors in the US (such as the IIF),
and there is clear evidence crisis actors were used at Sandy Hook,
Boston Marathon and many others. Government officials have been caught
using the word “actor” to describe various players in these dramas; the
MSM has even resorted to calling them actors too (it was one of the
buzzwords of the recent San Bernardino mass shooting).
False Flag Formula #12: “Victims” Get Killed Twice
The surreal quality of the false flag hoax reached point of absurdity
when it was discovered that one of the “victims” was reportedly killed
twice! We were told that Noah Pozner was one of the victims of the Sandy
Hook shooting, yet his picture was also among those killed in a
Pakistan Taliban attack. Apparently the recycling of fake victims is
another part of the false flag formula.
False Flag Formula #13: Families of “Victims” Have Elite or Acting Backgrounds
Is it just a coincidence that the families of mass shooting “victims”
have either elite or acting backgrounds? At the Sandy Hook event, local
CEO of the Newtown bank John Trentacosta (whose
house was next to the Lanzas and had a lot of unusual activity
occurring there the day of Sandy Hook) was connected to the New York
Federal Reserve (and thus the international banking elite). Francine Wheeler
was formerly the personal assistant of former chief Democratic National
Committee fundraiser Maureen White whose husband Steven Rattner is
a Wall Street investment banker and member of the Rockefeller CFR
(Council on Foreign Relations)! It was also noteworthy at Sandy Hook how acting showed up in the resumes of so many of the key players there. Gene Rosen, David and Francine Wheeler
(both professional actors) and others all had a background in acting.
Father of Virginia mass shooting “victim” Andy Parker is an actor (and a
politician too). This fact supports the idea that another element of
the false flag formula is to watch for people with elite connections and
acting backgrounds.
False Flag Formula #14: Families of “Victims” Show Little to No Emotion, and Even Snigger and Laugh
Luckily for truth seekers, the majority of crisis actors used in
these false flag events are poor actors who are utterly unconvincing in
the roles they play. The majority display little or no emotion after an
alleged tragedy like losing a family member child to a random and
violent mass shooting. It is true that humans do vary widely with
emotional response and expression. However, with many of the crisis
actors, judging by their reactions, it simply strains credibility too
much to believe that they have just have been through a harrowing and
traumatic ordeal. Given the range of possible reactions to a tragedy
like losing a loved one in a mass shooting, what are the chances that
many of the “victims’” family members are so non-emotional, or so
understanding, or so quick to forgive? It’s shameful enough that the crisis actors playing these roles are
perpetrating a monumental deception on the public, tugging at the
average person’s heartstrings solely to trick them. However, on top of
that, these actors have the gall to actually laugh – to smile, snigger
and giggle – while pulling off their atrocious stunts. The only
conclusion to draw from this is that it must be pretty funny to get a paid gig like this fooling millions of people …
False Flag Formula #15: Families of “Victims” Receive Millions in Federal Payoffs
In
the US, the land of the lawsuit, people are generally pretty fast to
initiate a lawsuit if they feel they have been wronged. It is highly
strange, therefore, that none of the alleged parents of the Sandy Hook
event decided to sue the Government for negligence or to demand redress
for any other grievance. Additionally, many of the alleged parents
received a total of millions in unsolicited federal payouts (check out the free houses they magically got on Christmas day 2009)
– that’s right, unsolicited. The Federal Government just gave it over
to them without asking! Ask yourself: is is more likely the Government
would just do this out of the goodness of its heart, or that the money
was more like a bribe/blackmail/payout all rolled into one, awarded to
actors playing a part in a role and being sworn to silence?
Conclusion: Use the 15 Elements of the False Flag Formula to Be More Aware
These are 15 elements I noticed forming the false flag formula. There
may well be more. Please let us know your thoughts in the comments
below. Meanwhile, use the knowledge you have of the false flag formula
to become more aware, wise and hip to the deception, so that the next
time it unfolds (as it surely will), you will be among those that spot
the fakery, rather than among those who are too scared, shell-shocked
and gullible to do anything other than buy the official narrative. Note: Additional images available at original article source HERE.
*****
Posts
nawww man ? now give me yer guns ...
