Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 389 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Exploding buildings #856832

    Well done finding the product page for the George Lucas Chest Compression System.

    From the instruction video it is emphasized how the suction cup should not be on the solar plexus – which seems to be the case for the Paris Gaz explosion fictim. Still, the machine seems identical and the fast pace as well.

    Maybe placing the machine outside of the ribcage and in a soft tissue region is what is required for a healthy person to not be affected by this heart-pump ?

    George Lucas heart vibrator after Paris Gaz explosion appear to be positionned below the ribcage
    the George Lucas heart vibrator after Paris Gaz explosion appear to be positionned below the ribcage

    hereover a snapshot from Lucas Chest Compression System video guidance that emphasize how the suction cup should be placed entirely on the ribcage and to avoid any contact with the sternum. The compressor suction cup should thereby line up with a persons nipple or thereabout…

    The speculation about possible use of robots in drills still puzzles me somewhat as there are 3d printers for printing organic tissue which makes silicone and the like very easily produced and reproduced (3d printers also do 3d scans for replication..)

    Without speculation here below : the barefoot meme is inserted into much of the material once more.

    Barefeet after Paris rue de Trevise gaz explosion
    a bystander/fictim barefeet footage inserted into newsclip after Paris rue de Trevise gaz explosion

    in reply to: Exploding buildings #856826

    actually, on examination of the highest resolution photo I can find so far, it seems to be a crisis actor wearing a drill simulation chest-piece

    The image and your reflection made me think the following : What if this is a hyper-realistic drill with a hyper-realistic doll ?

    The weird placement of the machine on the solar plexus sure looks weird to me – and a human is more recogniseable if the chest is laid bare as a bust is more revelatory than just random flesh…

    Emergency preparedness drill using baby doll
    Emergency preparedness drill using baby doll – could they animate these dolls and make them lifelike ?

    world-renowned robot Sophia hosts an interview with her Hong Kong-based inventor, David Hanson 2017

    Oh – great find on “we-are-change-luke” – his clearly rudicule and sort of confirms the gaz explosion hoax with his very professional hoaxing, all too predictable & all too recogniseable. Still missing a Jason Mason bystander or a multiple disaster fictim i guess…

    in reply to: Exploding buildings #856819

    Here is a barefoot man checking out the dammages with his smartphone. Always funny how the no shoes “Wag the Dog” script seems to pop up*.

    bare foot in the rubble after 6 rue de Trevise Paris gaz explosion
    Barefoot in the rubble after 6 rue de Trevise Paris gaz explosion (twitter)

    burnt-out wrecked cars in Paris 6 rue de Trevise gaz explosion
    Burnt-out, all-wrecked cars in the Paris 1-12 gaz explosion

    What is striking here is that the outside of the building appears to overly “blown out” as the explosion happened inside the building – not outside. Yet the shop decoration outside and above the openings (the non-exploded side of the building is quite impacted as well as smashed in & burnt out cars) are all gone despite not being exposed to the “blast” directly.

    In a way, there is too much of everything in this scene – too many barefoot people, too many phones, too much outside dammage, too heavy intervention (helicopters) etc.

    The injured in the video below seems to have an overpitched heart-pump that seems more theatrical than medical (13 seconds into the video).

    *in the photo of the laughing Police officer from Britain Parliament Incident the injured has no shoes and one feet bare and one with a sock (left foot nude making it kind of checker-like with one black foot, one white)

    in reply to: Exploding buildings #856816

    Indeed, this explosion seems to be just as timely as the Strasbourg chrismas market shootout in december 2018 (here). In both occasions the government were strugling with the yellow west uprising. This saturday was a big day for the yellow wests in Paris. Or should have been…

    Something curious in addition to the scripted imagery and testimonies was the fact “the injured” were transported to a square (Opera Garnier) that is just about the same same distance away from from the explosion as the nearest hospital (Hôpital Lariboisière).

    Hôpital Lariboisière Urgences
    1,6 km by car (1,4km walking distance)

    Place de l’Opera (helicopter takeoff)
    2,3 km by car (1,3km walking distance)

    Hôpital Saint-Louis Urgences
    2,8 km by car (2,4km walking distance)

    in reply to: Voice Disguise Deception #856642

    The voice morphing discussion from 2007 (here) is a really interesting flash-back (very good find, Xileffilex). In this case, the forensic voice expert Dr. George Papcun* certifies none of the calls from United Flight 93 could have been faked using voice morphing.

