Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What would be the purpose of creating a back story with those obscure adverts in old newspapers?
Why create a sim as the M.D. of a company? Maybe because the company is up-to-no-good? A corporate cloak for criminal / illicit activities?
Perhaps IFF was/is running training seminars on pulling off various financial crimes? Money laundering, maybe? Currency manipulation? Derivative swindling? Off-shore creative accounting for fun and profit?
Useful then to have a sim at the front who can instantly melt away if and when investigators close in? Maybe that’s the background to a lot of 911 vicsims from the world of finance? The vicsims were loaded-up with the blame for others’ criminality, taking their misdemeanours to the grave with them, leaving a cold trail for any pursuing investigators?
The International Faculty of Finance is one of the world’s leading specialist financial training organisations. Providing participants in the global financial markets with intensive technical training programmes designed to help them succeed on the global stage. Established in 1991 we have grown our business internationally and now deliver services in virtually every corner of the globe.
All sounds very important. On the I.F.F. “advisory board” we find a Professor Wolfgang Schmidt from the “Frankfurt School”. The School is an infamous tentacle of the Tavistock Network of mind benders. It boasts a history rooted in the (British-run) Bolshevik Revolution.
So maybe the training activities of the I.F.F. are/were not criminal per se, but would generate public outrage if widely understood?
And maybe “Michele du Berry” was a sim to shield the true controllers of that Tavistock apparatus from the public eye? By September 2001, whatever usefulness “Michele” had previously served was exhausted, so they just vicsimmed her?
The possibilities are endless.
Psyopticon writes:
pluck a suitable sim birth certificate off the shelf in the months prior to a psyop, rapidly bolster the sim’s public profile, and then roll out the psyop with the sim at the centre.
This is very very interesting. A sim is “hatched” at a random registrar’s office years before. Obviously with the knowledge of the real parents, since they have to spring into action perhaps 40 years later to continue whatever narrative has to surround the sim at that future unpredictable point in history.
Faking birth records is not a particularly contentious nor even novel idea. Back in 2010, someone on cluesforum wrote:
“My hunch is that they have been generously peppering the birth index with fake names. Purely as an investment for future fakery – since 1940s at least.“
See: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=164
As I said earlier, in reference to the Titanic Hoax, the BMD fakery must go back to the very birth of the BMD registry. In fact, the fakery surely predates that, too, using baptismal records. We should be very resistant to the idea that BMD registers are in any way reliable. And even more doubtful of the records held by ancestry.com and 192.com. They’re both third party databases of scraped data, controlled by unaccountable private companies. Essentially worthless.
What’s very very interesting is what else you might do with a sim… not least at election times! Do sims explain the sudden explosion in postal voting in Britain?! Do the sim voters now outnumber the real voters, ensuring victory at the ballot box for whatever party is in vogue with Nutwork?! What with turnout for sims guaranteed at 100%?! Begs the question, what is the real population of Britain? I mean “real” as in not sim! Perhaps the right wing rhetoric about us being “flooded by immigrants” is just to disguise the explosion in sims “born” onto the BMD registers?!
Back to sanity though…
—Of the 100+ Brit 911 & 77 vicsim family members (let’s say that every vicsim has at least five immediate “relatives”), how many of those 500 family members have physically proved themselves to us? How many have actually showed up in the flesh; e.g. appearing on TV chat shows?
At most we’ve seen a tiny handful of “relatives”. And they’re invariably in the media to sell 911 and 7/7 as cassus bellis for war. So maybe it’s prudent to just chalk up that particular subset as war-balling Nutwork actors, rather than real relatives?
As for the vast bulk of the family members, they’ve only ever “appeared” in newsprint or, worse, as digital-only entities on facebook and other social media spookware. It really is gross overkill to use actors when simulation has much lower risk of detection, and infinitely lower overheads.
Assuming we agree that the 911 (and 77) victims are all fake, what link would Michele’s alleged widower, “Stuart Beale”, from Billericay/Southend/Wickford have to the 911 hoax, if for one moment we accept that he’s a real person? How could “Stuart” (“a builder”) have been groomed in the run up to the hoax to ensure he was a safe pair of hands? Reliable enough to keep the lie alive for the rest of his natural life, and competent enough to groom his own (real) children and wider family to keep mum, in perpetuity, too?
Surely it’s better to just fake “Stuart the widower” too? And his supposed kids with Michele, “Joe” and “Lizzie” (facebook page for “Lizzie Beale” here: http://www.facebook.com/lizzie.beale )
And what of the previous generation in this supposed family of Beales/du Berrys? What of father George and mother Valerie Duberry/Du Berry of Wickford, Essex SS11? Have they EVER appeared for real, in a TV interview or even in just a media image? Not that I could find.
Excepting the 192.com alleged electoral records there doesn’t seem to be a single (non-9/11) reference to “George du Berry”. And even his name is strangely contracted by 192.com into “George Duberry”, introducing yet another element of doubt. So where has George been hiding all these years? What’s he supposedly been doing?
