Can we start a new "crisis actor" thread?

[Perelandra]

+1000

[Nordic]

Kent State could happen en masse and while you'd have the hash-tag activists most people would be too braindead and coddled by their social networking and mass entertainment to care.

Btw I think people may be conflating the theory of doubles(ie: Oswald in Mexico theory) with this bullshit post 2012 "hoaxer" crisis actor stuff. It still upsets me people can look at horrendous photo of that poor soul with his
bones and flesh blown out of his legs in Boston and call that "fake".

The pain of that father who lost his son in the Santa Barbara attack is all too real

You are describing the pernicious effects that arise in part because a naive sector have now been trained to pathologically see hoaxes in all violent and shocking events that happen to make the media, while a hard core among them inevitably engages in a repulsive search for "crisis actors" among the victims.

It's a kind of social immunization process. It is indeed one reason why people might no longer recognize a Kent State if it happens, why you can't talk about the real evidence in the case of a JFK or 9/11 without being shut down or associated with the likes of Alex Jones. Because as soon as the media yells "ARMED SQUIRREL," all these doofuses trained by the conspiracy merchandising sector start playing Internet detective and always, always, think they've discovered that the dead people or their relatives are all faking it. This lives in a symbiosis with the faux-skeptics and "anti-conspiracists." It raises the noise:signal ratio to an impossible level. Thanks to the promiscuity and gullibility of the conspiracy merchandising consumers, real psyops can be conducted with impunity.

With 9/11 it took a while before all the hoax nonsense started attacking the victims. I now recall being in a group e-mail exchange discussing evidence with relatives of the dead, when this asshole who called himself a "truther" suddenly started accusing one of them of being, in effect, a "crisis actor" who knew in advance that her husband would die on that day! That was the end of that line of communication, since of course how could she know whether to trust anyone else after that?

It illustrates how this idiocy functions: attack the messengers, impeach all evidence, repulse all people with standing in a case. If the victims are fake, the pictures are fake, the first responders are actors, the planes didn't even exist, etc., etc., what's left to pursue? NOTHING. Done.

This is supposed to be the smart forum, by the way! You'd think after years here people would be able to recognize and analyze these dynamics, instead of reflexively contributing to them. You'd think people would be wary and would proceed carefully, not assume that every event is also a case of THEM doing "evil" things.

Yeah no shit Sherlock. You care too much about appearances of our little rarely-visited backwater.

I started this thread to pursue intelligent conversation about the situations where it was obvious that there were plants.

And all you care about is how it looks to ... Who, exactly?

You want to talk about the bath water, some of us are interested in the baby.

But go ahead and ridicule everyone who doesn't think 100% exactly like you. It would be so out of character if you didn't and if your mind wasn't rusted shut.

How about that toppling of the Saddam statue in Iraq, Jack? How about that "spontaneous" near-riot of the GOSp operatives in Florida during the 2000 recount? You want to throw out those babies with your bathwater as well?

If so, why?

[JackRiddler]

I started this thread to pursue intelligent conversation about the situations where it was obvious that there were plants.

No you didn't. You started it to pimp a video about some poor lady (or two ladies -- it's exactly the same either way) you agree should be defamed in a truly horrible and heartless way for having had the poor luck to live in Boston, go to the marathon, and also be present (or have someone who looks like her be present, exactly the same either way) in a neighborhood that was shut down during the Tsarnaev manhunt. You imply she's an operative paid to cover up a horrible crime even though there is obviously no logical reason in the world to use such an operative! If there is a cover-up in Boston, this "crisis actor" of yours does absolutely nothing to serve it. She's completely superfluous to it. In other words, you're directing us to a total distraction, even if you believe your own schtick about a Boston cover-up. It's a sick, obsessive obscuring of legitimate examples.

How about that toppling of the Saddam statue in Iraq, Jack? How about that "spontaneous" near-riot of the GOSp operatives in Florida during the 2000 recount? You want to throw out those babies with your bathwater as well?

If so, why?

How dare you bring these examples into your dirty little thread? These are exactly the kinds of real, obvious psyops that are trivialized and obscured by your willingness to endorse defamatory and alienating attacks on random individuals. Honestly, what if the same happened to you or someone you know or love? What if some dumbfuck video maker should choose you or someone you know at random to defame in such a video as a "crisis actor"?

Objectively, whatever you think you are doing, the people who stage real and recognizable psyops -- psyops that actually have a function, that make sense as operations of war with objectives, psyops like these examples above -- are the people YOU are helping. Just as you helped the NSA campaign to attack Snowden so as to distract from the NSA.

I don't believe any more anyone could be this stupid. Out of respect for your intelligence, I must conclude you are a bad actor. You are your own "crisis actor." You are either pushing disinfo or seriously sick. Probably brain damaged. One or the other.

[Asta]

I agree with Nordic that the woman in the CNN clips is the same person. There are going to be subtle differences because of lighting and no one really has a perfectly symmetrical face. She's wearing Transitions lenses, the eyeglass frames are identical.