    What particularly is interesting is the focus on “Voice Morphing” which i hope readers of this forum thread understand in its true meaning of making a close copy of a person’s voice artificially from a voice sample. In other words, the discussion within a parameter that is voluntarily lackluster as it does not refer to voice disguise as a whole, but rather a very specific technique that is overkill to use in the case of doctored voiced from an airplane (referring to the 2007 discussion on Flight 93).

    In the second post in this thread, the subject of voice morphing software (here, now mostly referred to as voice cloning) is detailed with the never released Adobe “Photoshop for Voice” VoCo, Lyrebird, WaveNet and Baidu. All these tech-solutions propose to faithfully clone a person’s voice and render it with any text-input thereafter – much like Siri with the option of making the voice sound like anyone you like, given a 60 second sample.

    It is significant therefore that the debate on about voice deception in the Truther community has been so focused on an “over-kill” type of technology that seems in addition help confuse the public as factual information is rare and speculation and experts common.

    The practice of voice disguise does not rely on any particular technology or technique and is comprised on a wide set of practices of which voice cloning & voice morphing is a very extreme implementation for the goal with voice deception. The vocabulary does not help us along either as voice changer software happily use references to “morphing” despite this technology in voice technology actually means artificial voice imitation, not electronic voice disguise.

    I originally developed the technology of voice morphing, the technology by which it is possible to make someone seem to say something they did not say and coined the phrase. Therefore, I know what would have been required to create such bogus calls. Practical considerations preclude making counterfeit telephone calls in this situation. For example, it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated.
    Dr George Papcun PhD

    It seems rather straightforward to assume the discussion about the use of voice disguise in Alt Media has been very consciously constructed around the faulty concept of “voice morphing” thus astutely circumventing a proper reflection on voice deception.

    This must of course be a coincidence, because if it is not – it would mean that many Truthers work hard to avoid reasonable discussion about Voice Disguise… Sometimes it is not as much what is said about “voice morphing” that illustrates the importance of voice deception in the Alt Media, but rather how much that is left out of the discussion.

    The above video about the skills of a trained voice impressionist clearly goes to show that technology is not in any way needed in order for trained individuals to impersonate multiple characters to an incredibly consistent result. If the voice of James Gandolfini came to our attention in another setting like on the radio as a guest – we would all be hard-pressed to detect such well rehearsed voice impressions to be fake.

    Celebrities Impersonating Other Celebrities
    Graham Norton Show – 18 Jan 2017 – 08:21 (mm:ss)
    •Voice training is a basic skill for actors and musicians – and probably Intelligence field operators as well, especially if they are destined for conspiracy theory radio and podcasting

    It is easy to understand how the advent of conspiracy culture over the airways from its origin would lead the intelligence community to closely investigate, use and encourage mastery of everything voice related. And clearly, as any aspiring intelligence operative undergoes training, voice training and orator skills clearly would be fundamental for any covert Truther training course.

    *Dr George Papcun also analyzed Michael Jackson songs posthumously for Vera Serova’s 2014 lawsuit proving forgery (article)

    in reply to: Voice Disguise Deception #856640

    But the “fake”Fakeologist “former” member may be contacted directly if you follow this amusing reigniting the embers of the alleged voice morphing outrage at LRF and join up there [unless you already are…] Pay especial attention to post #543 from field operative Ozzy Bin Oswald.

    Never been a member or followed Let’s Roll Forums (LRF) so the discussion you (Xileffilex) reference is new to me and quite lenghty as well (63 pages). In this forum thread it is both Simon Shack and Psyopticon that are questionned about their legitimacy – the inference being Psyopticon is suck puppet (fake persona) writing in Simon Shack’s interests, and that Simon Shack is intel through his family connections with Bin Laden & Kissinger.

    Regarding Clues Forum, my opinion is expressed in the K Shooting thread (here) and i’m not surprised others would come to similar positions about Simon Shack and Clues Forum. What is a bit difficult to understand for me in your comment (Xileffilex) is what your opinion of Psyopticon really is, and where you (Xileffilex) stand on the use of Voice Disguise in general, and in the particular case of Psyopticon ?