If that is one and the same person (alleged father to 911 vicsim Michele Beale nee du Berry) then his apparent wife “Valerie Duberry”, does purportedly work as a GP receptionist in the Southend area. How was that wangled? Or maybe the Michele sim has been shoe-horned into a real family without them even knowing? It’s not as if many people would ever actually confront the real Valerie and George (assuming they are real) demanding to know whether they really had a daughter called Michele who was killed on 911!
And as for their supposed son-in-law “Stuart Beale”, I can find just one image of him, “with son Joe”. But taken from that camera angle, it really could be a snap of anyone. And, of course, it’s now 13 years out of date, too.
It would seem that, for the sake of expediency, 99.9% of the 911/77 vicsim families are sims, too.
—
Final point, after traipsing through decades of newspaper archives, I did find three references in The Times to “Michele du Berry” prior to 9/11. Up to a decade prior though, and long gaps between them. This is what I was saying about the placed media references to a future sim. They don’t quite “come off”. See for yourself though. What happened to “Michele” in the intervening years? Why were those job recruitment adverts, which referenced her name, almost identical, yet were spread out over several years? Was this even a real conferencing company? In 1991, Michele would have been very young (late 20’s) to be a director/M.D. of a company supposedly arranging 2000+ international conferences every year. Hmm..
—
Aside: Not that we should find it strange to discover fake names in the corporate world. e.g. I’m toying with the notion that “Paul Flowers”, the disgraced coke-snorting/rentboy-buggering chair of the collapsed Co-op Bank is/was a sim; a trojan horse manufactured from at least two different actors; a plant to load up the bank with toxic debt and then loot its reserves.
The onus then is for you to provide some evidence, perhaps a birth certificate of someone ordained at birth to die at 9/11 whose death is listed here
Well, that’s a tall challenge! A birth certificate, per se, tells us nothing. It’s the complete absence of existence in between the (fake) birth and (fake) death, which would seem to be the hallmark of the sim. Such a void is presumably down to the sheer laziness and sloppiness of the sims’ creators.
That said, building up a sim-profile must be hard work; especially if you’ve got to maintain the sim over 30 years, as would have been the case with “Suria/Rachel Clarke”. Much easier to get an off-the-shelf sim birth certificate of the appropriate age, and then elevate the profile in the months immediate to the psyop, and hope that few people notice. Which is likely; it’s not as if many people are geared up and in the habit of checking out past histories of disaster victims.
We should also count in here, all the sims from military conflicts; they must run into hundreds of thousands of sim deaths – those who fell “in the glory of battle”. Nutwork doesn’t physically have the manpower to create and maintain so many sims, on the off-chance they’ll be needed later.
This is a thread on 911 deaths so it doesn’t really want cluttering with material from other psyops. However, as mentioned, I briefly looked at the lead characters in the Titanic Hoax – “Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon” and “Lady Duff Gordon”. These two sims almost single-handedly delivered the survivors’ narrative “from the lifeboats” in the north Atlantic. What became apparent from studying those two fantasy creations is that they did both have fleeting existences, at least on paper, many decades before the supposed sinking. It would seem that they were manufactured in the mid-19th century for use as future sims – probably to support a fake maritime disaster, of which there were countless in that era. However, those earlier, pre-Titanic records for the Duff-Gordons have a dreadfully contrived feel to them. Contemporary formal newspaper notices are indeed there to be found, of Sir Cosmo’s supposed birth, his supposed marriage, and other formal/social engagements. “Sir Cosmo” even appears in the Court Circulars, duelling in fencing competitions, observed by the King Of England, no less – can’t have more proof of existence than that, eh?!
But then we also find glaring holes where these two sims had years of absence in the media. They literally vanished with no legal or social record of their being, despite their supposedly high status in the realm. And then, surprise surprise, in the months prior to the alleged Sinking (1912), their profiles were suddenly elevated, in a variety of ways. The hitherto unknown “Lady Duff Gordon” launched a society fashion house in Paris, London and New York. Advertising her business (and more importantly the “Duff-Gordon” name) in mass-market newspapers like the Daily Mail, by launching a range of fashion accessories for sale in Boots the Chemist, of all places.
And then the Duff Gordons were embroiled in a copyright/trademark suit in the USA and later an import tax evasion case. Fake court cases being another useful technique, as Tim noted earlier, for elevating a sim’s public profile. And then just prior to the supposed Sinking, the Duff Gordons (a “noble Scottish family with a lineage stretching back hundreds of years”, so we’re told), finally registered/applied for an heraldic arms for their family! Better late than never, eh?!
So that’s my brief take on the Titanic’s lead sims. They were manufactured decades before they were rolled into action; “fed hoax jelly for life”, as it were. But their profiles were only really built up very shortly before the psyop.
That would seem to be the modus operandi for most sims: pluck a suitable sim birth certificate off the shelf in the months prior to a psyop, rapidly bolster the sim’s public profile, and then roll out the psyop with the sim at the centre.
