About Willard, and rats

This piece was written by “straightfromthedevilsmouth,” or the man I call “Straight,” or at one time “MR.” We have endured some disinfo attacks at another blog, a sign that we are coming closer to truth. As Dr. Judy Wood says, the closer you are to your target, the more flack you draw. He addresses the psychological aspects of the criticism, which I had not considered. I merely thought the guy “Willard” was a dumb shit, and gave him a short (but polite, I thought) answer.

Anyway, below it Straight’s analysis if “Willard,” most likely a paid disinfo agent. When they come directly to this blog I delete their comments, which appears to be the reason they are ganging up at Fakeologist.

_________________

Inspired by some disinfo artists I’ve come across in the Fakeologist comment section, I’ve decided to put some work in on exposing their tactics that are based on social psychology.

Anybody who has taken a Social Psychology course in the last 25 years has heard of Robert Cialdini. His work on persuasion and influence is about as respected as it gets in that field, and no doubt in use by Intelligence agents around the world. In particular, I would like to focus on his work with “Trigger Mechanisms” in animals.
Here’s a couple excerpts (note: I know that I, personally, very often skip the quotes section of posts and only read the poster’s words, in this case please read the quotes as they are very important to what I am trying to get across).

“Turkey mothers are good mothers— loving, watchful, and protective. They spend much of their time tending, warming, cleaning, and huddling the young beneath them. But there is something odd about their method. Virtually all of this mothering is triggered by one thing: the “cheep-cheep” sound of young turkey chicks. Other identifying features of the chicks, such as their smell, touch, or appearance, seem to play minor roles in the mothering process. If a chick makes the “cheep-cheep” noise, its mother will care for it; if not, the mother will ignore or sometimes kill it. The extreme reliance of maternal turkeys upon this one sound was dramatically illustrated by animal behaviorist M. W. Fox in his description of an experiment involving a mother turkey and a stuffed polecat. 1 For a mother turkey, a polecat is a natural enemy whose approach is to be greeted with squawking, pecking, clawing rage. Indeed, the experimenters found that even a stuffed model of a polecat, when drawn by a string toward a mother turkey, received an immediate and furious attack. When, however, the same stuffed replica carried inside it a small recorder that played the “cheep-cheep” sound of baby turkeys, the mother not only accepted the oncoming polecat but gathered it underneath her. When the machine was turned off, the polecat model again drew a vicious attack.” (Cialdini PhD, Robert B.. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Collins Business Essentials) (p. 2). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.)

But certainly not all animals are this dumb, are they?

“How ridiculous a female turkey seems under these circumstances: She will embrace a natural enemy just because it goes “cheep-cheep,” and she will mistreat or murder one of her own chicks just because it does not. She looks like an automaton whose maternal instincts are under the automatic control of that single sound. The ethologists tell us that this sort of thing is far from unique to the turkey. They have begun to identify regular, blindly mechanical patterns of action in a wide variety of species. Called fixed-action patterns, they can involve intricate sequences of behavior, such as entire courtship or mating rituals.”

OK, but definitely not humans, right?

“This parallel form of human automatic action is aptly demonstrated in an experiment by Harvard social psychologist Ellen Langer. A well-known principle of human behavior says that when we ask someone to do us a favor we will be more successful if we provide a reason. People simply like to have reasons for what they do. Langer demonstrated this unsurprising fact by asking a small favor of people waiting in line to use a library copying machine: Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush? The effectiveness of this request-plus-reason was nearly total: Ninety-four percent of those asked let her skip ahead of them in line. Compare this success rate to the results when she made the request only: Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine? Under those circumstances, only 60 percent of those asked complied.”

OK, interesting. But what’s my point in bringing this up to you?

“But a third type of request tried by Langer showed that this was not the case. It seems that it was not the whole series of words, but the first one, “because,” that made the difference. Instead of including a real reason for compliance, Langer’s third type of request used the word “because” and then, adding nothing new, merely restated the obvious: Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies? The result was that once again nearly all (93 percent) agreed, even though no real reason, no new information, was added to justify their compliance. Just as the “cheep-cheep” sound of turkey chicks triggered an automatic mothering response from maternal turkeys— even when it emanated from a stuffed polecat— so, too, did the word “because” trigger an automatic compliance response from Langer’s subjects, even when they were given no subsequent reason to comply. Click, whirr!“

Aha! There’s the trick. Just like turkeys, humans are such automatic creatures that all we need is to hear the word “because” in order for us to do someone a favor. We don’t even care about the reason, or even if there is a reason, we just need to hear the word “because”.