    Overall, the topic of Psyopticon being genuine or not takes us quite some time back, and when we combine the voice effects present in the Fakeologist 2014 Audiochat, Kham’s expert Psyopticon video testimony and LRF connecting Psyopticon to writing in the interest of Clues Forum – things become rather complex and at no point makes any of the involved parties look particularly genuine…

    As stated above, i’m not familiar with the topics and intrigue raised via Let’s Roll Forum and understand it is BS Staveley’s former radio co-host Phil Jayhan who is in charge for that outlet*. For those who really are familiar with this outlet and its inter-relations with known characters on this site, it would helpful and necessesary that they do spend some effort explaing the context for their references, and if possible what their opinion is.

    *regarding Jahan’s claim-to-fame (imo), the hollow WTC tower pictures are misleading and probably not of the actual building but of the model. The reason for this is the lack of shadow casued by the massive size of the bearing metal beams (drawings). In architecture, such glitches of transparency as in LRF imagery always are present in a scale-model which results in dissappointing rates of transparency in the real world. Same goes today for 3d images where glass is see-through from every angle in renders, whereas in reality glass is much more versatile on large surfaces and changing angles, distances. Architects used to draw glass as all black, transcribing how glass really is the opposite of transparant in natural daylight

    in reply to: Voice Disguise Deception #856635

    OK, the voice does sound different in that small clip, but so what? We have hours of Psyopticon chats available, so I’m not quite clear about what is meant by fake, past member [Psyopticon]

    By calling Psyopticon a fake, past Fakeologist member*, the intent was to highlight what to my knowledge is a “known case” of Voice Disguise where a majority of Fakeologists seem to agree Psyopticon purposefully did alter his voice, as his slip-up from the clip above illustrates. The Psyopticon “affair” therefore effectively should qualify as a case of Voice Disguise, and the author (Psyopticon) therefore would not be a genuine FAK member – thereby the use of “fake” above.

    From your comment (Xileffilex) it is not really clear to me whether your opinion is that Psyopticon did alter his voice or not. If your opinion is that he did not disguise his voice, then of course his particular example will not be very appropriate, so it might be helpful you clarify your stance on the Psyopticon voice disguise “scandal” – if he did alter his voice purposefully or not.

    What is rather important here, is to be clear about the fact voice disguise is quite easy to perform and very purposeful for active intelligence field operators who would need to conceal their real identity. The benefits of using voice disguise to play multiple characters in many misinformation and gatekeeping efforts is also very evident, and that professional agents would possess the voice disguise training and equipment required. So it is not really that older cases like Psyopticon is of vital importance, it is the principle of voice disguise itself that is of the essence – and to be clear about where one stands on this issue as a principle is of importance.

    The members that participate in debate around the various suspect cases brought up recently clearly would behave deceptively if they did not make it clear they oppose the very idea that voice disguise is part of Psychological warfare and used by intelligence. Unfortunately – those who dismiss every occurence of audio likeness all seem to fall into the ‘always-negative’ category, thereby hoping to appear openminded as they in reality are not.

    Making it clear whether we agree Voice Disguise is used or not in AltMedia is therefore important.

    *i am not aware whether Evil Edna acknowledges being former FAK member Psyopticon or not, and unsure what of what importance this might be (not seen much contribution from EE lately)

    in reply to: Voice Disguise Deception #856628

    BTW, do I now understand correctly that it is now an historical fact that Psyopticon used voice morphing on his seven hour call with, inter alia PShea, where he obviously was impersonating himself mid-call, LOL!?

    Your reference to Psyopticon goes to show how we must assume that technology such as electronic voice disguise is indeed used and present even at this platform : in this case as a fake, past member.

    What is unfortunate even today is how the focus remains on isolated cases and that discussion is replaced with a sterile debate between haters and proponents of the use of voice disguise.

    For instance – if Psyopticon used a voice changer in any professional capacity – why did it slip up? Any decent voice modifying intel operator would use a system where the modulated voice is hard-fed into the computer from an independent audio-mixer – hence no chance of any slip-up.

    Regarding Calcified Lies – why does he use a contrived example to make his case ? And why is the sound tweaked in his video to the point where Originalstimulant’s voice is not recognizable ? And why laugh if you are making a serious claim ?

    I’m not buying either of the above stories or characters and find their contribution to gain better understanding of voice disguise rather counterproductive.

    First point here is the induced belief one needs a Darth Vader capable piece of software to alter voice – this is quite misleading. The best voice disguise is made from very subtle changes, such as speaking fast or slow, emphasizing certain words or not and the like. And just simply tuning your mic settings for bass & treble.

