Our friend Petra Liverani sent this piece to all her blog followers, me included. At POM, it is right up our alley! 1963 was a long, long time ago, but those of us alive at that time (I was 13) were stunned by the image. It is forever embedded in our brains, as was surely the intent of planners of that era, if Petra knows what’s up.
Petra’s blog is Psyop Detective. It should be on our blogroll here, and will be before the day is done. If you want to review the comments she has drawn on this particular post, go here.
_____________________________
Prompted by the mention of the alleged protest self-immolation by Vietnamese monk, Thích Quảng Đức, in 1963 in the comments on Is It “Inappropriate” To Ask Basic Questions About “Burning Man” Aaron Bushnell? by Celia Farber, I wondered if the 1963 self-immolation might reveal anomalies too.
Sure enough, things don’t add up, just as they don’t with Aaron’s seeming self-immolation. While I must admit that Aaron’s immolation is quite convincing, one oddity I noticed was that after tipping what seemed like petrol over himself, when he put the lighting tool to his garment nothing happened and one must wonder why considering that as soon as he put it to the ground, immediately the flames started up. The fact that he was completely aflame for almost 40 seconds without collapsing also seems very odd – any enlightenment on the trickery welcome. I know there are fireproof suits but as there was no evidence of face-protection and the seeming immolation was so long it seems unlikely the trickery involved a fireproof suit.
See also article indicating that the January 2001 self-immolation by five people in Tiananmen Square was faked.
Questions about the 1963 self-immolation in Saigon
1. We are told that Malcolm Browne, a photographer working for Associated Press, took the photographs below displayed in Wikipedia. How credible is it that such an event – of which hint was given the day before – was able to be set up and allowed to proceed at a “busy Saigon intersection”? We might also ask that if the “important event” indicated were allowed to proceed, why not use film camera as well as still – after all, we got both for the impromptu “live” shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald a little later in the year. Note that the first photo below won World Press Photo of the Year, 1963.
2. When we crop the first photo so that the car appears at the same distance, Thích Quảng Đức is not in the same position in relation to the car, the people behind the car look different as do the people in the upper right quadrant and as Proton Magic points out in the comments, isn’t there an expectation of writhing? Whatever kind of mind control a monk has, wouldn’t his nervous system would be overwhelmed by the attack of flames? Do you think these seeming anomalies can be accommodated by the narrative or rather that they are against reality Revelation-of-the-Method (RoM) style, that is, they are trusty clues that tell us it’s all staged.
3. To the left of the alleged self-immolation we see a white object that looks very different in both photos and in the second photo is significantly closer to the monk. Do you think that the second object reflects a petrol container deformed by the flames or rather that this is a RoM signal of fakery?
4. If we crop the upper right quadrant in both photos we find that the monks in each don’t seem to match, for example, in the first photo we see no monk in a dark robe or a monk kneeling (extreme right) which we see in the second photo. Do you think this simply reflects natural movement of the monks during self-immolation or rather a RoM signal of fakery?
5. In the right upper quadrant of the second photo we see what looks like a boy monk levitating although people have disputed this claim. Judge for yourself. Obviously, if you accept that that is what it looks like it can only mean one thing, right? RoM … and they do have a laugh with that one. If you don’t, I welcome alternative explanations.
6. Part of Malcolm Browne’s bio in Wikipedia reads:
Browne worked for ABC TV for about a year but became dissatisfied with television journalism,[1] and worked freelance for several years. He did a year’s fellowship at Columbia University with the Council on Foreign Relations. In 1968, he joined The New York Times, becoming its correspondent for South America in 1972. Having worked as a chemist prior to becoming a journalist,[3] in 1977 Browne became a science writer, serving as a senior editor for Discover. He returned to the Times in 1985, and went on to cover the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Do you think this biography may suggest he worked for intelligence?
Piece of Mindful 
While I agree this, and probably all, self-immolation are fake; the ‘evidence’ presented in this piece is lackluster.