I would like to show you how a disinfo poster that goes by the name of Willard uses these tactics to give the appearance of a solid rebuttal, when in reality offering nothing whatsoever. Here was a part of his post when being told to provide evidence against face splitting technology.

“Mark, you wanted evidence from me. Here goes:

You posted this list below of replaced people.

You preface this list below of replaced people with this sentence:

“So far we have given you, sometimes with help from outsiders, and always with whiners and bitchers crying it just ain’t so,…”

A grown man talking about bitchers and whiners. This sentence is written by a man involved in an intellectual pursuit?

Here is your list:

  • ‘Bill Hicks became Alex Jones. He’s a conspiracy guy. Controversy swilled about us, but Straight nailed it with a dental analysis.
  • Jimi Hendrix became Cornell West. He undermines philosophy. It is his job now.
  • Rocker Duane Allman became heavy metal artist Lemmy Kilmister.
  • Phil Hartman became Glenn Beck. Acting training taught him to cry on screen.
  • Gary Hinman, whose talents were uncertain anyway, became Maury Povich, but I repeat myself.
  • Pamela Courson became Barbara Walters, a later-life body switch.
  • Brandon DeWilde became Thom Hartmann, who in reality loathes liberals and progressives.
  • Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the fake Columbine shooters, using fake names (as fake people do), became Matt Stone and Trey Parker, also fake names for the fake creators of South Park. Fake fake fake fake fake!
  • Bobby Fuller became Bill O’Reilly, a fake singer turned fake pundit.
  • David Box became Charlie Rose, so that the ‘thoughtful’ PBS set is kept in the dark too.
  • Bruce Lee became Judge Lance Ito, totaling nailing the part.
  • The Janis Joplin twins became the Amy Goodman twins.

Mark, you even have the temerity to bring the Paul McCartney/ Mike McCartney! twin noise!”

Here the link … Etc.

You provide photo comparisons elsewhere on your blog as evidence.”

(http://fakeologist.com/blog/2016/09/01/audiochat-unreal-on-black-frosting/#comments)

If you read closely, you’ll see that all Willard did was quote Mark, and provide a few links to where he found the quotes. 90% of what he wrote was “you said this…” The other two points were ad hominems (“a grown man….”) (“you have the temerity…”).
So why did Willard bother to do that?

Well I suspect Willard is taught to use the principles of “Trigger Mechanisms” as explained by Cialdini above. Most lurkers don’t read closely, they just skim, and when they do read closely they are not thinking too deeply.

Similar to the subjects who did people a favor for the sole reason of hearing the word “because”, third-party readers may accept Willard’s answer and expertise for the sole reason of seeing him quote Mark and providing a rebuttal, regardless of how empty it was. By quoting Mark and providing links, it taps a trigger mechanism in a reader’s brain that says “this person did his research, thus I should respect his opinion”.
Here’s some more from Willard:

“Here is one you gave. You assert Pete Ham became Bill Maher. IMHO, the two images do not match. Neither does Bruce Li and Jusge Ito or Jimi Hendrix and Cornel West, etc. ad nauseum. How do I know they do not match because I can see they do not match.”

“They do not match because I can see they do not match”. Appeal to self-authority with no evidence cited. Why would a 3rd party reader react to Willard’s self-authority? In reaction to the trigger mechanism he flipped earlier in the post, which gives the impression he is a man who does his research.

Here is how Willard ends the post and I am including the image because I think it is very important to recognize what I’m about to tell you as a common disinfo trigger mechanism:

“What does match is how your provocative assertions about people being replaced, supported with dubious photo evidence is similar to Dallas Goldbug. You are a poor man’s Dallas Goldbug because, like McGowan, and Tom dalpra and Blue Moon, you have no class. You can not disagree without being disagreeable. You can not answer a critic without resorting to profanity and name calling.

I do not think Dallas Goldbug stoops that low.

Mark, go back and look at the question I asked Brandon about the woman from the Apple Records/ Paul McCartney camp. McGowan was in contact with the McCartney Machine before Weird Scenes Facebook went online. Either wittingly or unwittingly, McGowan ran interference for Apple, huge cash cow, with the Paul Is Dead/Paul is Alive disinfo.
And I have already mentioned that MM’s Paul McCarthey/Mike McGear material was filched from a private forum.