    Only by altering these basic speech constituents input one will already have quite a different impression of who’s speaking. If you in addition use a mechanical tool such as a nose-clip, mouth-piece or a tight neck-band you are very close already to being someone else. Now – combine these techniques with voice impression training and a decent sound-engineer and it is already quite clear the sky is the limit for making phony “natural” voices. No chipmunk voice software needed.

    So if we just can agree how both technology and techniques are clearly able to alter our perception of a person’s “natural” voice consistently – only at this point will there be any meaning in questionning who imitates what character and for what reason. Of course, if all Truthers are genuine and there are no paid intel operators actively working to deceive us, then motivation clearly would be lacking in a no-paid-shills-world.

    On the other hand, if we do not believe Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer, Brian BS and friends are anything else than paid actors playing their roles, then we might consider the advantages of being able to make up fake voices and characters in order to fill the large cast of characters that the contrived Truther community really demands. Are all Jim Fetzer’s 500+ guests played by different actors using their single, unique natural voice ? Could one of Henrik Palmgren’s 780+ guests actually have been played by the same actor with a slightly modified voice & accent ?

    Normally, all the above should lend itself for intelligible discussion among like-minded researchers on this site, but no such dialogue can seemingly be held on Fakeologist today as every participant seek to polarize their position – with the end result of no advances made for any better insight or wider perspective. Unfortunately – fallacies and derailing has become commonplace on Fakeologist and bullies are left unchallenged in command with their reprehensive behavior and biased, navel-gazing perspective*.

    *it is quite hard to make a difference between bully-like behaviour & discouraging any type of new research, and what is referred to as “gatekeeping”. Thenagain, in this case it is probably “voicekeeping”. Still, this all overlaps pretty well, and i’m reminded of how gatekeeping might be the second biggest intel-activity after false information…

    in reply to: Voice Disguise Deception #856626

    Who started this nonsense?

    Great to see Tom Dalpra closely following every forum topic i’m engaged in. And yet more constructive, supportive remarks ! Many factually solid points have been made by Tom Dalpra lately. All backed by serious research and verifiable sources.

    “ I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers. ”
    Kahlil Gibran

    There has been more focus on voice disguise on Fakeologist since mid-November* with several new voice disguise comparisons and suspect cases having come into question. Many suspect cases have also been brought up before (Bobby Kendall, Psyopticon) while information and research on voice forensics and voice modification technology has been scarce – this topic excepted (first post mid-September).

    Not surprisingly, the suspect cases of voice disguise have brought the most reactions, not the factual research topic itself. This is unfortunate in my view, as there is not really any doubt about the presence of neither voice altering technology and techniques nor that factual cases testify to the use of both non-electronic and electronic voice modulation & disguise presently and historically.

    In reality, nobody denies Voice Disguise and voice modulation technology is factually effective and widely professionally implemented. Not to mention it has become the standard in the music recording industry (Auto-Tune).

    So why is Voice Disguise research is labeled “nonsense” when in fact it is easily verifiable ? The technology is efficient, widely used and also deployed without informing the public in several well proven cases (article).

    Maybe the opponents to any mention or reference to these powerful technologies simply are unfamiliar with the facts. Or worse – such critical super skeptics involuntarily engage in wishful thinking : the existence of an invisible barrier and moral contract in alternative media of the non-transfer and non-use of any voice modulation technology presently and historically used in music, film and acting. Akin the Antarctic Treaty System, this might really help genuine research…

    Unfortunately, fact-inhibition and wishful thinking are not the only reasons there is unwarranted resistance to conducting intelligible research about voice disguise. If there is no invisible barrier contract that exclude voice disguise and voice modulation from use in the alternative media, then such techniques could actually be in use, despite the fact nobody admit to using such technology.

    This would mean – oh my – that alternative media could very well use any or all such voice effects without the public being aware… The motive behind vilifying voice disguise research in this case would thereby be of deceptive nature, and made to protect both the privacy and credibility of those who rely upon such artefacts as voice disguise. But surely, intelligence operatives would not be that deceptive as to use existing, reliable technology to their advantage and purpose of misinforming the public..

    Sure, a fake Truther might release 150 two-hour radio shows each year, but they would never think of bringing on a scripted character with a disguised voice in order to gatekeep a topic like 9/11 with something like a fake testimony. That would be crazy and utter nonsense – Jim Fetzer is who says he is, and so are all his 500+ guests (article).