The easiest proof is this:
When someone loses consciousness, they lose muscle control and therefore it is impossible to maintain the same posture when they fall down; in the video, the flaming object can only be a dummy, which maintains the same sitting, arm-raised position at all times
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks so much for this video, I had no idea that the alleged self-immolation of Thích Quảng Đức prompted further ones but I see them mentioned now that I read the Wikipedia article more carefully and notice that so much more said in the article resonates with psyop.
I’m not sure why you think the evidence put forward is lacklustre. To my mind any piece of information that favours one hypothesis over another acts as a good piece of evidence for building a case and I have to say that in the video, the alleged self-immolator does look like a real person in that when he topples he moves his arm as if to brace himself when hitting the ground (53s), the body doesn’t move all as a piece as we’d expect of a dummy. So I’m actually now very confused. Now I’m wondering if self-immolations aren’t indeed a thing but they fake them too just as bus, train and plane accidents can be real but they fake them too.
Of course, it could be a real person and the fire is faked. Another possibility. I’m not happy. Generally speaking I find with psyops the important fakery is easy to have a sense of but in this video and in the Aaron Bushnell video it’s not obvious how the fakery is achieved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I noticed the same thing with the image and the monk falling to his left. However, notice that the arm does not change in response to his falling. It merely stays in the same place, hooked and forearm pointed upward. It did not appear to me that he was bracing himself for a fall.
LikeLike
Yes, I see what you’re saying and when the arm hits the ground the body kind of wobbles in the way you’d expect of a dummy rather than a human body. And, of course, the footage terminates right at a point where we might expect further revelation of what we’re really seeing.
LikeLike
I was hoping for something like this, resulting in a revelation, of course! Not a wax dummy, which would dissolve, but a solid structure, maybe a wood carving. Its color would change quickly but it would not dissolve into fragments until later, when the “journalists” of the era had departed. This was a staged hoax.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a few suggestions how it was done. First, you’re right that this cannot be a busy intersection in Saigon in the middle of the day. Or if it was, it was shut down by the military to stage this hoax. And those monks could have been at the intersection for some other event, which would not have had to happen the same day, and they would just need to cut and paste the two fake pictures of a monk on fire – the second photo could be a painting layered in. There are many anomalies with this whole scene which defy logic. Like a car with its hood up in the middle of the street and the other monks standing way back. Buddhist monks in southeast Asia are typically not political, or suicidal fanatics, so I can’t imagine this was condoned by the other monks. Parts of it’s purpose may have been to blackwash Buddhists by making them look like crazy religious fanatics, when the fact is Buddhism is a spiritual path towards harmony and not struggling against nature or giving into base instincts, like greed and power.
It bothers me this photographer, if the event actually happened, would not try to stop the monk from doing this, as it’s obviously wrong to casually watch a suicide and stand and do nothing. However the mainstream press celebrates this monk as some sort of hero, clearly promoting this sort of behavior – and we all know they love to promote suicide.
This event also likely was staged to inflame tensions between the Catholics and Buddhists, as I quote:
“Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc publicly burns himself to death in a plea for President Ngo Dinh Diem to show “charity and compassion” to all religions. Diem, a Catholic (Jesuit?) who had been oppressing the Buddhist majority, remained stubborn despite continued Buddhist protests and repeated U.S. requests to liberalize his government’s policies. More Buddhist monks immolated themselves during ensuing weeks. Madame Nhu, the president’s sister-in-law, referred to the burnings as “barbecues” and offered to supply matches.”
As far as why we see so many errors in these staged pictures and events, I believe some could makers marks, so they don’t confuse real photos with fakes, and leave very obvious signs that the photo is doctored. Another possibility is this is all government work, done likely by young guys working in the lab long hours, and the quality shows. The expression good enough for government work is appropriate. 99% of the public will never notice these problems, so why waste lots of lab time when you have a lot of other work to do trying to make things look perfect, especially when you have a press that questions nothing?