That is how I troll, homes.”
http://www.urbandictionary.com…

Willard continues his attack by moving away from providing any form of evidence, and instead attacks Mark by comparing him to DallasGoldBug (an agent whose sole purpose was to discredit the idea of replacements), and then changing the topic to Dave McGowan. Again, avoiding providing evidence.

He finishes it off with a “perceived victory” quote “This is how I troll, homes” to tap another trigger mechanism stating that “I am the victor in this argument”. He adds another link for extra measure that is meant to “teach us” something he assumes we do not know, pushing the “I am more knowledgeable” trigger.

And finally, and this is very important, he adds an image from Mark’s site. Why does he do this? It is the final trigger mechanism that you are seeing all over the comments section of Fakeologist, Quora, or any comments section where disinfo gathers. The purpose is simple, the appearance of some form of media whether it is a Youtube video, image, or sound clip, has the appearance of being a “higher” form of evidence. By pasting a photo from POM, Willard gives the impression he did his research, is familiar with the site, and has debunked it to the point that he can ridicule it. However, when you read his post closely you’ll see that he has purposely avoided using any sort of actual evidence to counter Mark’s post.

You can see some more examples of disinfo agents Tom Dalpra and Stephen using the same tactic here. You’ll notice that nearly every post of theirs has some form of media or quotes with links:

Sheepdipped Alex Jones 

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in Blogroll. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to About Willard, and rats

  1. Thanks for posting this, Mark.

    Like

    • I wondered why Willard clipped large portions of what is written here and called it his “evidence.” I thought he was just addle-brained. Appears not. He is tuned in to the facts of life about most people who read blogs – they don’t really read, and cannot think properly anyway. So he’s playing them.

      But like we’ve said before, we have to deal with people who can read and think, and I don’t know that too many of them truck with Fakeologist. We need to stay focused on our audience, people like you, Tyrone, Josh, Annette, Texas John and all the others who know how to use their brains. The rest can tag along, maybe even come around, as nothing we do here is rocket science.

      Like

  2. mattykyle says:

    Hi, Mark.

    I noticed that you have a backup of Dave McGowan’s site. Is it possible to get a copy?

    Like

    • I sent you an email. If you email address is genuine, I can send you what I Have.

      Like

    • daddie_o says:

      This site has pretty much all of his stuff: http://www.futile.work/dave.html

      Thank goodness somebody had the wherewithal to archive all Dave’s stuff before his daughter took down his site and started tinkering with it…

      And since I’m posting that, I might as well give a shout out to my own minor contribution to the 2012 Marathon Bombing and the possible split in intelligence, with some thoughts on McGowan: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/47jbh7/a_funny_thing_about_thorndikes_inamous_boston/

      Like

      • mattykyle says:

        Fantastic! Just what I was looking for.

        It even has some of the episodes of Wagging the Moondoggie that Dave had up on his site, but didn’t publicly index on his site (I originally stumbled upon them by accident by changing the number in the URL).

        Like

      • Maarten Rossaert says:

        Thank you, daddie_o, for the link to your investigation of the Thorndike photos. Brilliant dissection that I had not seen before.

        But the proposition that the Intel split is CIA vs. DHS does not add up to me. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that the CIA cultivated control of the publishing industry and especially the news media in this country. Why then would they not turn their journalistic lackeys loose to expose the DHS hoaxes? Instead, the media is entirely complicit in presenting the fakery as reality. If the Thorndike photos were a CIA attempt to pull back the curtain, they were a dismal failure. So for me, the question of why Thorndike was in that place at that time making pictures is still an open one.

        Mathis has said different things in different places about the Intel split, as I mentioned in a comment on August 10, 2016 here: https://pieceofmindful.com/2016/08/10/41652/

        I had hoped that while Mark was attending the physics conference, there might be an opportunity to ask Mathis more directly about the specifics of his postulated Intel split, but the conversational plate was too full with other goodies. Here’s hoping Mathis will eventually tell us more about what he knows and how he knows it.

