Zal rule

From Fakeopedia
Revision as of 06:30, 27 April 2018 by Seneca (talk | contribs) (I don't agree with calling these statements "rules". I am concerned that the page can turn away people new to fakery research because it enforces the idea that "everything is faked".)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Zal rule is an informal term coined by Zal in December 2017 for psyops that share the following: "when a movie of an event is made, the event can safely be considered fake".

Psyops - Narrative management

Prescriptive programming / Post programming
Year Title Referencing event Notes
1990 The Simpsons 3-eyed fish Nuclear power plant, Nuclear scare [1]
1993 The Simpsons Tiger attack Las Vegas (2003) [1]
1994 The Simpsons Average Joe Astronot (2010), Oliver Knight (2013) [1]
1995 The Simpsons Ebola medical scare (2014) [1][MSM 1]
1998 The Simpsons God particle (2012) [MSM 1]
1999 The Simpsons nuclear power plant, nuclear scare, Fukushima tsunami (2011) [1]
2005 Family Guy Kevin Spacey scandal (2017) [2]
2007 The Simpsons NSA spying, Edward Snowden release through Wikileaks (2013) [1][MSM 1]
2009 Knowing Deepwater Horizon oil spill (2010)
2012 Family Guy Death of Robin Williams (2014) [2]
2012 Family Guy Bruce Jenner (2015) [2]
2012 The Simpsons Debt default Greece (2015) [MSM 1]
2013 Family Guy Boston Bombings (2013) [2]
2013 Family Guy Death of Paul Walker (2013), 6 days later [2]
2014 The Simpsons FIFA scandal (2015) [1][MSM 1]


For more examples, see the category at the bottom of the page


  • Jet rule - "If a plane crash appears in documentaries like Mayday, Air Crash Investigation, Seconds from Disaster or similar shows, it is probably staged"
  • Wallace rule - "If events appear in documentaries and especially in the In Search Of... show running from 1977 to 1982, it is probably staged"


If this rule "when a movie of an event is made, the event can safely be considered fake" is taken seriously it could be seen as a result of a logical fallacy.

For example if it is seen as the outcome of the following examples of faulty reasoning:

  • All events that have been proven to be fake are made into a movie -> when a movie of an event is made, the event can safely be considered fake
  • Many events that are made into a movie have been proven to be fake -> when a movie of an event is made, the event can safely be considered fake

Another problem is that the terms of the rules are not well defined:

  • There are many different kinds of "movies", "Hollywood-movies" being only one of them. The examples here also include animated series and sitcoms.
  • "Documentaries" is also a broad term, which also includes Youtube documentaries that everybody can make. It is absurd to think that nobody can make a Youtube movie/documentary about a real event.
  • "can safely be considered fake" is a very vague term. When would it be "unsafe" to consider an event fake? As we know, it is hard or even impossible to prove for 100% an event is fake.

All this makes it impossible to falsify the stated rules.

Still this leads to interesting questions: when an independent movie maker makes a movie/documentary about a fake event while thinking that it is real, would the people that invented the hoax sue him for copyright infringement? This could be the reason behind some Youtube censorship and it could be in fact legitimate. You can't just make a movie about superman either without buying the rights. It could be an explanation of why only certain people can make movies about certain fake events.

See also




Mainstream links