    Bill Clinton – I did not have sexual relations with that woman
    victortest89 – 31 Jan 2015 – 00:08 (mm:ss) – 112K views

    Considering we do know there are indeed intel agents infiltrating even our neck of the woods at Fakeologist (i.e. AA MoreIs, A Carrion, K Hammad recently) then it is even more important we consider facts moreso than speculation. So, despite the efforts made to start this forum thread and writing about this issue on my blog (article) – few fellow researchers so far have contributed with factual information in the topic, while many engage superficially with unsupported opinion.

    As a music professional, Tom Dalpra would normally familiar with the inner workings and professional possibilities of modifying voice – both with studio technology, advanced sampling techniques and voice training. Not only does Tom Dalpra not contribute with any of his music industry knowledge or experience, he jumps right onto the subjective side of the minute speculation this thread contains so far (Dante/Markus Allen) – leaving all the facts and forensics behind.

    The amount of speculation in this thread represents only a minute part of the topic of voice disguise as a whole. So far, much more hearsay is brought up for discussion that ignore the valid basis for this research in order to cherry-pick and strawman-attack the few sensationalist opinions there are about the use of human and electronic voice disguise.

    I’m quite open to giving my opinion and be proven wrong with better arguments, more precise voice analysis and better voice-prints, but this does not change the existence of and wide use of voice modifying technology. To ignore the fact voice modulation is part of the basic broadcasting sound engineer’s skillset is a major obstacle to intelligent discussion, as is the fact 95+ percent of alternative media is produced by the same henchmen who gave us the MSM (mainstream media) where no technology is left untouched in order to decieve us.

    Bin Laden Releases Audio Tape, Wants Aid Relief
    Associated Press – 1 Oct 2010 – 00:53 (mm:ss) – 11K views

    But of course, Truthers are too truthful for using voice disguise and invent false, scripted characters…

    *the new focus on voice disguise has closely followed a series of audiochats released between the 15-25th November 2018 (FAC511 – FAC515)

    in reply to: FAK super skeptic scrutiny #856609


    When it comes to facts in alternative research, we all will be accustomed to how deception is closely matched with falsified documents. The importance of an event will determine if such material is produced or not, as such fabrications demand time and expertise.

    If an intended deception or hoax does not require falsified documents and papers in order to be believed, this type of production will evidently not take place.

    In the occasion where no false documents have been produced to accompany a deception, lie or false narrative and at the same time it becomes impossible to maintain believability in said deception/lie/narrative without proper sources – then after-production may be necessary.

    So when ducuments and references are asked, the time it takes to produce relevant material is an important aspect. In the particular case of Jasmine Jae, it is important to point out how the necessary facts and verifiable papers are of very basic nature and should require only minimal efforts and time to produce.

    in reply to: FAK super skeptic scrutiny #856608

    On bully-like behaviour, all I can say is that in these areas of research, I think it’s our duty to call bullshit when we see it.

    I apologise for anything personal I’ve said, fair point, text bickering can be so catty, however, in the main, what I’ve been calling bullshit on is the information and latterly what I’ve been doing is defending my honour.
    You are directly calling me a liar.

    Let’s meet in audiochat and talk it out? Anytime.

    I’ll certainly be civil and merely want to defend my honour and make, what I think, is a valid point and perhaps a worthwhile lesson for us all, in this field of research.

    When someone defend their honor dishonorably, are we not speaking of vanity?

    What matters to me is not personal intrigue and unverifiable stories, but rather checkable facts, documented and referenced research. If anything should stand as a lesson for us all it would be to make verifiable contributions and diligent, courageous research. In order to properly reference and share such research – written records remains essential and the base for any shared information.

    Despite the change of tone, your insistence on controlling my opinion is still unbecoming. I am in my full right to hold my own opinions, and to think and say exactly what that opinion is. As it is in this case, you (Tom Dalpra) have yet to produce any document to the effect of fact-proving your claims.

    The irrational position in this case is yours, Tom Dalpra. So less you produce factual research and valid proof of your claims – what reason do i have to discuss anything with you* in this case? And generally speaking, you have done nothing but disrupt any topic i’ve researched lately – such as Voice Disguise, The Conspiracy Conspiracy and the K Shooting : at the origin of this derailing debacle.

    Regarding your civil response here-over so it that something i do welcome – despite that i find your arguments and proposition uninteresting. I’m not all that enthusiastic about the trivial aspect of current FAC broadcasts, but remain available for audio and interviews topically on the research i conduct (blog articles & forum topics).