        Like

        • daddie_o says:

          Thanks, Maarten. Yes, I think you’re right that the split is pretty dubious, especially in light of the way the MSM really promotes the mainstream narrative. But at the same time there is some element that seems to be fanning the flames of conspiracy theorists. They may very well be working toward a common goal and not be split at all. If I had to guess, I would reckon they are setting up conspiracy theorists for a big fall, as they did with people who were critical of the growing influence of Jews beginning in the 19th century. (I am working on a paper right now on the Dreyfus affair, which is why I mention that.) So they’re giving us lots of ammunition first before they pull the rug out from under us (somehow). Or they are using the hoaxes to further split and divide us. The ‘Obama did Sandy Hook Hoax for gun control’ meme is definitely something that further divides right and left in the US. (See, I believe it was hoaxed, but not to promote gun control and Obama is himself a puppet.) But, I don’t know. And I really don’t think Miles has any knowledge beyond the hunches that he has shared, but I could be wrong.

          By the way, one thing I didn’t mention in the Reddit post is that in addition to being Thorndike a banking/finance guy (Assistant VP of Bank of Boston, investor relations at Bain Capital, and then on to other private equity firms), he also went to one of those spook feeder prep schools Miles has outed in some of his papers. Specifically he went to Milton Academy, which was founded by a Forbes and counts among its alumni T.S. Eliot, Buckminster Fuller, RFK, Teddy Kennedy, Douglas MacArthur, a former chairman of CitiGroup, and a bunch of other red flag names.

          Like

  3. Tyrone McCloskey says:

    daddi_o wrote: “I think you’re right that the split is pretty dubious, especially in light of the way the MSM really promotes the mainstream narrative. But at the same time there is some element that seems to be fanning the flames of conspiracy theorists. They may very well be working toward a common goal and not be split at all. If I had to guess, I would reckon they are setting up conspiracy theorists for a big fall…”
    I agree save for the “big fall”- I find it consistent with their MO to massage a split in the population (MSM fed sheep/Grassy Knollers) to keep it flowing across generations rather than have the whole thing slam shut at some point- Professional writers think in terms of 3 act narratives, but this isn’t a movie, it’s the umpteenth chapter in a multi-millennial farce with no end in sight-
    Right now the 24/7 connectivity that links so many minds to issues unfolding in real time is being used to herd segments of the population in many different directions, including “conspiracy” cul de sacs- This is what the hoaxes are for, on one level- Keep us running around trying to herd flies- But I also sense the think tanks are tasked with maintaining some kind of consistent minority of dissenters the way laws are tweaked to keep a certain number of people in prison- The “Conquer” in Divide and Conquer requires maintenance, as does the “Divide”- I can’t accurately guess at the percentage, but let’s say it’s a Paredo-ish 20/80 split, advantage sheep- Maybe 25-30% dissent capsizes the boat, but 10% or so doesn’t provide enough distraction to keep the people fighting amongst themselves-
    Things will change again once the cloud sucks everything up and everyone’s data will be known by AI- That beast may have everything already, but not officially, so we can still feel free to talk amongst ourselves- Our grandchildren won’t know what that phrase meant- That’s as close to a big fall as I can conceive-

    Like

    • Maarten Rossaert says:

      I agree, Tyrone. The whole business puts me in mind of Karl Rove’s chilling statement: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

      The little gaffes and hangouts they program into their manufactured realities are to keep the likes of us researching and discussing and being ostracized by the sheeple … but never really getting to the bottom of Who and How and Why, … and never really managing to do anything to change it.

      Like

      • daddie_o says:

        I remember when he said that and thought ‘what fucking hubris these people have.’ But knowing what I know now, that quotation takes on a whole new significance. Wow. Just wow.

        Like

    • daddie_o says:

      Good points all around. Gotta remember the long term perspective. I would put our numbers at more like 1% or less of the population. Even most conspiracy theorists haven’t seen through the fog and realized that most of it is just make-believe…

      Tyrone, let me ask you a question not related. In another thread somewhere you said you were working on a book on Hitler, etc. And you said it was part of a plan that had been in place for much longer. Could you say a little more about that plan? I’m asking because of this paper I’m writing on the Dreyfus affair. It seems to be part and parcel of the same plan that Hitler was part of. Certainly part of that is Zionism and founding of the state of Israel. But I wonder what’s your perspective and if you could suggest any useful sources? Thanks.

