The Fake Victim Meme
As I have indicated here in the past, I have a problem with the whole fake victim meme.
To be clear, I think the PTB/govt is quite capable of creating fake personas to be used as victims in false flag attacks, and in some cases, I think there is reasonably good evidence for this. Notably, the Boston bombing amputee victims are particularly fishy-- people such as Jeff Bauman, whose overall the story only makes sense if he had previously lost his legs. Plus, we know there are these things called crisis actors, and that they sometimes use amputees to simulate attacks. So the evidence is good for that sort of fake victim.
But I think conspiracy theorists-- honest, genuine, real, non-agent conspiracy theorists-- have to be very careful with saying there is fake victims in any event. BECAUSE: if you are wrong, nothing is more off-putting to people, than saying someone never existed. Or nothing makes people think you are crazy more than going around saying there was such massive fakery and lies. So this meme is extremely counter-productive. *
I know some people such as Sofia Smallstorm say, well, it should be more comforting to know that no children died at Sandy Hook. First, I'm not sure we really need to be looking for comfort in these events. Second, that's not a compelling argument that no children died at Sandy Hook!
The issue boils down to how compelling the evidence is for fake victims, or "vicsims"?
So far, for Sandy Hook, I have not seen the smoking gun for fake victims, especially since I have evidence going the other way (a friend who knows someone whose child was shot and killed at Sandy Hook). I agree some of the evidence points to fake victims, and the whole incident is extremely fishy. In my opinion, way too much evidence for fake victims relies on shoddy/bad/unconvincing photo and video analysis. I have discussed the famous 9/11 "Vicsim Report" here before, and all I can conclude is that the person who wrote is a major league disinfo agent or has some kind of brain-damage.
Ultimately, does the "evidence" for vicsims outweigh the potential cost of being wrong? Do vicsims outweigh the "counter-productive" factor?
At Sandy Hook, I just think no.
On 9/11, I think there is evidence for some fake victims, but certainly I don't push this as first line evidence.
In summary, I think people have to tread very carefully when they get into fake victims, and not go shouting "fakery!" unless the evidence is overwhelming.
Which brings me to what actually inspired this post-- the recent "debate" between Jim Fetzer (JF) and Michael Collins Piper (MCP) about Sandy Hook. First of all, this debate was dumb-- too little focus on the evidence and too much time spent on JF's gripes about MCP.
In general, I like Fetzer, and I think he has moved towards the right ideas on 9/11 (no planes and nukes at the towers). But he also has some real flaws:
1) he is a blowhard
2) he is annoyingly pedantic a lot
3) he is extremely gullible about any conspiracy "research"
4) he is kind of thin-skinned-- threatening to sue MCP for defamation is ridiculous
5) he is notoriously bad at creating any kind of grand conspiracy synthesis, despite having so many incredible people on his show with all kinds of viewpoints, and despite being a conspiracy "intellectual"
I kind of like MCP-- I like his no nonsense style. But he was poorly prepared for the debate and started slow. Nonetheless towards the end he made some good points about the fake victims meme, that echo my thoughts.
1) it's damn hard to know how another person would act when they have lost a young child, so this whole thing of saying Robbie Parker (or other parents) was acting is unnecessarily cruel.
2) if the parents were part of the plot, what about the relatives too-- were they all in on the plot?
3) if people like Fetzer are serious, why not bring a law suit against the parents for fraud? A conspiracy researcher could learn a huge amount in discovery.
I know that if you assemble the ideas of a shooting drill at Sandy Hook, the bizarre behaviors of Gene Rosen and the coroner Carver and some of the parents, and things like bodies being left at school overnight without the parents seeing them, closed coffins, sealed death certificates, altogether support a fake victim hypothesis. But this evidence DOES NOT PROVE FAKE VICTIMS, and there are other equally valid explanations. The whole fake victim meme IS counter-productive for researchers.
I have yet to see thoroughly convincing photo analysis. This video where Newtown kids sang at the super Bowl who were actually the kids who were supposedly killed at Sandy Hook looks good at first blush. But on more careful comparison the singers' faces are definitely different from the victims, or the photos were not clear enough to be sure.
*Yes, I know, the same can be said for "no planes" on 9/11. But I have extensively studies the no planes issue and find the evidence more no planes/faked crashes/faked videos more compelling. Further, if I start talking to someone about 9/11, I never bring up no planes first. I tend to feel someone out for where they are coming from, and how open they are to various theories. Also, I think there is a big difference between faked plane crashes/fake videos, and saying kids killed in a horrible shooting never existed and their parents are faking.
To be clear, I think the PTB/govt is quite capable of creating fake personas to be used as victims in false flag attacks, and in some cases, I think there is reasonably good evidence for this. Notably, the Boston bombing amputee victims are particularly fishy-- people such as Jeff Bauman, whose overall the story only makes sense if he had previously lost his legs. Plus, we know there are these things called crisis actors, and that they sometimes use amputees to simulate attacks. So the evidence is good for that sort of fake victim.
But I think conspiracy theorists-- honest, genuine, real, non-agent conspiracy theorists-- have to be very careful with saying there is fake victims in any event. BECAUSE: if you are wrong, nothing is more off-putting to people, than saying someone never existed. Or nothing makes people think you are crazy more than going around saying there was such massive fakery and lies. So this meme is extremely counter-productive. *
I know some people such as Sofia Smallstorm say, well, it should be more comforting to know that no children died at Sandy Hook. First, I'm not sure we really need to be looking for comfort in these events. Second, that's not a compelling argument that no children died at Sandy Hook!
