Brian stave(ley)s off a sim attack by Hoi Polloi

Another classic from the archives featuring yours truly.

Hoi and Simon are both in the US now. Perhaps they could do a Sim meet up with Brian in his Boston hometown. It’s been long enough that they can clear this up now.

Here’s the clues thread Brian was talking about.

12 thoughts on “Brian stave(ley)s off a sim attack by Hoi Polloi

  1. Faye

    In your interview
    “Brian S Staveley Interviewed By Javaring On Brian’s Start In The “Truth movement” CGI 9/11″

    you state, Brian, contrary to what you had stated in your interview on kevin smith, that you were doing “truther radio” already in 2009, on a station called “informed radio” (reminds on informed america by dave mcgowan…).

    You also state that you left that network because they were demaning donations, which you find igitigit..

    Further you state that you phil jayhan was your co-host on last american radio broadcast. Was he appearing on the shows as Aaron ?

    You also state that your images on facebook were manipulated by others not yourself, and that they uploaded them to your account in order to mock you for your “fake victims on 9/11” stance.

    This whole interview is a juwel of chaotic speech and should be preserved.

    The cherry on top:

    Robert, who also talks from time to time, sounds exactly like Velocet in my old european ears…

  2. xileffilex

    Have you got a link to psyopticon’s analysis, Tom? I couldn’t find it on a cursory word search, nor could my handler, lol!. I stand by my own comment.

    I’ve just been listening to this BSS chat with Ab, hard to believe it was 6 years ago. The thinking was out of the box, way ahead of its time and it stands up well today. [I don't buy all that Knights of Malta speculation though, I suspect that was the late Justin Cooke talking]

    1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

      Ha!. Your handler’s useless Felix. Sack ’em.
      It was in an audio with Ab about four years ago that Psyopticon said that of the ‘Vicsim Report’ . I think he said ‘alma mater’. If it wasn’t ‘alma mater’ it was ‘magnum opus’. Certainly, it was a bit of Latin presumably served up in an attempt to lend gravitas to the hallowed piece of research, but which only sounded awkward and raised a smile with me. ”That’s really condemned that, then”, I thought.

      On BS Staveley himself I remain on the fence. I don’t really know much about him. The fact he was on Fetzers show( which he mentions in that audio ) makes me wonder. As you say, the thinking was ‘ahead of it’s time’, but does that mean he’s a completely independant original researcher ? I don’t know. I’ll give the audio you posted a listen, anyway. All interesting stuff.

      1. xileffilex

        OK Tom, it’s difficult to find quotes in audios. I’ll get my handlers to start transcribing all Ab’s videos…. Thanks.
        That BSS audio I linked to is great. 2012, and Ab’s questioning Lockerbie after 3h. That’s way ahead of me, a big no-go area for researchers, along with events like Hillsborough.
        I like the humour in the show from Brian and Ab [James is a bit straighter] I wonder what happened to “Robin” on the show who wasn’t the [humourless] so-called truther with the eye patch who “sees/saw the world”.

  3. Faye

    The photos of Brian Staveley and the Facebook site of Brian Staveley as analyzed on CluesForum are without the slightest doubt compromised / manipulated.

    In the interview of Fakeologist by Brian Staveley, Fakeologist said concerning the Facebook site of Brian Staveley (reposted recently on Fakeologist):

    “I can not understand why people think you are a sim, someone with such a facebook site, there is no doubt, is a real person.”

    It is for me not believable that Fakeologist has seen the Facebook site of Brian Staveley and endorses him as a genuin researcher.

    Ab, I think you are able to understand what Hoi Polloi said but you ignore it on purpose and repeat the sloppy sorting-out-talk.

    This allows me to think that you, Ab, are not really interested in that discussion which would eventually help finding out what the critic of CF was/is and if it was legit or not as a critic.

    As you, Ab, endorses and promotes clearly Brian Staveley as if nothing is wrong about his internet history, i think you should definitely be part of that discussion with Hoi Polloi and Brian Staveley, and you should have an open line so that interested people can ask you about some of your decisions and positions on this matter.