    *have no interest in discussing hearsay and personal stories i cannot verify, and regarding your honor you should start with proving what you say with facts, and while it’s too late for that – not act as a bully caught red-handed

    in reply to: FAK super skeptic scrutiny #856596

    Good to see Tom Dalpra finally not spamming the “K Shooting” forum topic and also that the threat level and emotion is turned off as he now seems to converse in an understandable fashion.

    Now, why would the Fakeologist members not read this particular forum topic like every other topic? Maybe Tom Dalpra is of the opinion the K Hammad investigation is rather more interesting than discussing hearsay like “EGI is BS” as Tom Dalpra managed to derail on in the dedicated K Hammad Muckleshoot Casino shooting thread. And where Tom Dalpra contributed with… No research.

    “The liar was the hottest to defend his veracity, the coward his courage, the ill-bred his gentlemanliness, and the cad his honor”
    Margaret Mitchell

    My personal opinion about Tom Dalpra being a disruptive agent has less to do with the fact he can lie about a case like Jasmine Jae (opinion based on the above Discord discussion, press references and company records), and moreso with how Tom Dalpra never contributes with anything concrete when when it really matters (recent examples: John Adams, K Hammad) and instead chooses to inject non-related material and ridicule as other Fakeologists uncover paid intelligence operators* and explore new topics of alternative research in general – to Tom’s undocumented, vocal dislike.

    Of course, Tom Dalpra’s attitude* makes it a bit curious he chooses to expose himself so blatantly in the case of Jasmine Jae (my opinion, as i’m entitled to and however see fit). Despite the change of tone, Tom Dalpra still provides no further supportive evidence that Jennifer Margaret Chalmers changed her name at any other occasion than when she became an adult actress and choose – as custom has it in that business – a name derived from her given name Jennifer (Jen/Jasmine J/Jae).

    There is no chance a compulsive liar will ever admit to lying, so after using threats, insults and anger, Tom Dalpra now tones down his message and still include no facts! Just more subjective storytelling while asking me to do more research! lol

    Sure Tom, you’re the boss!

    The inversion of the burden of evidence is an interesting point, as Tom Dalpra qualifies me as a poor researcher whereas i’m the one who actually have dug up business records, addresses and press coverage of Chalmers, thus proving my points. Tom on the other hand, contends his hearsay weigh in more heavily as he considers himself an authority on truth, i presume. Being a natural English speaker and all.

    Tom Dalpra has shown no ability or will to support his claims with neither facts, reason or decency on neither JJ nor regarding EGI being BS.

    Oh – and throwing out a strip club name with no employee record or any other factual link is just more storytelling – much easier now of course with some time to think about a new strategy. At the time, Tom Dalpra’s strategy was to prove his good intentions by taking a lie detector test and meet up in Paris… Sure,,, lol

    Discord Lie detector test in Paris
    Discord Lie Detector proposition…

    Now Tom Dalpra isn’t being quite honest when he faints to genuinely participate in the Discord #EGI thread, where repeatedly have attacked EGI research and insisted on how Elite Gender Inversion is ridiculous and a waste of time. Tom Dalpra attempts to deceptively disguise his disruptive efforts on EGI as a research topic by insinuating he participated in the #EGI discussion as a contributor, which could not be further from the facts.

    Not only did Tom Dalpra participate in the #EGI to belittle the research conducted in that section – he brought with him an example that he felt would “disprove” EGI as a research topic. There are of course no good intentions at play here from Tom, and questioned about his most recent monkey-wrench example, the authority fallacy of knowing the the person in question (Jasmine Jae) clearly was intended to serve his efforts to invalidate EGI research.

    So here we have Tom with a proven motive of ridiculing EGI research and an example that only works with his “personal” knowledge… And as any other deceptive agent, Tom Dalpra clearly dislikes to be caught in his act as this would undermine his both his person and his anti-EGI intentions. So here we are.

    Not only does Tom Dalpra need to prove Jennifer Chalmers name being Lorraine with verifiable facts, he also needs to properly justify his derogatory statements about EGI being bunk – as my previous post explains in detail (here).

    Tom Dalpra being disruptive on Discord
    Other Fakeologists also notice Tom Dalpra’s disruptive behavior on Discord

    No professional liar will ever admit to his lies, so i expect no “confession” from Tom Dalpra on Jasmine Jae’s real name (Jennifer Margaret Chalmers) – nor do i expect Tom to change his tactics of asking me for more research. As it is however, the factual evidence is provided only from my contributions while Tom Dalpra asks for yet more trust in his personal narrative and unsupported story.