This protest, which was widely publicized in the press, also clearly made the USA look bad. In fact many atrocities were publicized about the American military during the war, when they had the power to suppress them. I believe the USA was set up to “lose” the Vietnam war from the start. The globalists needed to even up the playing field and give China more time for the communist cultural takeover, setup Vietnam as a manufacturing sweatshop, and be the first chapter in the plan to end a strong prosperous America.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, yeah, regardless of other reasons these self-immolations are staged, we can see the divide and conquer at play.
“Madame Nhu, the president’s sister-in-law, referred to the burnings as “barbecues” and offered to supply matches.”
That’s a good one! I guess a take-off of what Marie Antoinette allegedly said and it makes me think that her words were faked at the time to foment the hostilities in France. I know it’s said that the French Revolution was staged and no doubt at least in part it was.
“As far as why we see so many errors in these staged pictures and events, I believe some could makers marks, so they don’t confuse real photos with fakes, and leave very obvious signs that the photo is doctored.”
Revelation of the Method (RoM) is an essential part of the MO and the way I see it if there aren’t what look like deliberate errors then the event isn’t a psyop, it’s something else.
Psyops ALWAYS include RoM – whatever kind, whatever country, whatever century they always include RoM. The reason you suggest is a useful one but RoM works on so many levels.
“The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”
Edited quote from Theodore Dalrymple, aka Anthony Daniels, British psychiatrist.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/124952-political-correctness-is-communist-propaganda-writ-small-in-my-study
Governments making themselves look bad can work really well for them as is shown in the faking of false flag proposal, Operation Northwoods.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/operation-northwoods-false-flag-proposal
LikeLike
A different take on it all :
I regarded the 1969 execution of Nguyen van Lem another hoax, with subtle tells, as in how did the cameraman know to be there and in perfect position and taking a split-second photo capturing the moment of a gunshot with 1963 technology required amazing luck. If it is a movie still, maybe, but what I am told is that it was a still photo.
Somewhere I have a post about Jane Fonda’s 1972 trip to North Vietnam, which I concluded was shot on a back lot in Hollywood – she never went anywhere. She is and always has been an agent. The purpose of the trip? To enflame people. Leaders in a country like ours, where votes are not counted and public opinion is acknowledged but steadfastly ignored, do not care if we are for or against anything. Our opinions do not matter. They only wanted us divided. That’s a large part of propaganda, to create division, getting us off-topic and ignoring the real masters of deceit.
The Jane Fonda post is nowhere to be found. Anyone know how to use Wayback? I’ve never had any luck there. Worst case, I have to rewrite it, not a big deal.
LikeLike
I found this:-
https://web.archive.org/web/20180126123440/https://pieceofmindful.com/2016/12/07/knowing-what-we-know-now/
LikeLike
Thank you! I thought I had done a whole bunch more work on the project, but apparently not.
LikeLike
While I agree with all the other photos being completely staged (and I’m grateful for all the extra info I’ve got from the comments here to add to my article), in the case of Jane Fonda – even if certain shots were staged – I think she went to Vietnam. Why wouldn’t she? Lots of people did. They sent over entertainers for the troops for one thing (Australia did it too) and I would have thought Jane would just be itching to go, an adventure for her. The motives of those in power who might have helped “curate” her visit, of course, is another matter.
This is video of her there and I think it looks pretty convincing. I just don’t see any reason for her not to have gone regardless of motive.
LikeLike
We will have to agree to differ, as we each offer a subjective opinion with little to back it up, and so what?
We cannot know where Jane was when she was off in Vietnam, friendly South or hostile North? The thing she did that enraged the supporters of the war was to sit in a gun turret in Hanoi (supposedly), and that is the sequence of photos I thought staged. It could have been anywhere.
Henry Fonda, Jane’s father, served in the military in WWII and was awarded a bronze star, odd for a member of the peerage (they rarely, if ever, are in real danger while in the military. The PT109 incident was pure fiction.) One of Henry’s five wives, and Jane’s mother, was a Seymour, who was once married to a Brockaw, keeping the inbreeding going. His list of wives, including an Italian baroness connected to the Rothschilds, reads like a who’s who of the peerage. Jane is juiced, in my view, a beautiful woman used in some of the biggest psyops of our time.
