Crisis Actors? Post your info & WTF moments here

[barracuda]

If I remember correctly the “actor’ meme started during the occupy events.

Here's an example, I'm not certain if this is the one you're thinking of:



It was found on the YouTube channel of wethecom1, where the original (at least as far as I can tell) Robbie Parker video came from, the one posted by angrifan as referenced by chump here. You may notice the misspelling of the word "fraud" in the above video title. The same error was originally present in the title of the Robbie Parker video (I made a note of it here), but was subsequently changed.



This video was posted on the 17th of December, has almost one million views, and, of course, spawned any number of copied repostings on the 'Tube. But it might be the original.

Is Robby Parker an actor? I don’t know, but someone sure seems to want a certain segment of the population to think he is.

Yeah, and the question is, who, exactly? Where did the "Robbie Parker Actor" thinkg first come from? I think it originates with wethecom1. Whoever he is.

Then, if all works according to theory, because of the emotional context the rest of the folk will be well inoculated from even considering the possibility later.

Interestingly, the "crisis actor" approach to photographic analysis didn't exist in Tucson, and was largely missing in Aurora. There was a small flare-up involving "the two Holmeses", this:



...but no major examination of the victims as potential shills. Maybe that was due to the abundant lack of highly visible witnesses and victims, or because of the complete absence of photos of the crime scene to play with. Gotta have straw to make bricks. But at Sandy Hook, it took full flight. There's several reasons for this:

- Ostensibly the shock of slaughtered children forced certain of the many parent or teacher survivors to confront the media blitz as their way of dealing with the trauma (Robbie Parker, Kaitlin Roig, Gene Rosen, et al) and, unsurprisingly that turns out to be a venue which puts personalities under the severest of microscopes, and/or

- The amount of photographic evidence of the crime scene was non-existent (again), so the internet sleuths had nothing to work with but the post-massacre interviews and public appearances.

(My opinion is that if the crime scene photos had been made public, the actor issue would have been negligible after Newtown. The crime scene photos are like an ace in the hole the authorities are waiting to play. )

(And don’t dare coming back at me questioning my lack of grief for the victims. You have no idea about the depth of my grief for victims.)

I have just about every certainty that you feel as deeply as any of us, bro. I never meant to question that, at all.

There are pictures ‘out there’ showing the amputee fellow after the explosion but before the fake blood had been applied. Their distribution must be serving some purpose.

Do you mean this article noted by General Patton as being reposted a bazillion times around the web? I wonder who the author is.

One purpose would seem to be getting folk like us at each others throats.

Another would almost certainly be to simply waste our time and energy on distractions. Anybody who's got an abundance of either to fritter away and the requisite hard-on for the find-the-actors game, I highly recommend a trip to the September Clues forum where the valiant researchers have already amassed a forty page thread's worth of lookalikes in action.



^^^The actual disinformational mechanism at work. It's all about demanding the impossible: proving the negative.

[Canadian_watcher]

Another would almost certainly be to simply waste our time and energy on distractions. Anybody who's got an abundance of either to fritter away and the requisite hard-on for the find-the-actors game,

question though - some people seem to have an abundance of time and energy to waste not only looking into all of these actor claims, but also to post about how they are bogus. Is that indicative of a 'hard-on' of any sort?

Maybe it proves that this `find the actor` game is indeed compelling whether looked at as evidence of a conspiracy or simply as an interesting set of sociological phenomena. In either case, the opinion that it is stupid to even go down these roads at all, for any reason, is noted.

[0_0]

The Capgras delusion (or Capgras syndrome) (pron: kăh′grah IPA:/ka·'grɑ:/)[1] is a disorder in which a person holds a delusion that a friend, spouse, parent, or other close family member has been replaced by an identical-looking impostor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion

[FourthBase]

http://www.bbmisc.com/forum/showthread. ... post361482

Photo credits:
The sequence of 27 images from the window above from where the Flash Powder was ignited were captured by Ben Thorndike, amateur photographer and marathon junkie
The sequence where Crisis Actors are shot from ground level were captured by Ken McGagh/MetroWest Daily News via Associated Press

Well, that's an interesting way for a hoaxer to describe Ben Thorndike.

Honestly, hoax-theorizing-with-certainty should = Instant banhammer. Even "near" certainty.

[Luther Blissett]

I was a "crisis actor" in the scouts; this was a common phenomenon. Whenever a fellow scout was going for the "lifesaving" merit badge (the most difficult and serious of the first aid badges) a group of us were trained to simulate real disasters and life-threatening situations.

Many of my fellow scouts were rather gung-ho individuals, driven towards careers in police work, firefighting, emergency response, the military, and at least one that became secret service for Cheney at a Rocky Mountain ranch. I just liked nature. But I know that the notion that one's fellow charges will make one's training hell persists in all of those fields in state security crisis response drills and tests.