As for the public record office, I’m certainly not paying out £9.25 for 100+ birth certificates of 911 sims! What would they prove?
xileffilex, why are you so confident that BMD records offer incontrovertible proof that someone existed? Surely they’re as easily faked as a telephone directory entry. A dodgy registrar on the Nutwork payroll, inserting sim births at the time, or else contemporary forged additions. With insiders on the job, it’s child’s play either way.
It’s not hard to imagine that thousands of fake births have been added each year, every year, for centuries, to the official BMD records (and baptismal records before that). Explicitly for use later in various psyops, and scams, etc.
Around 100 British sims were expended in the 9/11 and 7/7 hoaxes. Fake deaths that have kept the war drums beating for 13 years now. For Nutwork and their masters in the military-industrial complex, the costs in creating those sims have been paid back many times over.
An example was given of one aristocratic family which registered many fake births (in one generation). Sims intended for later sacrifice in future military psyops like 9/11, life insurance frauds, inheritance scams, and other financial swindles. Must be one of the easiest ways of financing a sprawling country estate: “Tragic shooting accident” of the (fake) heir apparent. Frightful!
My brief study of the Titanic Hoax – (a huge insurance scam engineered by the Council of Lloyd’s of London, HQ for centuries of the maritime insurance market) – confirms that the concept of fake victims long pre-dates 9/11. Vicsims are nothing new. And there too, in the Titanic Hoax, we find fake birth records of those supposedly aboard the fateful ship. Those records were clearly falsified some decades before the alleged disaster. And not just BMD records, but also newspaper announcements to corroborate sim-births and marriages, public school education records, and so on. Delve beneath the surface (pardon the pun) and it’s evident that in common with 9/11, the Titanic Hoax revolves entirely around the use of vicsims. Unlike 9/11, however, the Titanic Hoax was done surprisingly well. Especially as they could never have envisaged at the time that modern technologies would aid in the unravelling of their lies.
—
You don’t seem remotely skeptical of any of the official narrative to 9/11. E.g. let’s look at your last post. Of the New York apartment (93 Hicks St Brooklyn), supposedly rented by 911 vicsim “Suria/Rachel Clarke”, you say “Looks an expensive place to rent. It would seem entirely reasonable that possessions would be recovered from this apartment.”
What are you implying? That “Suria” must have existed because the 911 hoaxers would never have wasted the money on renting such an expensive flat, just for a sim? Well who’s saying they did? Much easier, surely, to have a “friendly” landlord/owner who’ll vouch if needed that an apartment was indeed let to a “Suria/Rachel Clarke”? On that point, WHO was the landlord/owner/freeholder of that dwelling on 9/11? Have you checked them out? What’s his/her background? Any glaring intelligence connections?
Or perhaps a spooky flesh-and-blood tenant was genuinely living there, claiming to be co-habiting with the mythical “Suria/Rachel”? Building up a fake profile in her name? Maxing out the credit cards issued by Nutwork under her moniker? Later vouching, when needed, of her existence? A million and one possibilities for the manufacture and perpetuation of the “Suria/Rachel Clarke” creation.
Surely some of the last documents we should trust in a psyop, as categoric proof of someone’s existence, are BMD records.
You’ve stated that you examined the BMD register entries for some of the British 9/11 sims. (Not that they are remotely persuasive.) How and where did you do this? Via ancestry.com? Or did you personally visit Kew, as you’re suggesting others should do? Simon asked you to show us your facsimiles of those supposed records. Still waiting.
And please explain why you accept birth records as genuine, but not death records.
You wrote: “Suria Clarke’s birth is clearly available for all to see in 1971 under her real name Rachel Emma Suria Clarke, registered in Sheffield, 4th quarter.”
But then you wrote: “Evidence of deaths in the form of certificates .. is less than worthless.”
What’s your thinking here? Unlike death records, birth records must be genuine because you’ve discounted the possibility that they could have been fabricated many years previous? If so, why?
In the case of the Titanic Hoax, it would seem that well-monied families created sim relatives many years in advance as future money-spinners, a kind of investment, or financial nest-egg. At the time of the sim-birth, they probably had no clue as to how their sim relative would eventually be used. That’s maybe the major gel that binds the higher echelons of the Nutwork together. They are aware of each other’s sim relatives. One aspect that seems interesting here is that, historically, it’s the eldest male (the heir apparent) in a wealthy family that often gets ‘simmed’. Imagine the huge leverage that Nutwork then has over that family. Anybody can be spliced in later as that inheriting heir, essentially scooping the entire fortunes of the family! Food for thought for the perps engaged in these scams!
Oh God, there’s more?!
The comments alongside the faux-tos are equally fanciful:
“Rose Rodgers
I remember this room and the cots so well, I use to climb out of my cot at night and walk towards the light, looking for love….“
Hmm..
What could be the motive for this PsyOp – other than a general anti-Catholic pogrom?
Maybe City of London interests are planning to muscle in on the €16 billion a year health & social care industry in Ireland? An industry that’s currently dominated by the Sisters of Bon Secours and other religious orders. This silly story is sure to undermine public confidence in Bon Secours, and in the Catholic church in general. Loosening up the public for a corporate takeover of Irish healthcare by City vultures? (which is exactly what’s happening in Britain too.)