Jane was a critical factor in the takedown of the nuclear power industry in the US. She starred in the movie The China Syndrome, which had an idiotic plot, and which was released on 3/16/79, preceding the “meltdown” at Three Mile Island by 12 days. Do you believe in
miracles, I mean coincidences? That’s a big one.Thank you, Petra, for allowing me to use your work here. You opened up a line of inquiry that never would have occurred to me. I’ve done other work on Vietnam, including shots of the child Phan Thị Kim Phúc running down a road after being hit by napalm, also staged, in my judgement.
Your work is a welcome addition here, and I hope we can see more at your blog and here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hadn’t considered where in Vietnam Jane went. You may well be right about her, I’m too ignorant to have an opinion on the matter really just that she did seem to go to Vietnam.
So funny. I remember reading that the psyop was that Phan Thi Kim Phuc wasn’t burnt by napalm but by a kerosene stove and they “transformed” the injury into napalm but, of course, that makes no sense.
I wonder how many war photos are genuine? There must be some surely.
LikeLike
If you get a chance, skim that post and look at a screen cap from a film I used that was removed from public viewing after – in it in the background you can see a large group of people milling about on the road, probably the production crew. Maarten, a writer here at that time, mentioned that a paved cantilevered road would have been unusual in Vietnam at that time, but not in California, where the event might well have been filmed.
LikeLike
Fonda was in full radical tilt back then, even starring in a Jean-Luc Goddard film about labor struggle or some such. It stinks, but she was also involved with Donald Sutherland in those days and, like her, he’s from the families and he was playing with radical chic at the same time. One possibility regarding her time in Vietnam- she could have gone only as far as Marco’s Philippines with a royal retinue and everyone put on sack cloth and appeared before the cameras without makeup to look the part. One jungle looks like another to decadent western eyes. Three months earlier she was accepting her first Oscar, though in a pants suit to show how serious she was about stuff.
LikeLike
A bit off topic, but what the hell, we have a few movies mentioned here.
What is Donald Sutherland’s best role/performance EVER? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ Oddball in Kelly’s Heroes. If you have the time, or inclination, check out “Oddball, Kellys Heroes, moriarty, negative waves” or similar in your favorite censored search engine. 5 minute YooToob IIRC. ________________________________
LikeLike
Role: Hawkeye Pierce. (Although his best performance was in Six Degrees of Separation)
LikeLike
Just for fun, what makes it for you ” pretty convincing” that “she”(?) was really in vietnam. cause i did not see any proof in the linked video for that. i was also thinking maybe the vegetation in the background in some shot does not look vietnam to me… but i was not there so perhaps i am wrong here 😛
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c
This monks wiki page is rich. This was no ordinary monk, he was an abbot and probably some kind of agent. And its quite clear this was a staged event given maximal publicity, and to create chaos in South Vietnam by starting a battle between Catholics and Buddhists. If you read the reason he killed himself it’s rather flimsy, it wasn’t for Vietnamese independence, it was because they didn’t have as many “rights” as Catholics. They put a statue of the monk where he died, his car is preserved, and his heart (which survived cremation) was on display.
There’s actually a wiki page listing every known self-immolation, which I find very strange and troubling. Clearly they are encouraging martyrdom, and the asinine belief that everyone else is more important than you so you should sacrifice yourself for the good of humanity.
The climate change self-immolations are particularly troubling, clearly the people encouraging this are no different than a suicide cult. This 18 year old below screams psyop or a sadly brainwashed child being told the end is near if we don’t stop using carbon based energy sources. And CO2 as a greenhouse gas is basically a myth. A greenhouse gas is something that absorbs infrared light and re-emits it, trapping it for a longer period of time before radiating into space. However water absorbs IR very strongly and there is far more water vapor in the atmosphere. The earth is not a greenhouse, covered with glass, so that is a deceptive term also.
https://noharm.co/lindazhang/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the monk would have to be an agent too.