      Like

      • Tyrone McCloskey says:

        Daddie_o-
        There are so many coordinates to align with this topic but I will touch on a few points here- I suspect the plan to create a Jewish state was hatched in some form way back at the end of the 15th century- When the Venetian oligarchs created the ghetto system, I think that was the DNA imprint that eventually lead to the creation of Israel, which is really the largest ghetto imaginable, surrounded by manufactured belligerents- The ghetto system was initially designed, IMO, to hide the bookkeeping chicanery that the oligarchs were running behind Rome’s back in order to navigate around usury laws- This system was successful enough that the collaboration continued across Europe as the Venetian Party moved west to stake a claim in the new world, eventually creating a Red Shield* to protect themselves, using “Jews” to act as lint catchers from the aggrieved that tried to fight back- The synthetic Gentile/non Gentile distinction goes back to ancient Egypt and has been used in various forms since then- Zionism is just the latest incarnation of that false dichotomy-
        And it is losing steam- The Israel lobby in this country has lost all credibility and even young Israelis are returning to Europe, feeling their true homeland is where their forbearers lived for centuries, if not a millennia-

        *Venetian Jews were required to wear red hats as an identification marker- Just sayin’-

        The Hitler Project was part of this series of manufactured opportunities to advance the agenda- This particular component took nearly a century to arrive at the desired result- Unifying Germany and then splitting it in half to put the east and west in an induced inertia over the completely fictional nuclear stand-off- Generations then came and went, each successive generation more compliant with the demands of the controlling powers, and more accepting of technological wonders (NASA) and terrors (Nukes) which simply did not exist as advertised-
        The Anglo alliance with their banks, through the manipulation of loans, brought fascism to power- Like any rigged magic trick, the seemingly random member of the audience (Hitler) brought up on stage to take part in the deception is actually a ringer, an actor tasked to read lines and pose for pictures, nothing more- Complete compliance was assured by having various actors, instead of one guy, play the part of “Adolph Hitler”- Fog the vision with exotic mumbo jumbo and claims of unfathomable sadism and no one can clearly see the stagecraft at work-
        Grinding gears:
        Oil- Is it the precious liquid gold we are sold it is? This is a central mystery that cannot be allowed to be solved if the Middle East dramedy is to stay on the air- Those Middle Eastern oil reserves had to have been one of, if not the main objective behind the Zionist agenda- The religious legacy stuff is for the sentimental- But when was the connection between petrol, combustion engines, etc. made? Is this technological development and its perceived economic potential properly located on the Zionist timeline? I could be off base on this-
        Conjuring Hitler by Guido Giacomo Preparata is a good place to start on economic issues, though he believes Hitler is real- Hitler’s Doubles by Peter Fotis Kapnistos is a gold/mine field of useful nuggets and level eleven crazy, so watch your step- Speaking of gifted crazies, Joseph P Farrell and the indomitable Webster Tarpley also have great info sitting in a shack packed with TNT-

        Like

        • daddie_o says:

          Very, very interesting. Thanks. I think the observation about Israel as a large ghetto is inspired. So two things I take away from this, correct me if I’m wrong:

          You believe there is some group of people (who began as Venetian oligarchs) who are using the Jews as a front, a tool, and a fall guy for their shenanigans.
          Zionism is being used by this group as a front for other things, perhaps including oil and perhaps including as a wedge. (I assume it was not intended as some kind of shelter from usury laws.) But in your opinion the ideological trappings of Zionism (and even the conspiracy theory talk of a ‘greater Israel’ project) are merely window-dressing for some other agenda (even if it’s not clear to you what that agenda is).

          Like

          • Tyrone McCloskey says:

            daddie_o, sorry for the delay- I had to dig this out from the avalanche of new revelations- Yes, in the main you take away what I find the most plausible explanation of why “The Jews”, as apposed to the Jewish people, are used as a cudgel and a shield by the old (and I do mean OLD) line control groups, intermarried and always tweaking their rosters to make sure wherever the new action is, they have allies, even through marriage to the main bloodlines when necessary- A handy example would be Kathleen Kennedy and the Marquess of Hartington getting hitched and conveniently dying, going underground for whatever reasons- See my JFKTV [shameless plug]- https://www.dropbox.com/s/yipivo62qpbk349/JFK%20Word%20Master%20FINAL4LULUliesallkinds.pdf?dl=0
            For more on the ancient origins of this false dichotomy of Gentiles/non-Gentiles, see these guys: http://postflaviana.org/old-testament-intro-rev2/

            Like

          • Just curious if any of you guys have read Koestler’s Thirteenth Tribe. It was published in 1976 and trounced on by critics. I am just at the part now where it is getting meaty, page 190, as he appears to be headed towards there being no “Jewish” race. There are Ashkenazi and Sephardi, the former far outnumbering, and apparently mostly a motley crew of European tribes, Khazar one of the primary ones. This would also throw a wrench in the Mathis cogwheel, as recognition of Jews on sight would be impossible, by definition. That said, I think I know a Jewish person when I meet one, and I mean that in a most approving way, as my daughter-in-law is Jewish and a lovely woman.