    I would find it praiseworthy if Hoi Polloi accepts the proposal for that discussion.

    1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

      You have to remember Faye, that you’re IN a world of disinformation, here.

      It appears Ab does his best to keep everyone happy and continues to post all sorts of stuff from known agents of bullshit. He always has.

      In the Stavely audio ,there was a caller to the ‘show’ talking about debunking September Clues research. He claimed he’d found examples where Clues were making a case for CGI footage in comparing two different films when in fact all that was evidenced was a trick of perspective.

      This seems clearly what September Clues does a bit of.
      I post a piece of Shack ‘analysis’ below which is still to be found on Clues which does exactly what the caller-in to Staveley’s show claims. Shack suggests the presented images cannot possibly be from the same moment, hence it must indicate CGI, but in reality it’s a simple a trick of perspective and the two images are no evidence of CGI at all.

      xileffilex, a known and trusted researcher of fake deaths here at this site calls Hoi’s ‘vicsim report’ , ‘the biggest piece of misdirection ever’. Known agent ‘Psyopticon’ called it the ‘alma mater’ of victim research. Ha! Go figure.

      So yeah, they’re all full of shit. Don’t trust any of ’em.

      1. Faye

        Thanks Tom for the feedback, it is helpful. Actually i have ambiguous feelings about what you correctly describe as Ab’s method:

        It appears Ab does his best to keep everyone happy and continues to post all sorts of stuff from known agents of bullshit. He always has.

        On the one hand, this allows the discussions about important things to take place in the open space of the blog and the forum.
        On the other hand it is position that moves between curatorial ambitions and plain opportunism.

        In most cases i appreciate the method ab uses because of the first reason. In the case of Brian Staveley i think there is more to discuss than the bad Hoi Polloi who attacks people of the twoofer movement.

        Ab does not only publish Brian Staveley, he also lents him credibility, he vouches for him being a genuin researcher and he attacks actually Hoi Polloi via the comment that he did by stating indirectly that Hoi Polloi should sort out the beans with Brian Staveley AS IF THE POINT OF HOI POLLOI were some F* beans, which is NOT.

        It is about the use of the software that created the vicsim database – among other points of the photo fakery of Brian Staveley.

        The viscim report is the only in depth account and research result which in toto declares AS A POSITION: that 9/11 was a NDNGH PsyOP !

        Come on guys, count two and two together.

  4. Hoi PolloiHoi Polloi

    It’s fine if others want to upload manipulated images of themselves that look like the vicsim pictures and act like they’re just simple snapshots (and I can’t quite see yet why they would do this), but I would not do that if I were trying to communicate about photo manipulation technology. I don’t want to be confused for someone with connections to those using vicsim picture techniques. Maybe some people don’t mind creating that confusion or dodging questions about the strange difference between Staveley’s videos and Staveley’s “photos”. I mind. I think distinctive clues are important to discuss and we shouldn’t attack people for bringing up the possibility that photos are being used to deceive us.

    Why is that point forgotten on this site so easily? Others on CF also found the appearance of Staveley “on the scene” to be weird, which I respect as a legitimate wondering. Can it not be understood as a little weird without us being accused of having mental problems?

    cluesforum.info…
    cluesforum.info…

    We didn’t go out and attack everything he has done at all. Staveley put these photos on the forum, which don’t match the videos, and expected them to just slide on by because he claims not to be an infiltrator. But he certainly acted like one trying to gain credibility for liking September Clues and then act surprised at our very normal questions, and then attack us and not answer our questions when we wondered why his pictures looked a lot like the fake 9/11 identities evidence. Hmm.

    If it worked to convince some of you, it worked. We have to live with that. No big deal. But from my perspective, appearances in this research can be deceiving. I think most people fall for a fake photo technique now and then, and scientists do litmus tests on public credulity and it’s just fine for us to be aware of that and act aware of that. Maybe that’s what Staveley’s presence on CluesForum was. Does it seem like a possibility?