Today’s Irish Mail-on-Sunday (run from London) carries another gory front page on this “mass graves” nonsense; it seems the nuns were throwing the dead mothers in the septic tank too, donchaknow! ‘Twas full to the brim with skeletons, one (anonymous) witness told the Daily Mail. Sure!
And inside today’s Irish Daily Grot are a couple of implausible letters, purportedly written in the 1960s. Supposedly penned by (semi-literate) nuns at the Co. Tipperary children’s home mentioned by Tom above.
Pretty much everything is wrong with these letters; they flunk the basic scratch-and-sniff test.
Note the date of the letter above; it was pointedly written on the Feast Day of St Vincent de Paul (July 19th). A coincidence too far?!
For those outside Ireland, St Vincent de Paul (SVP) features big in the country. The St Vincent de Paul Society is Ireland’s largest charity, and it’s run by the Catholic church.
Of all the days in the year to write a letter, and one that’s so damning of the Catholic church in Ireland, it had to be penned on St. VDP Day! A double anti-Catholic whammy cooked up by the loons at PsyOp Central?!
There’s also a gauche effort to weave that sense of hypocritical Catholic piety into the fake letter. Pushing the notion that Protestant [children’s] Homes are inferior – presumably to further inflame anti-Catholic sentiment among the wider readership.
Notably, there isn’t a single nun identified in these letters. Wouldn’t the “sister-in-charge” use her personal name in such formal correspondence about the adoption of a child? And who was the “Rev’d Mother”, and why is she not referenced by her real name either?
The religious salutations in these letters don’t feel right either (“God and Mary be with you”).. Hmm.. Mightn’t we expect a closing blessing that’s a whole lot deeper and more profound? The letter was, after all, supposedly written by someone who’s dedicated her life to the church. Yet what we get is flippant religious tokenism, like the sort of passing cheer you get from a heather-selling person on the roadside! Does that tell us more about the background to the psyoperatives who cooked up these silly letters?!
Also note the very damaged embossed stamp at the headers of these letters. Why are they so damaged? Was the genuine stamp too difficult to fake for some reason? Or perhaps Nutwork had no clear original to copy, so had to pretend that the embossings were damaged to cover that up?
These letters also have an “overly fatigued” feel to them; as if the hands behind them tried a little too hard to artificially age them, with fake creases, folds, fading and stains, etc.
Lastly, googling that Tipperary children’s home (Sean Ross Abbey) – the next place on the PsyOp agenda – and we find the weirdest “photos” supposedly taken inside it.
Is it just me, or do these “photos” look totally un-real?
—Faceless nuns in habits! Spooky! Are they real or just paper cutouts?
And all those cots, wheeled en-masse outside – really?!
—
And another one – more faceless nuns in habits! That second one back barely looks humanoid!
And what’s this weird one about? Grim looking creatures – blokes dragged-up maybe?! Could easily be out of a Dave Allen sketch! Loving that flat-topped nun on the far right – the Herman Munster of the order!
Last of the silly snaps:
More creepy looking nuns, but hats off to the faux-to-grapher! Choreographing all those poor little eejits to sit up in their cots and, in unison, face the lens! Cheese!—
There’s a telling picture below from the Connacht Tribune. It’s of the Committee of the Tuam Mass Graves Commission. Irish Eyes a’Smiling, they all pose merrily for media snaps, standing directly on top of the mass grave site for 800 dead babies.
From left: Arthur McDonagh, Maura Ryan, David Collins, John Lowe, Martin Ford, Caroline Canney, Catherine Corless, Teresa Kelly, Padraig and Ellen Dooley. Photo: Johnny Ryan Photography.—
Catherine Corless (above, grinning, in the grey, with her hand on the wall) is the local gopher / psyop-erative for this hoax; she seems witting enough).And Ms Corless, looking a bit more serious now, posing for the more discerning readership of the Daily Mail!…
—
These BMD registrars, like HM Coroners, will be integral components of Nutwork. There’s no difficulty in adding a few fake “births” in the BMD register, for later use in these sorts of spooky operations. In the 1970s registers were all paper-based and hand-written, so it was no biggie to slot in a couple of illicit entries every so often, to be used for intelligence purposes many decades ahead. Today it’s even easier to digitally fake a BMD record.
Even today, you don’t need to present a body (dead or alive) to obtain a listing in the register; just a certificate from a compliant quack, or sim-quack. And noone checks if a supposed corpse has been buried, etc. There’s no tie-up in the registers. Burials are an entirely separate record – not held by the State. In the case of 911 they didn’t even need to bother with fake burials.
I did a brief study of one aristocratic British family. Over the years they’ve manufactured numerous sims in their own family – registering fake births with BMD for use decades later. It’s suspected that these sims were created for a variety of scams – life insurance swindles, corporate/finance frauds, fake military deaths in conflict, and so on.