            I’ve got a ways to go, but it appears at first glance that this thesis would generate scorn since it files in the face of Zionism.

            Like

          • daddie_o says:

            I have not read the Thirteenth Tribe but am somewhat familiar with the thesis. I don’t know how much it holds water, but I haven’t looked into it. It’s amazing how politicized history is when it comes to Jews, since so much is riding on the Zionist-crafted narrative.

            I think there’s probably a lot more going on behind MM’s Jewish thesis. Or in other words, the true reality is undoubtedly both more subtle and more complex. As far as I can tell, MM follows his own nose on things, and this is where he’s gotten so far. I think he tends to view other people’s research as most likely misdirection, so he relies more on his own research. This has advantages and disadvantages. (Or it could be deliberate misdirection, but I don’t believe that in his case.)

            I think relying on whether someone looks Jewish to tell if they’re Jewish is full of problems. (Keep in mind, I’m Jewish) To begin with, can we really agree on a stereotype of what a typical Jewish person looks like? Certainly the “big schnoz” is a Jewish stereotype. But for example, in his paper on Engels and Owen (he used some of my research on Engels for that paper, BTW), he says Engels looks Jewish. Well I don’t see it.

            Second, as you pointed out Mark, many people who are ethnically considered Jewish don’t look “stereotypically” Jewish. So here we have a problem of what is the value of the evidence of someone “looking Jewish.” Suppose that was our only way to tell if someone is Jewish: how often would we miss someone (false negatives) and how often would we think someone is Jewish (or crypto-Jewish) when they aren’t (false positives). I believe the rate of false negatives is much higher than false positives, but they are both non-negligible.

            So whether someone looks Jewish is hardly dispositive evidence. But on the other hand it’s not useless evidence, especially when taken into consideration with other evidence. Anyway, that’s my two cents on that issue.

            Mark, you might enjoy a book called ‘Army of Shadows’ by Hillel Cohen. It’s about Palestinians who collaborated with Zionists in pre-state Palestine. One of the most prominent families among them was the Zouabis. And wouldn’t you know it, Haneen Zouabi is now a leading (and highly controverisal) firebrand Palestinian politician in Israel. I smell controlled opposition.

            Like

          • daddie_o says:

            OK, interesting links and lots of food for thought. Thanks again!

            Like

  4. Great posts here.

    I don’t see so much a “big fall”, as much as a potential “big misdirection” IF the guys from September Clues are correct in thinking most of the videos from these hoaxes are 100% advanced computer simulation technology. But I would never rule out a big fall. It’s always good to stay humble in this game, even though I fail at that sometimes.

    Like

    • daddie_o says:

      OK, but I’m not sure I get what you mean — misdirection in what sense? Just trying to keep us busy and distracted dissecting their hoaxes… ?

      Like

      • Sort off.

        So let’s take JFK. We have the mainstream story, and then we have the conspiracy theories like the grassy knoll, the mob, the Cubans etc. The big misdirection is that there was no shooting and no murder. That’s the mindf*ck nobody suspected for 40+ years.

        Same thing with 9/11 (nobody died), celebrity death hoaxes (they become new celebrities), and so on. The one consistent theme as I peel the layers of the onion, is that there is always another mindf*ck layer I wasn’t expecting. That’s what I meant by big misdirection. It’s very possible something else is happening with these fake events nobody here suspects yet. It could be the September Clues “everything is a rendered simulation”, or it could be something else. I’m open to being surprised.

        Like

        • Life is interesting! I could never go back to where I was a few years back, wringing my hands about assassinations and cover-ups and evil people in power and the good dying young. There is a hidden code to our existence, and we are uncovering it. We have miles to go before we sleep, and are only initially discovering anomalies. I think you are right here, that every layer we uncover leads to another layer. This twinning business is fascinating stuff, discovering them fun, but how they came to be the real question.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s