    Anyone is free to make their own choice between facts and storytelling, and i make no qualms about not believing Tom Dalpra’s word and calmly place my opinion in the hands of existing documentation. Well – there is also the typical guilty behavior and repetitive bullying as circumstantial evidence, but I count on Tom that he’ll work hard on a new scheme to prove his good intentions – as lie detectors and Paris meetings is true BS…

    *by their behavior, association and cover up of now proven (K & Adams) agents also other researchers like Chris Kendall, NotSoFreemason, Rollo, Roch3llo, Hoi Polloi, Patrix, Simon Shack prove to be controlled opposition

    “I’m always impressed when people can converse and research in a second, sometimes third, language. UNreal does a great job of communicating his thoughts in English”

    Does Tom Dalpra get bonus points on logic for being British? lol – thanks for your well disguised sophism, Tom !

    Tom Dalpra caugh red handed lying
    Screen capture of Tom Dalpra caught red handed live on Discord

    in reply to: K shooting #856593

    I’m sorry Tom, i didn’t read your insightful contribution to this Forum topic in it’s entirety.

    Again, your insistance on posting your bully-like behaviour to this topic discussion is quite direspectful, not only to me, but also to other Fakeologists who might not care much about how I or you “feel”, but rather hope to read factual research and discussion in an orderly manner and on topic.

    You are served, Tom Dalpra, with my direct response to your predictable behavior here

    in reply to: K shooting #856591

    Fuck that. I helped build these forums here at Fakeologist

    Again – you continue derailing this topic, now systematically.

    Your nasty attitude really shine through above, and you (Tom Dalpra) behave directly opposite of how anyone innocent would.

    Direct response to Tom here

    in reply to: FAK super skeptic scrutiny #856590

    Fuck that. I helped build these forums here at Fakeologist, I don’t need your
    suggested censorship.

    You accuse me of openly lying. I’m not.

    If you want a highly motivated person on your case pulling apart your crap, then just keep winding me up and I’ll just keep saying how I see it.

    This is your last warning here, from me, UNreal.
    Shut the fuck up with your false accusations that I am a liar or I’ll actually really start getting on your case. I really don’t like that sort of false accusation.

    Don’t mention me again on this thread and I’ll leave it alone.
    Is that clear ?
    I repeat, don’t mention me again on this thread and I’ll leave it alone.

    You have falsely accused me of lying and then shown no sign of any value at all, as a real honest researcher, by completely ignoring the fact you’re wrong about something.

    You failed the test UNreal.

    Now, as I said. Shut the fuck up about me being a liar, and I’ll leave it alone. This will be my last word on this thread unless
    you wanna drag this out. If you want to, fine, I’m highly motivated and I’ll be all over you like a rash.

    Your choice, fool.

    Wow Tom Dalpra – are you going to tell me what to think and do now, and electronically threaten me ? You behave just as compulsive liars and sociopaths behave when they are exposed, all rage and emotion, no facts or meaning. Just like Brian Stavelie, Markus Allen etc. ad infinitum.

    The concrete facts i base my opinion are very clear and accessible for everyone to read and interpret as they freely want to as they read the Discord dialogue (above or here) on Jasmine Jae aka Jennifer Chalmers.

    I’m aware compulsive liars with a superiority syndrome will never admit to lying even when it as unmistakable as in this case (imo) – what is expected from your ilk would be that you try distract attention by making a lot of noise and now threats in order to appear (in your eyes) like you are innocent.

    Sorry to inform you Tom Dalpra, but someone truly innocent do not make nonsensical, un-intelligible threats and claims. Innocent individuals actually look for intelligible dialogue, exactly unlike yourself.

    The now proven fact you (Tom Dalpra) keep on derailing the K Hammad topic with your self-centered griefs further emphasize your lack of decency and ill motivated action de facto. Not a very bright idea to insist, but i count on the fact you will, as liars do despise being caught – especially by a fool like me.

    in reply to: K shooting #856587

    I watched the video and it looks and sounds scripted, as KHam says [take home message, perhaps, Muggleshoot was real….]

    Very good point on the “take home message”.

    Indeed, when we combine Patrix’ short post and K Hammads “expert” response casting doubts (from her own experience – lol), the dialogue seems very much like a set-up.