Sacrificing their sim flesh-and-bloods during war-time is a powerful propaganda tool of the elite. It’s an important social leveller. The aristocracy can ‘boast’ that – like the plebs sent to the trenches – they too make the greatest commitment to the war effort, AND also paid the ultimate price for their heroism. (digressing a bit, but for much the same reason the Battenberg-Windsors faked the Luftwaffe bombing of the orangery at Buckingham Palace: “At last we can look the East End in the eye”)
So entries in BMD are not really proof of anything. Especially if you’ve got the BMD “records” from 192.com or ancestry.com / genealogy.com, and similar. They’re only digital abstractions, created from allegedly digitised/scanned original paperwork. But who’s to tell if they’re not contemporary fakes? You’d really have to examine the original record sheets held in HM GOV archives. And even then, maybe an extra (sim) birth can be added 30 years later at the footer of a paper sheet, etc..
I’m not persuaded that any of the Brit victims of 911 are real. In fact, the “victims” I looked at were created so badly – with such glaring flaws in their social backgrounds and their supposed education and employment – that they just had to be sims!
And surely if you find just one sim among the 60+ victims, doesn’t that immediately throw the credibility of the rest into doubt?
Fool me once..
For fear of straying a little off-side here, and testing the patience of our ref, Ab Irato…
The saga of the corned beef sarny sounds like a separate scam altogether. A hoax cooked up only later, and squeezed clumsily into the earlier Wilson/Carey psyop. To discredit ALDI. Whatever the facts (if any) the discount food chain took it chivalrously on the chin. Perhaps they can smell a hoax better than most?
ALDI was founded by German brothers Karl and Theo Albrecht. Over the space of twenty years, the brothers expanded their empire across Europe at a pace not matched since Adolf Hitler. By the turn of the century, Karl and Theo were officially (according to Forbes) two of the world’s richest men, with personal fortunes of a cool $22.6 billion and $16.7 billion each.
Those who remember the 1970s, may recall, however, a very dark era for the Albrechts and their famous family firm. While the decade is remembered best, of course, for its flared-trousers and flower-powered youth, that tranquility was punctuated by a series of vicious kidnappings, and Theo Albrecht was to take lead role in one of them.
This is what wonky has to say:
“In 1971, [Theo] Albrecht was kidnapped for 17 days. A ransom of seven million German marks (approximately $2 million at the time) was paid for his release. He was held at gunpoint by a lawyer of the name Heinz-Joachim Ollenburg with the accomplice Paul Kron. The ransom sum was delivered by the Bishop of Essen. His kidnappers were eventually caught by authorities, but only half of the money was ever recovered. Albrecht later tried to claim the ransom as a tax deductible business expense in court.”
According to the narrative, Theo was so profoundly shaken by his ordeal that he became a recluse thereafter, living out his days on a remote island in the middle of the north sea, in virtual solitude. Convenient, in a sense, if he was simmy from the start. And like father like son, maybe?
When it comes to psyops, though, history does tend to repeat itself – or should we say the Nutwork often struggles to source new material.
So perhaps it’s no surprise that a few years later, yet another European supermarket baron should find himself under kidnap.
He was Mr Gerrit Jan Heijn, chief executive of Koninklijke Ahold NV, parent company to Dutch supermarket giant, Albert Heijn, founded by his grandfather.
Again, let’s leave it to wonky to check-out the goods for us on this one:
“On 9 September 1987, Gerrit Jan Heijn was kidnapped near his villa in Bloemendaal, Netherlands by Ferdi Elsas. Although Elsas murdered him only a few hours after the kidnapping, he pretended that Heijn was still alive for a long time and asked for ransom. He sent the Heijn family Gerrit Jan’s glasses and severed little finger. Elsas was caught when he started spending banknotes of the ransom he received, of which the numbers had been recorded. He served a prison sentence and was freed in 2001. Elsas gave directions to Heijn’s body, which was buried in the woods near Renkum. Gerrit Jan Heijn was cremated on 9 April 1988 in Driehuis. Elsas was killed on 3 August 2009 in an accident when he was struck by an excavator while riding his bicycle near the town of Vorden, Gelderland.”
Tidy little job, kidnapper and kidnappee, thanks to that excavator, both six feet under.
Was Gerrit Jan Heijn another sim? Who knows. The Heijn family reportedly fled their native Netherlands soon after the kidnapping, fearing for their personal safety. Can’t say I blame them. They bought a castle in rural Herefordshire, England. No doubt reassured by its proximity to the Regimental Headquarters of the SAS at nearby Credenhill. Keep your friends close, as they say.
There were other kidnappings of that time, of similar genre. The notorious Baader-Meinhof Gang taking credit for many of them.
The Associated Press covers a few more snatchings below:
“That of Dutch beer tycoon Freddie Heineken in 1983, for which the kidnappers were paid $10 million. The two kidnappers were released after lengthy prison terms, and one was killed last year in a gangland-style shooting. In 1998, Hansje Boonstra-Raatjes, then a 62-year-old socialite and estranged wife of the chief executive of Royal Philips Electronics Co., was kidnapped and later found beaten and handcuffed. No ransom was demanded.”