When the story of the Harley Guy broke shortly after 9/11, I didn't realize the connection between PR and crisis acting. I had already suspected agents provocateurs at the RNC in Philly, and that's what I would tend to classify the situation throughout Occupy as. I witnessed plenty of undercover cops milling about the Occupy Philly assemblies and camp. I think it's important to make distinctions between drill actors, agents provocateurs, PR actors, and the nefarious concept of drill actors during drills at large public events (who does that, indeed?). I'm confident of the reality of the first three, but am skeptical of the fourth.

This thread makes me nervous just from trying to imagine broaching the subject of crisis actors with my peer group.

[barracuda]

question though - some people seem to have an abundance of time and energy to waste not only looking into all of these actor claims, but also to post about how they are bogus. Is that indicative of a 'hard-on' of any sort?

Lemme check, lover...


Well what do you know, I guess it is!

Maybe it proves that this `find the actor` game is indeed compelling whether looked at as evidence of a conspiracy or simply as an interesting set of sociological phenomena. In either case, the opinion that it is stupid to even go down these roads at all, for any reason, is noted.

The pathologies of conspiracy culture are always worth examination. The very crudeness displayed by examples such as the Spielberg meme above renders them fairly transparent, one would think, so it's a wonder the viral legs they've got. And they're often decently marked as a path to their source.

I don't know if I'd resort to the word "stupid", though. There's certainly an element of gullibility and fear about it, as well as a reflection of a certain zeitgeist, life within the confines of a constant forced transposition of artificiality and reality found in popular culture and television. And probably an indication of the distancing between ourselves and the world off screen typified by the 'net's illusion of connectedness and the ten years of continuous cloaking of the actuality of the day-to-day slaughters of our overseas military adventures. Maybe.



I don't feel the resemblance game is entirely without merit. I mean, professional investigators do examine photographic evidence of crimes, albeit with a bit more rigor, one might hope. And there are demonstrable instances of actors and counterfeit players sprinkled throughout conspiracies that we know of. So I don't reject the idea or the reality of it at all, just the amateur methodologies that I see in resemblance sleuthing generally. To quote Captain Willard, I don't see any method at all, sir.

And in the end, at least there's always the synchs.

[synchronicity] does not question, or compete with, the notion of causality. Instead, it maintains that just as events may be grouped by cause, they may also be grouped by meaning. A grouping of events by meaning need not have an explanation in terms of cause and effect.

And that has it's own importance not to be lightly dismissed or overlooked. The synchs color or flavor my understanding of an event. Sometimes it feels as if they can indicate levels of importance by how striking they are, or how they're timed, like the presence of major arcana in a layout. But I can't easily countenance the use of synchs as evidence of actual complicity. More of an overlay of weirdness that makes me take notice.

[Canadian_watcher]

that was a great post. fwiw I feel the same way.

hadn't seen the Spielberg thing before you posted it. wow - perfect demonstration of the lunacy that is unfortunately a part of the mix. There's some guy, I'm sure many of us here have run across him/her but I can't bring the handle to mind at the moment.... epic videos made by that person implicate nearly every living celebrity and many non-celebrities, too. it's laughable and sad all at the same time. Oh.. the name might be wellaware or something?

I think it's a mistake to have a witch hunt for the next 'wellaware' type though (as 4B seems to be suggesting)... as you've just posted there are incidents worth looking in to and how can we know which is which until we at least introduce it?

edited to remove something that might have seemed like snark.

[Canadian_watcher]

This thread makes me nervous just from trying to imagine broaching the subject of crisis actors with my peer group.

it is a little nerve-wracking, isn't it!?

[compared2what?]

But at Sandy Hook, it took full flight. There's several reasons for this:

- Ostensibly the shock of slaughtered children forced certain of the many parent or teacher survivors to confront the media blitz as their way of dealing with the trauma (Robbie Parker, Kaitlin Roig, Gene Rosen, et al) and, unsurprisingly that turns out to be a venue which puts personalities under the severest of microscopes, and/or

- The amount of photographic evidence of the crime scene was non-existent (again), so the internet sleuths had nothing to work with but the post-massacre interviews and public appearances.

I thought it was goosed perceptually by Obama's visit. It was only a month or so after every forum that discusses this stuff was at peak babykiller-saturation for the election. So there was some cognitive dissonance around seeing him and bereaved parents in the same picture, for many. And the "they're faking it" stuff was a good fit for that. And maybe an expression of it, too. I don't know.

I guess it's as good as the uses people put it to, the way all what-if thinking is, theoretically. So there's no reason it couldn't be a part of some brilliant act of creative thinking. Also theoretically. Denying other people's reality is a very slippery slope though.*** Especially if they're not public figures or in the public eye because they sought to be.

I mean, let's say that after a while, people get acclimated enough to seeing it as part of the perfectly-fine/what's-the-matter/just-asking-legitimate-questions-here arsenal that it gains some general acceptance. (And I think that could happen. Because, you know. It's fun, popular, compelling.)