I posted on the Las Vegas shooting thread about the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Did a google search on Martin Bryant to find photos of him because of the inconsistencies of eye witness descriptions of the gunman's appearance. Found one photo in which he looked eerily like Adam Lanza wearing a long blonde wig. Don't know quite what to make of it, unless insane people have a way of looking similar.

BTW, the Obama "dopplegonger" looks nothing like Obama, and Morgan Freeman does not look like Mandela. And Alex Jones is not Bill Hicks. Good grief.

[Luther Blissett]

Yeah no shit Sherlock. You care too much about appearances of our little rarely-visited backwater.

To be fair, I wound up here because the site kept popping up near the top in search results for all manner of niche deep state / parapolitic / high weirdness topics I was researching around the period 2006-2007 or so. Even now when I start branching out to seek additional information after discussions here, Rigorous Intuition is still at the top of the list - that could be google's creepy algorithms but I don't think it is. Check out some of the query suggestions when typing "rigorous intuition " and waiting for a moment - it seems like some of the data dumps might be highly attractive to someone. I'm sure our traffic is relatively low but I also think that at a certain level the site deserves some credit for driving a very tiny minuscule branch of research.

Debate about crisis actors absolutely falls into that category.

[Nordic]

Oh for Christ sake, Jack, go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious prick. You act like RI is your very own site.

Seriously, fuck off.

It's no wonder there are only a handful of people who post here any more.

"Dirty little thread". What a fucking jackass you are.

Seriously ban me if you want, I'm done here as long as this dickhead rules this roost.

Fuck you. Shakespeare you are not. You are an egomaniac who wants to be the biggest fish in an extremely small puddle, so go ahead, pretty soon you'll have a circle jerk of one.

[Nordic]

Oh for Christ sake, Jack, go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious prick. You act like RI is your very own site.

Seriously, fuck off.

It's no wonder there are only a handful of people who post here any more.

"Dirty little thread". What a fucking jackass you are.

Seriously ban me if you want, I'm done here as long as this dickhead rules this roost.

Fuck you. Shakespeare you are not. You are an egomaniac who wants to be the biggest fish in an extremely small puddle, so go ahead, pretty soon you'll have a circle jerk of one.

You prevent any serious discussion of ANYthing unless it is on your own bullshit conservative views.

This isn't the RI I grew to love. It's gone.

[Nordic]

Seriously, why does this chronically verbally abusive little fuck get away with calling someone both brain damaged and a disinfo agent in the same sentence. Has this abusive cunt ever been banned here at all?

All he wants to do us fight, and not long ago he even complained that nobody was taking his bait and fighting him.

He has a severe personality disorder of some kind and I can only conclude that he is utterly miserable in his meatspace life.

I'm not gonna go whining to the mods, but maybe someone else can.

I'm out of here.

Bye.

[Searcher08]

Something really struck me about the Crisisactors.org site, which was it very clearly situated what they do within a training and simulation by real-world enactment context. Framing it either as a wicked psyop OR as 'nothing to see here' misses this. I think it is perfectly plausible to have trainings where part of the process is to observe and learn about the resulting information flows across the media and across social networks. They do not have to be set up to create a psyops effect - their objective can be to gather massive amounts of data. Given that this is about observation, I think that a LIHOP operation would make a great opportunity to observe how a mix of 'real world event plus simulation' interacts. Obviously having an advertised simulation at the same time is a means of plausible deniability for the REAL actors behind it.
Comments like 'how could you do this to the poor woman' mirror the howling indignation on skeptic boards at the very IDEA of investigating 9/11 truth - "how can you DO THIS to the families?"; treating it as part of an evil psyops plot to headfuck the populace might miss an explanation driven more by social network scientists feeding at the unlimited DHS hog trough. In other words more Eichmannian than Goebellsian.

I think the OP is important and (according to my social simulation theory) a diamond being closely followed by the data miners.

[JackRiddler]

Comments like 'how could you do this to the poor woman' mirror the howling indignation on skeptic boards at the very IDEA of investigating 9/11 truth - "how can you DO THIS to the families?"

Wrong. In the actual history, real family members were among those leading the charge of 9/11 skepticism, real family members forced the investigations from the government, and real family members rejected the faulty results of these investigations. And real family members were attacked, first, by the defenders of the official story as golddiggers and/or grief-traumatized psych cases and, second and worse, as "vicsims" and the like (basically: "crisis actors") by the neo-truthers who ultimately succeeded in destroying any credibility for the 9/11 truth movement and turning it into an anti-social, right-wing, reactionary, medieval mess. As I pointed out above, had you bothered to read, with the example of the neo-truther attacking one of the family members for having advance knowledge of her own husband's death. Thus you are not addressing the actual history, of which you seem to be ignorant. You are letting yourself be guided by schematic prior categories and sheer bullshit.