And bringing us almost up to date…
“Armed men broke into an upscale Amsterdam home and kidnapped the daughter of a millionaire whose fortune came from selling chemicals, including to Iraq in the 1980s, police said Tuesday. Police said the gunmen stormed into the home of Claudia Melchers, 37, late Monday and took her away. They said they were treating it as a kidnapping.
Melchers is the daughter of Hans Melchers, who owns Melchemie Holland BV, which supplied chemicals to Iraq in the 1980s. It was unclear whether the kidnapping was related to the company’s business dealings.
The woman’s two young children were left in the house in a southern Amsterdam neighborhood, police said. The kidnappers bound and gagged a neighbor who was in the house, and he was later freed by one of the children.
Melchemie is wholly owned by Hans Melchers, who inherited it in 1986. He is one of the country’s richest men, with a fortune estimated at $500 million, according to the business magazine Quote.”
The kidnappings of that era seem to be a peculiarity of the Continentals. None, so far as I can remember (except Shergar the racehorse) ever took place in Blighty. Anyone remember differently?
Veteran soccer celebu-tard, Bob Primrose Wilson OBE, like Emlyn Hughes, is another strange ‘un:
The Guardian reveals that Wilson has been diagnosed recently with prostate cancer. Here’s wishing him all the best, of course, if he’s genuinely ill….If…Big If…Can’t help wondering.
Bob’s own daughter Anna “died tragically young”, also succumbing to cancer, aged just 31, claims the Mail, which ran a touching picture of a simmy-looking, but clearly besotted daughter, her arms wrapped devotedly around papa.
Wiki reports that “Bob set up the “Willow Foundation” charity in Anna’s memory.”
“Willow was Bob’s nickname when he was a star player for Arsenal in the 1960s and 70s and he always affectionately referred to his only daughter Anna as “Little Willow”. That’s why, says the Record, the Willow Foundation was a natural choice of name when it was set up in the dark days after Anna’s death.”
“The Foundation now helps the 12,500 people in the UK, aged 16–40, who are diagnosed every year with a life-threatening illness. In 2007, Wilson received an Order of the British Empire (OBE) for his charity work.”
Bob’s only daughter Anna left behind a husband, Mitchell Carey. And get this, Carey was next in the Wilson clan to be struck down by tragedy; killed “after treading on a poisonous sea urchin“, claimed the Mail in 2010.
“A family friend told the Daily Mail that the ex-footballer [Bob Wilson] – who has enjoyed a successful career as a TV presenter and pundit since retiring as a player in 1974 – had remained close to Mr Carey.
‘He is heartbroken about Mitchell’s death and cannot believe that tragedy has struck again,’ the friend said.
“He was away with his second wife, Deborah Smith, when he accidentally stepped on the urchin, a spiny marine creature common in the Mediterranean.”
‘It is like there is a curse on the family’, the friend added.
But at inquest a few weeks later, the narrative was completely re-written, with Carey’s death recorded officially as a fatal case of “food poisoning”.
It was, apparently, a dodgy corned beef sandwich from ALDI Stevenage that actually got him. But with nothing left of the nosh, nor indeed of Carey, ALDI unsurprisingly denied the claim.
Nevertheless, the Coroner felt it noteworthy that the ALDI sandwich was the last thing the deceased ever ate. Evidently not a fan himself of the corned beef sarny, nor of ALDI.
A colleague of Mr Carey said: ‘He collapsed at work sweating profusely, stripped all his clothes off and said his pain was ten out of ten‘, before snuffing it on the spot.
The Daily Mail’s lurid headline of the day read: “TV presenter Bob Wilson’s son-in-law was killed by corned beef sandwich NOT sea urchin“
Easy mistake to make, at a glance: Sea Urchin, Corned Beef Sandwich. 🙄
Odder yet, is the single, very scratched and very grainy, black-and-white picture of Bob’s late son-in-law, Mitchell. Not much of a tribute, is it, to someone Wilson claims to have been very close? Looks more like a photo-fit from BBC Crimewatch:
Bob reportedly has two other children, John and Robert. John, a “regular Radio 4 arts presenter specialises in music-related interviews, including artists such as Morrissey, David Bowie, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Quincy Jones, Noel Gallagher, Bernie Taupin, Kate Bush, Ray Davies, Peter Gabriel and Noddy Holder”, to name but a few. John Wilson is also co-author with his brother, photographer Robert Wilson, of the book “One: Images of a Goalkeeping Season.”
A family specially-made for the media.
the documents state that the missing tapes were *not* fed from the Leppings Lane cameras. But the person who ‘removed’ them may not have been aware of that
They would say that though, wouldn’t they?
Or is this more Conspiracy Candy?
If there was no one in the stadium, then all CCTV footage revealing an empty ground must be “lost”!
Same for the CCTV footage from the Pont de l’Alma tunnel, the night Diana & Dodo tied the knot at the Church of the D.C.P.
Doesn’t really matter where the video tapes go – “lost”, “stolen”, “inexplicably wiped”, but go they must, if there’s nothing to show on them!
p.s. numerology is lost on me, but why have we got a tag of “51” to this thread?!