The issue boils down to how compelling the evidence is for fake victims, or "vicsims"?
So far, for Sandy Hook, I have not seen the smoking gun for fake victims, especially since I have evidence going the other way (a friend who knows someone whose child was shot and killed at Sandy Hook). I agree some of the evidence points to fake victims, and the whole incident is extremely fishy. In my opinion, way too much evidence for fake victims relies on shoddy/bad/unconvincing photo and video analysis. I have discussed the famous 9/11 "Vicsim Report" here before, and all I can conclude is that the person who wrote is a major league disinfo agent or has some kind of brain-damage.
Ultimately, does the "evidence" for vicsims outweigh the potential cost of being wrong? Do vicsims outweigh the "counter-productive" factor?
At Sandy Hook, I just think no.
On 9/11, I think there is evidence for some fake victims, but certainly I don't push this as first line evidence.
In summary, I think people have to tread very carefully when they get into fake victims, and not go shouting "fakery!" unless the evidence is overwhelming.
Which brings me to what actually inspired this post-- the recent "debate" between Jim Fetzer (JF) and Michael Collins Piper (MCP) about Sandy Hook. First of all, this debate was dumb-- too little focus on the evidence and too much time spent on JF's gripes about MCP.
In general, I like Fetzer, and I think he has moved towards the right ideas on 9/11 (no planes and nukes at the towers). But he also has some real flaws:
1) he is a blowhard
2) he is annoyingly pedantic a lot
3) he is extremely gullible about any conspiracy "research"
4) he is kind of thin-skinned-- threatening to sue MCP for defamation is ridiculous
5) he is notoriously bad at creating any kind of grand conspiracy synthesis, despite having so many incredible people on his show with all kinds of viewpoints, and despite being a conspiracy "intellectual"
I kind of like MCP-- I like his no nonsense style. But he was poorly prepared for the debate and started slow. Nonetheless towards the end he made some good points about the fake victims meme, that echo my thoughts.
1) it's damn hard to know how another person would act when they have lost a young child, so this whole thing of saying Robbie Parker (or other parents) was acting is unnecessarily cruel.
2) if the parents were part of the plot, what about the relatives too-- were they all in on the plot?
3) if people like Fetzer are serious, why not bring a law suit against the parents for fraud? A conspiracy researcher could learn a huge amount in discovery.
I know that if you assemble the ideas of a shooting drill at Sandy Hook, the bizarre behaviors of Gene Rosen and the coroner Carver and some of the parents, and things like bodies being left at school overnight without the parents seeing them, closed coffins, sealed death certificates, altogether support a fake victim hypothesis. But this evidence DOES NOT PROVE FAKE VICTIMS, and there are other equally valid explanations. The whole fake victim meme IS counter-productive for researchers.
I have yet to see thoroughly convincing photo analysis. This video where Newtown kids sang at the super Bowl who were actually the kids who were supposedly killed at Sandy Hook looks good at first blush. But on more careful comparison the singers' faces are definitely different from the victims, or the photos were not clear enough to be sure.
*Yes, I know, the same can be said for "no planes" on 9/11. But I have extensively studies the no planes issue and find the evidence more no planes/faked crashes/faked videos more compelling. Further, if I start talking to someone about 9/11, I never bring up no planes first. I tend to feel someone out for where they are coming from, and how open they are to various theories. Also, I think there is a big difference between faked plane crashes/fake videos, and saying kids killed in a horrible shooting never existed and their parents are faking.
posted by spooked at 11:01 AM
6 Comments:
you have posted at least most of this before.
Anyone who wants to boost their
image of integrity and burnish their
bona fides as a reasonable centrist would probably do well to stop making waves and take their teevee's advice to accept that our leaders are doing the best they can, and our mainstream media shouldn't be damned for taking an "America First" view of events here in the Homeland and
in the lands of evil dictators.
A.L., you already know Fetzer, like all "truther" leaders, is a conartist. He not only helped invent the Sandy Hook Hoax "controversy", but was blaming it on Jews from day one.
MCP is a Jew hating piece of shit. If you like him, chances are you're a Jew hating POS too.
But look on the bright side: you're perfectly safe from "COINTELPRO" because there are no "agents" or "shills". Just a sleazy Holocaust denier fan club exploiting the tragedy of 911.
You've been doing this since 2004. You must be very close to Fetzer's scammy machine. Wonder what would happen if someone starts investigating Fetz for fraud. They say "follow the money"...
11:53
Are you referring to Spooked? I don't think he's connected w/Fetzer.
He just knows about some of Fetzer's
theories/views.
I have never met Fetzer, and have written about him critically many times here. I agree with some of his views, not all. I think he's come to the right idea on 9/11, the same view I already had.
" Wonder what would happen if someone starts investigating Fetz for fraud. They say "follow the money"..."
There used to be someone who was prominent around here who would be a good candidate for "follow the money" stuff.
Fetzer is a Holocaust revisionist.
More and more people now agree that it's simply not true that six million Jews were murdered by the
Nazis of Hitler's Germany.
Fetzer is a retired professor. With his income from U. Minn. and the royalties from 30 books he wrote or edited, he's doing just fine financially. May also get SS, and maybe his wife does too.
He once paid for a new computer for his JEWISH friend - who is a
well-known researcher and presenter at JFK seminars that Fetzer organized.
Post a Comment
<< Home