The facts remains: Nordic's OP about the poor woman (or two women: irrelevant) in Boston is ipso facto baseless, because there is no conceivable reason for the "evil" controllers to hire such a "crisis actor." The circular logic of the responses I've received on this point serves as confirmation. ("How can you know what the motives of such eeeeeeeevil people are?" Motive is irrelevant because she's already a proven crisis actor, qed.)

Basically, whoever made that video is raping that lady's reputation without any kind of underlying reason to think that a "crisis actor" would ever be necessary in the situation as given. Luckily these intrepid "researchers" so far have been too lazy to even figure out who she is, or even if it's the same woman in both cases.

Yeah, when there is no case, I do see this as essentially random harrassment. I think the case for Nordic as a "crisis actor" has a slightly better basis, because objectively he is performing a function for them by associating proven and dramatic cases of psyops conducted on the public (such as the Florida 2000 "Brooks Brothers riot" by GOP operatives and the Saddam statue toppling) with absolutely baseless and repulsive attacks on random, innocent individuals (as in the OP).

[BrandonD]

I think it's kinda ridiculous that on this website people who want to entertain or discuss certain conspiracy theories are aggressively opposed, rather than met as a friend or at least a fellow thinking human.

Conspiracy theories themselves are not the problem. Whomever is promoting this point of view is generally parroting what they read somewhere because it sounds clever and fits our current intellectual fashion of "skepticism".

I entertain a great deal of far-out conspiracy theories. It may not be my default position that actors were involved in tragic events like school shootings, but I suppose it is possible - there are deceptive people in power and stranger things have happened. And yet, somehow with this open-minded intellectual position I have not become a threat to society or humanity, I have somehow managed to avoid the brainwashing that apparently turns open-minded people like myself into Alex Jones-controlled killing machines. How can this be?

The problem is, and has always been, people who think they can solve the ills of the world through violence. Absolutely every tragic incident fits into this category: 9/11, Boston bomber, Sandy Hook, etc etc. I would love to hear an exception to this.

Most Americans do not want to accept that the above mindset is exactly what is the problem - the problem is not "conspiracy theorists" suspecting actors in school shootings, or people thinking "no planes hit the building", or whatever other wild ideas are out there.

If, culturally, violence was not promoted as an acceptable solution to our problems, if it was not believed to be the manly and honorable way to change the world (what BS!), then there would be no problems whatsoever with considering, entertaining, and discussing wild theories. Our western mentality toward violence is the problem, not just here at home but globally. To some degree powerful people are doing their evils out in the world without the consent of the citizens, but at the same time powerful people are merely an extension of the mentality of its citizens toward how we should solve our problems.

Regarding "crazy theories", every major discovery of human society started as a wild ridiculous theory, a theory whose proponent was considered by everyone else to be a nut. True, there are also actual nuts out there as well, but an aggressive attacking attitude towards people with unpopular ideas does not produce positive results. It actually benefits people who like to keep secrets, and makes people with legitimately innovative but unusual ideas more afraid to speak out. In fact, this aggressive attitude only reflects a weakness of character - a weakness that I display just as much as anyone else, I'm not speaking from a high horse - just saying it like it is.

I see no problem in discussing far-out ideas and theories as long as we can all agree that under no circumstances (except perhaps immediate bodily threat) is it ok to respond to a situation with violence. Americans, and the west in general, appear to be a long way from this sentiment and from my point of view this is the main attitude that needs to be addressed and changed. Attacking certain unpopular conspiracy theories is about as helpful as attacking this or that movie or video game because it is a "bad influence". Those movies or games are usually a bad influence because they illustrate our existing screwed-up attitudes towards the world, and we would rather not have those things shown to us.

[justdrew]

what does the D stand for?

[JackRiddler]

I think it's kinda ridiculous that on this website people who want to entertain or discuss certain conspiracy theories are aggressively opposed, rather than met as a friend or at least a fellow thinking human.

Who's failing to discuss? I'm giving it plenty of discussion, delving into the details and implications, and rejecting the hypothesis as unfounded and untenable. In response there hasn't been an answer on the details, just a lot of whining that my tone's insufficiently gentle, therefore I am being a fascist censor bully, blah blah boo hoo.

I think it's ridiculous to expect that every piece of bullshit is going to be treated equally and given the kumbaya, especially when it involves defaming essentially random civilians on a borrowed instinct. Thinking and meeting as a friend are two separate and sometimes conflicting objectives.

Conspiracy theories themselves are not the problem.

People who use this term as if it means anything at all, let alone can be spun into a positive connotation, are definitely part of the problem. They objectively nourish those who employ the false dichotomy of "conspiracism" vs. "skepticism" to shut down inquiry into hidden politics and ideas outside the establishment spectrum.

[BrandonD]

what does the D stand for?

It's my last name, but I'm a bit hesitant to reveal that info if that's alright. It's not a terribly common last name.

[Wombaticus Rex]

BLAH BLAH BORK BORK MODERATE HEY GUYS LET'S BORK BORK BLAH BLAH ETC

Thank you for listening!