With no copy of Grandstand (which was definitely on that day, as it was every saturday) from the day. I will have to concede until I come across some proof. Though without that copy of Grandstand, it also can not be proven that it was not on.
Is this BBC Grandstand? It’s a brief excerpt from the documentary, Hillsborough Remembered. (Re-)broadcast on the History Channel on 15 April 2009, the 20th anniversary of the PsyOp.The BBC Sports presenter (familiar face, who he?) says:
“Now, just before we go back to the snooker, I’m going to lead you to Gerald Sinstadt at Hillsborough, where Liverpool are playing Nottingham Forest..“
That announcement suggests there was no live coverage on BBC Grandstand of the soccer game.
The Corporation was instead covering the opening day of the 1989 World Snooker Championship, at the Crucible Theatre, also, coincidentally, in the city of Sheffield.
—I think people had to be there. The empty stadium idea appears unfeasible to me. So many people would have headed to Hillsborough without tickets. The general mass invasion of the ground by supporters had to happen for real.
You couldn’t fake it. The ground would be in a built up area. It would be impossible to fake that I think.
Try this for size: maybe some match tickets were sold, maybe not 55,000 tickets for capacity, but enough to generate a decent throng on the day?
But on the match day, you don’t let any of them in; you just keep the turnstiles locked, citing some spurious safety issue.
As the kick-off time (3pm) approaches, the crowd outside grows ever more anxious and irritated that they’ll miss the action. There’s a bit of jeering and jostling, which naturally you capture.
And then six minutes into the supposed game (3.06pm) the cops just make an announcement that the gates will NOT be opening at all, as there’s been a “serious incident” inside.
In this way, the hoaxers get a baying crowd of impatient soccer fans to video. Lending credibility to the idea that a “crush” had occurred.
Later in the evening, BBC Sports anchor Des Lynham reads his script as follows:
“Before it began..there were already some indications outside the ground that all was not well. Those already inside were oblivious to these problems. But there was a huge crush outside the Liverpool end, and the police seemed to be getting agitated.
FA cup semi-finals are not a rarity at Hillsborough. There is always something of a crush. But on this particular occasion, things seemed to be getting somewhat out of hand. One young boy is released from the pressure.
This was all happening about 20 minutes before the kickoff. And as you can see there were still thousands waiting to get into the ground.
The mood [outside] was not violent, but it was tense, and the police were having some job.”
So that’s the official narrative for the alleged situation outside the ground.
I like the idea that those inside were “oblivious” to the events outside. In reality, the exact reverse was true:
Any genuine fans on the outside wouldn’t have a clue that inside the stadium it was essentially empty; there wasn’t ever going to be a game taking place!
However, the Match of the Day footage, allegedly showing an impatient crowd outside, looks fake, too, with strong evidence of video compositing:
So my money is still on there being no (zero) spectators inside the soccer stadium on the day. Maybe there was a crowd of sorts outside, maybe there wasn’t. What’s key is that the entire psyop was pre-recorded in advance, and then broadcast “live”, just like the 9/11 Hoax, et. al.If you look at that footage from 7 minutes onwards, It seems that your background is invading the pitch of your could of been filmed months earlier football scene. How does that get done? Seems genuine, though im no expert. Maybe you could explain how this was faked.
How was the pitch invasion faked, if it was? Two or more video layers, chroma-keyed, and then composited together?
In those few minutes (just a couple thousand frames) of “live” RTE footage, there are surprisingly few frames that actually needed faking in such a way. Painstaking work, no doubt. Even more so in those days. Possibly done semi-manually, frame-by-frame, but certainly do-able.
Wikipedia uses Star Wars (Empire Strikes Back, released 1980) and Star Trek (The Next Generation, 1987-) as benchmarks for the state of technology in video trickery. Chroma-key compositing (a.k.a. “green-screening”) was already well-refined and in common use in Hollywood by 1989.
If the theory is correct, the “capacity crowd” – visible in the background – was filmed at an earlier big turnout at Hillsborough; at one of the many real games that took place in the weeks and months previous. Individually, the spectators in the stands aren’t readily recognisable. So no risk there of hoax exposure with some bod saying “ooh! There’s me! But what the hell?! I wasn’t even at Hillsborough that day!” The crowds are all too distant to risk that.
The close-up shots of the crisis-acting “pitch invaders” are much better quality than the pictures of the players on the pitch. How so? Another give-away, perhaps? Indicating that “the invaders” were filmed separately under studio-conditions, using superior equipment?
As for chroma-keying “the invasion” itself, the blue metal barrier in front of the stand would serve as an excellent separator when recording the top-most (nearest) video layer.
Simply drop a green-screen background – a giant roll of matte green fabric – behind that metal barrier, record the “pitch invaders” climbing over the barrier before spewing onto the pitch. Then superimpose that near layer onto the “library footage” of the capacity crowd in the background. Fakery almost done!
It seems clear now, that on the day, NOTHING at all took place at Hillsborough. It was firmly closed to all but the hoaxers, with not a single member of the public entering the ground. Obviously meaning that no injuries nor deaths occurred either. Hoorah for that!