That would be a hell of a weapon for anyone who needed one to use against whistleblowers, survivors, rape victims, and other assorted squeaky wheels, once it had been proven to work.

So some due discretion seems advisable.
____________

ON EDIT: I guess I mean "denying other people's reality because it's getting in the way of your beliefs." Because that's effectively what it is. Slippery slope. You start out with crisis actors and end up taking continents away from Native Americans. Conceptually. Not literally.

[Canadian_watcher]

That would be a hell of a weapon for anyone who needed one to use against whistleblowers, survivors, rape victims, and other assorted squeaky wheels, once it had been proven to work.

I hear this point. I do. However I think it already *is* the precise and exact thing used against all the parties listed above. Her skirt was too short, he was disgruntled, why didn't she just LEAVE, then>??? etc etc etc. And it DOES work and HAS worked in the most utterly filthy way imaginable since the beginning of time. it's worse now than ever before, since the internet - how many kids are being bullied to death.

So I see your point. But scrutinizing the media machine, the politicos, the tactical squadrons and armies of PR fuckheads via those same methods seems fair. I don't believe in this "don't bully the bully" thing. I think you DO bully the bully but that that`s not what it ought to be called.

It is heinous to think that any innocent person would get caught up in the scrutiny and I do feel that a great, great deal of effort should be made to be thoughtful and considerate about these investigations - but I don`t think we can ever stop insensitive jerks from being what they are, if that`s what you`re getting at with the slippery slope thing.

It`s really dangerous, IMO, to be too afraid that you might hurt someone`s feelings that you choose not to look at certain possibilities. Isn`t that how con men run their games, largely?

[compared2what?]

[
Yeah, and the question is, who, exactly? Where did the "Robbie Parker Actor" thinkg first come from? I think it originates with wethecom1. Whoever he is.

It might not always apply, but one of the odd things about it wrt the Sandy Hook parents was that for someone (like, let's say, James Tracy) who has access to a university library, the impostors hypothesis wouldn't have been that difficult to falsify, just to verify. Or...."Falsify" is a strong word, though possible. But at a minimum, the whole thing would be fundamentally checkably a lot less likely if a search of local newspapers and so on turned up recognizable photographs of most of the potential impostors using the same names on dates outside of the practicable timeframe.

And you probably could for enough of the Sandy Hook parents to throw a spanner into that theory's works, assuming that they were not, in fact, crisis actors.

There wasn't much James Tracy did that didn't get on my nerves, though. I have to admit. But still. He got a lot of mileage out of making those suggestions, when not sitting around inveighing against the media for its failure to ask the hard questions. It would have behooved him to do a lick of work, imo.

[compared2what?]

So I see your point. But scrutinizing the media machine, the politicos, the tactical squadrons and armies of PR fuckheads via those same methods seems fair.

Public figures are a different story. And different standard. Same (or very close) for some but not all the behind-the-scenes and in-front-of-the-camera image pushers.

I don't believe in this "don't bully the bully" thing. I think you DO bully the bully but that that`s not what it ought to be called.

I don't have a moral problem with it if it's honestly done and it works. I'm just not good at it. That's probably why I think about it analytically. I have to compensate.

It is heinous to think that any innocent person would get caught up in the scrutiny and I do feel that a great, great deal of effort should be made to be thoughtful and considerate about these investigations - but I don`t think we can ever stop insensitive jerks from being what they are, if that`s what you`re getting at with the slippery slope thing.

Not exactly. But I agree that nobody's responsible for what they do besides them.

It`s really dangerous, IMO, to be too afraid that you might hurt someone`s feelings that you choose not to look at certain possibilities. Isn`t that how con men run their games, largely?

Yes, one of them. The thing is: When you have all the choice in the world about whom to suspect of crisis-actorness, there's some standing risk that you'll end up conning yourself. Because naturally, you're not going to choose the people whose reality makes you feel good. And the people you do choose stop being people, post-choice. So you're very close to just declaring them non-human for displeasing you. That's a risky habit, with a high potential to act as an obstacle to understanding.

Look. I'm not saying: DANGER DO NOT ENTER XXXX. I'm just saying: High risk/uncertain reward, so eyes open.

[Canadian_watcher]

fair enough.

[8bitagent]

The thing that makes no sense about the hoaxer crowd wrt boston/sandy hook/9-11....if one is to believe a horrific event is faked by the elite...why would they do that? What's the point? Why not really massacre people?
My theory is these people love death. To me that's more of the point than any secondary side benefit. Holocaust. Vietnam. 9/11. Iraq. They love death and get off on it. What's the magick of faking anything?

[Canadian_watcher]

one theory might be that they wouldn't be able to get enough people to go along with killing or a coverup of killing, whereas if they needed accomplices to a staged public spectacle, they could probably fairly easily convince a great many people that they were 'agents' of sorts and that this was necessary for the greater good. Pretty weak, but a theory anyway