    For me a problem with this site comes down to at least this difference in philosophy:

    Fakeologist.com… seems to have a kind of Stockholm Syndrome with certain personalities like Staveley and David Weiss. When these characters are asked to explain why their proofs or anecdotes share specific suspicious qualities with 9/11 fakery “watermarks”, they act like you personally attacked them, switch to ad hominem attacks and flee, build a fan base and try to turn that base against September Clues, some of the best research into fakery.

    It’s fine if people suspect Simon and myself (we have the right to suspect everyone) but if the consequence is that people no longer look at the good points we made, then it starts to seem like a suspicious strategy to deny people access to the information using their own emotions against them.

    Staveley and other ostensible “fans” don’t even seem to “understand” all the points of September Clues while pretending to love or hate the thing *as a whole*. Why would that be the discussion? Why would anyone try to reduce the site to “all perfect” or “all trash”?

    Is this an attempt to divide people who intuitively know September Clues made some great points? Is this an attempt to turn CluesForum into a binary “yes/no” because that’s easier to control, rather than allowing nuance to exist?

    Of course our site is not perfect. We could work on so much of our language to get closer to the truth. Even distinguishing “compositing” from “CGI” more clearly, and other things like that. But why resort to humbugging the entire site while not being specific about which points are good?

    Can you think of any motivation for someone to do that? I can.

    Then, if you wait enough time Fakeologist eventually just lets people forget the context, re-write our questioning as “an unprovoked attack from vicious deluded liars” and then shame people for not attacking us.

    What the heck? This doesn’t seem right to me.

    Ab, you seem to think you’ve created a fair platform for this to be understood. But I don’t see a lot of evidence you work that way.

    You seem to just think “a fanbase determines truth because I don’t have time to look at details”. That’s not going to make you or your site a good facilitator for truth on this level.

    I like you a lot, but your asking for people to “just sort it out” removes the context from actual events in a really sloppy way and sounds more like the call of a disinterested spectator sport announcer and not a researcher that understands what actually took place. I’m interested in my questions being answered but I doubt Staveley will ever do that. He’s got a different “strategy” in this research, which I don’t find trustworthy.

    I always keep an open invitation for people to explain stuff in a way that makes sense, and I am waiting for that from Staveley. I won’t hold my breath. He seems more interested in the sport of patiently seeding doubt about CluesForum admins. What else is new? We’ve seen 9 years of this in a lot of creative forms.

    I’m prepared to now have my comment receive a series of down votes, whatever that means here any more. But thanks for reading and considering. Be well, everyone. Good luck.

    1. ab Post author

      Hi Hoi. Would you be willing to step in the ring with Brian so we can hash this difference out? It’s hard to believe that this difference for cysts all these years later, despite all the good work that both of you have done in advancing the 9/11 research.

    2. UnrealUnreal

      The questions of credibility and standards of research that are raised by Hoi Polloi are important for Fakeologist as a blog and community.

      An open discussion on air is often a suitable solution, but in the case of BS Staveley there is a lack of discernment that hurts the credibility of Fakeologist as a site and its members.

      The language used by Clues Forum (and later by Staveley) in regards to Brian Staveley is somewhat confusing. This is not a ‘sim’ discussion if we mind analyzing what fake photos implies when a ‘truthful’ researcher claim they are real.

      The real question is not if Brian Staveley is a ‘SIM’ but if he has used altered images of himself in order to manufacture a false identity as a 9/11 researcher. In other words, the question is whether Brian Staveley is a professional, paid intelligence operator or not*.

      From the ongoing investigation into the state and military funded intelligence effort to control the conspiracist community it is apparent that the scale of intelligence operations and operatives is considerable.

      The Conspiracy Conspiracy (article)
      allunreal.com…

      The Conspiracy Conspiracy (forum)
      fakeologist.com…

      *the photo analyses done by CluesForum leave little doubt Brian Staveley’s photos are cut and paste jobs – and what that implies is clear: BS is a fabricated personality that serve as cover for the intelligence officer who plays Brian Staveley

  5. John le BonJohn le Bon

    I wasn’t aware that Simon and Hoi had such a track record of attacking other people in the scene.

    How could any sane person take these jokers seriously at this point?

    Is it not obvious that they are, at best, utterly deluded?

Leave a Reply