Yes, interesting about the girl. There’s certainly no clear evidence of its reality and the fundraising foundation provides one of a number of possible motives.
I plump for psyop.
This is an interesting post pointing out that water vapour is only recognised by climate scientists as a feedback effect when its presence in the atmosphere is directly caused by certain human activities.
https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/watervapor01.htm#:~:text=Water%20vapor%20is%20a%20greenhouse,from%20that%20of%20water%20vapor.
LikeLike
Petra, thanks for that article. I’ve heard water vapor, just as a pure absorber of IR energy and adjusting for mass in the atmosphere vs. CO2, is on the order of 50X greater.
As people should know in greenhouses they often spray C02, which can double a plants growth rate. I just realized if CO2 was higher then the planet would green much faster (leaf cover). As anyone who has lived in a forest and drives to a city knows, forests are typically 10F cooler than a city in summer. So CO2 might actually cool the planet? It’s certainly possible based on the crap models we’ve been presented.
LikeLike
I was an ardent climate activist and I still haven’t come round to AGW being a total scam. It’s not that I have a problem changing my mind on the reality of things any more as so many myths in the last decade have been knocked over for me I’m like, “What’s real?” however with CC I thought I did due diligence and looked at all the naysayer arguments which didn’t seem to stand up. The climate scientists admit that water vapour is far more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but they say it doesn’t build up like CO2 however, I’d never seen the argument in that article that states, “Well, it doesn’t necessarily just come and go, it can build up too separate to a feedback effect from co2.” Also, they do recognise that it makes plants grow faster … but only up to a point.
The thing is though, while being the lifeblood of plants (and us indirectly), CO2 is toxic at too high levels regardless of climate change so we really don’t want too much in the atmosphere – if manmade climate change is a scam (and whether total scam or not it will be/already is weaponised massively against us), it’s definitely not a simple one … – https://www.co2meter.com/en-au/blogs/news/high-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-indoors
I think we do need to keep in mind that the fact of trace amounts of a gas in the atmosphere doesn’t mean trivial. Phosgene (COCl2), the gas used as a chemical weapon during World War I is supposedly lethal at only an infinitesimal 4 ppm for 30 minutes or 2 ppm for 60 minutes.
Essentially, I think we shouldn’t be focused on climate change we should be focused on generally living in harmony with our environment and if we do that climate change will take care of itself.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of science, real science that has been done surrounding CO2 and what they refer to as climate sensitivity. The question, which can be addressed mathematically, is what effect doubling CO2 in the atmosphere has. It depends on the levels … and Monfort and others claim the effect at current levels is perhaps 1 degree C, while the alarmists and their models, which have yet to be right, predict much higher effects. An interesting aspect is that higher levels have less cumulative effect, so going from 400 to 800 ppm will have less effect than from 200 to 400. It is like painting a barn red, the first coat has a notable effect, but the second coat much less, as the barn is already red.
And, we do not know where atmospheric CO2 originates. Certainly humans add some, but the vast store of CO2 is in mineral deposits and the ocean. It could be that the gradual warming going on since 1860 or so (end of the Little Ice Age) is causing release from the oceans, just like opening a can of soda and letting it warm allows the CO2 in it to release.
And anyway, warm is good. Ask anyone living where I do and points north if they prefer winter or summer temperatures. We have warming every year, and it makes our lives better. Cold is and always has been our enemy, warm our friend, and human adaptability our greatest strength. Note how the Dutch survive and prospered.
LikeLike
I was thinking about the self immolation with regards to the Free Tibet-China psyop after I discovered the Dalai Lama is just another Masonic intel asset and fraud.
LikeLike
Today we would say “photoshopped” … but i hope ppl know that even during and after WW1 they could fake photos already. Or is there credible film footage from NEUTRAL sources (which does not include the gov or media btw) 😛
LikeLike