    So not only is Simon Shack dressing up a pig here – so is Patrix, habitually all over diet and space in no short way or form. The fact so much hard work is done to cover up an evident fraud is slowly making everyone at Clues Forum complicit in K Hammad’s false testimony and (paid) participation in a media hoax.

    Dissappointing and very telling of how PsyOps equally include the aftermath in the conspiracy theory realm – here CF, habitually selfproclaimed champions of scrutiny and no-nonsense research… Who better suited to “investigate” and bring forth interesting details than those with inside knowledge ?

    Hereunder the Laney Sweet, the wife and high school Sweet heart of Daniel Leetin Shaver giving her best to bring forth the tears for a heartbreaking, fundworthy performance,,,

    Widow of man shot & killed by ex-Mesa police officer talks about acquittal, family
    AZ family – 12 Dec 2017 – 01:59 (mm:ss) – 3K views

    in reply to: K shooting #856584

    Clearly you’re not capable of that.

    I’ve already explained in detail where to take your grief and falsehoods – yet you still continue derailing in this topic, thrice*.

    FAK super skeptic scrutinydirect response to Tom Dalpra here

    *would be good Admin could direct discussion where it belongs

    in reply to: K shooting #856582

    No blood, T-shirt intact after 5 close range semi-automatic assault rifle shots…

    Video still taken 4 seconds after Daniel Shaver was shot 5 times BY police officer Phillip Brailsford
    Video still taken 4 seconds after Daniel Shaver was shot 5 times with police officer Phillip Brailsford’s AR-15 rifle.

    in reply to: K shooting #856581

    Looking closer at the thread and referenced incident K Hammad commented December 2nd (above) with her crisis actor shooting experience, it is in fact rather intriguing it concerned a supposed “real” body cam police shooting that took place in Granbury, Texas (18 Jan 2016, wiki).

    The Daniel Shaver shooting is an incident that occurred in Texas prior to the significant mass shootings of Sutherland Springs church shooting (26 dead and 20 injured) and later Santa Fe High School shooting (7 deaths and 17 injuries).

    As of now i’m not aware of any media fakery research on the 2016 Daniel Shaver shooting, but from the video* referenced by Patrix at Clues Forum, it looks pretty groce and real – and Patrix comments and question really doesn’t help the casual reader (here me…lol) to be much wiser.

    Psychological terror. How would you feel if an officer pointed a gun at you, if you had watched this believing it was real?
    Patrix CF, 1 Dec 2018

    There is no research on the Shaver police shooting on Clues Forum as far as i can see, nor here on FAK or on YT for that matter. So as it is, Patrix rejoins the ranks of supportive evidence for “realness” in the press and for gun violence. Sound familiar ?

    Intel modus operandi seems to be clear, when doubt is cast on one of their field operators, other agents comes to help with their plausible denial insinuations made to cast doubt on the realness of violence – or not. Why did Patrix never question this event before, and howcome he mentions it now that it effectively shows yet another close gunshot scene much like the Muckleshooter narrative ?

    *Body-Cam Video Of Daniel Shaver Shooting (approx @ 04:20)
    Los Angeles Times – 8 Dec 2017 – 05:02 (mm:ss) – 2.246K views

    Justice For Daniel Shaver

    in reply to: K shooting #856580

    I don’t expect Kham to clear up the mess she left in a pile at Cluesforum

    K Hammad is still active and doing well on Cluesforum as an Admin. She posted about her shooting expertise not later than yesterday.

    ”   If guns were pointed at me in such a scenario my first reaction would be to look behind me and see if the guns were pointed at someone else, such as a dangerous perp in the background, as the use of such ridiculous force against unarmed civilians is extreme and logically not intended for me. Neither of the couple looked behind them. A plain clothes police person could have easily and quietly escorted the pair into a conference room on the first floor when the pair entered the hotel where a few officers with handcuffs could be waiting.   ”
    K Hammad CF – 2 Dec 2018

    There is no doubt K Hammad continue to pretend with her “friends” at Clues Forum that nobody has noticed she’s a fraud and a paid media hoax participant as early as 2011. I would imagine being part of Clues Forum is a step up from her poor Muckleshoot Casino crisis actor performance. And by standing so tight together, the majority of Clues Forum admins and active posters confirm being OK to be identified with “K” thus backing K Hammad’s version of the hoaxed Muckleshoot Casino shooting facts.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 389 total)