The relevant seconds of “live” game play we see in the RTE footage were filmed some while earlier, under strict studio conditions, again using chroma-keying. The players – all complicit in the hoax – acted out their choreographed moves – not necessarily even filming together. (and as we’ve seen already, the inconsistent shadowing cast by those players is evidence in itself of video fakery).
Those few dozens frames of “live” play were then composited as the top-layer, superimposed onto the background showing a full stadium of spectators around an empty pitch.
Presumably that unusual background layer – capacity crowd but empty pitch – was recorded in the few minutes that exist before any real soccer game kicks off.
The “Hillsborough Disaster” was towards the end of the soccer season, leaving plenty of opportunities at earlier games to obtain that background layer of spectators around an empty pitch.
Mentioned earlier is the crowd’s curious disinterest in the “live” play on the pitch. They just don’t seem to be following the ball. Further proof that the crowd is actually from an earlier game, filmed before it even started? With no play in front of them, does that best explain their oddly static nature?
One minor problem for the hoaxers would be keeping genuine spectators away from the stadium on the day, since no real game will take place. All anyone must see is the “live” TV screening of a pre-recorded psyop.
And it was an FA cup semi-final; normally very popular, a sell-out long before the big day. On the match-day itself the stadium area would need to be locked-down. “Strictly off-limits for safety reasons to anyone without a ticket”. Which in effect means out-of-bounds to everyone. Doubtless announcements were made to that effect on the radio and TV. “POLICE HAVE WARNED THOSE WITHOUT A TICKET NOT TO TRAVEL”. Which is what they say all the time any way.
But what about those who routinely get a ticket? How to keep them away? Now, here’s my soccer ignorance on display: I only just learned that season-ticket holders DO NOT automatically get tickets to Cup Games to watch their hallowed teams. Apparently they do have some priority in the ticket-sales, but no automatic right, as such, to a single ticket.
So to get this hoax fully sealed, all those committed peeps with a genuine interest in attending are simply told by official ticket outlets that “Sorry! The fixture was sold-out long ago!” To avid soccer-followers that aspect is probably the most obvious element to the hoax! Not sure how the hoaxers dealt with ticket fakers / touts. An exercise for the reader there, perhaps!
I forgot what a rotten bunch were ‘overseeing’ the Hillsborough Disaster. What with Chinny Hill (86 this year; playing deep into extra time) fronting the goggle box back in the day.
Chief Constable of South Yorks in 1989 was Peter Wright. Earlier he had commanded the force during the Miners’ Strike (1983-84), and before that, as Deputy Chief Constable of Merseyside, helping to mastermind the Toxteth Riots (1981). Popular man up north, then, who certainly gave his pound of flesh to the Apparatus.
Interestingly, Brian Clough is described on wonky as “a lifelong socialist, often appearing on miners’ picket lines..” Could Cloughie and Wright have known each other from earlier psy-operations?
Sports minister at the time was the drippy and effete Colin Berkeley Moynihan MP, who soon after became the 4th Baron Moynihan.
I’m sure half of these aristocrats, clowns like “The Lord Moynihan”, are just sims. Low-quality actors of no real bloodline. Elocution-trained goons who are inserted strategically into the ancient noble families defined in Burke’s Peerage.
Could twits like Moynihan be little more than clerical workers posing as toffs? Paid a modest housekeeper’s salary to keep the cutlery polished in the vast country piles that the Apparatus looted from previous generations? Just snootier versions of the National Trust volunteer? Hired and fired as required?
The willy-wonkas have this to say about the Rt Hon Colin Moynihan MP, Conservative Sports Minister at the time of the Hillsborough psyop:
Baron Moynihan, of Leeds in the County of York, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created on 19 March 1929 for the surgeon Sir Berkeley Moynihan, 1st Baronet, the son of the Victoria Cross recipient Andrew Moynihan…The titles became dormant on the death of his grandson, the third Baron, in 1991. There followed a complex dispute between his two sons, born separately by his fourth and fifth wives; the 3rd Baron had believed that the eldest boy, Andrew, was not his son, and favoured the younger, Daniel. They were joined in the dispute by Colin Moynihan, younger half-brother of the 3rd Baron; in March 1994 Colin Moynihan applied for a writ of summons thereby challenging the legitimacy of both sons and claiming the title for himself. In 1996 the Family Division of the High Court ruled that the 3rd Baron’s divorce from his fourth wife Editha Eduarda had been obtained by fraud, meaning that his fifth marriage to Jinna Sabiaga had been bigamous and his son by that marriage illegitimate. After this action had been decided, the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords ordered DNA testing of Andrew Moynihan, which found that the 3rd Baron was not his father. The Committee therefore decided in favour of the petition from Colin Moynihan, summing up their decision by saying: …that neither of the two sons purporting to be the sons of the Third Baron can, in fact, be an heir to the peerage. In the case of the elder, Andrew, the committee was shown overwhelming genetic evidence that he cannot be the son of the late Lord Moynihan; and so far as the younger, Daniel, is concerned, the evidence clearly shows that he is the child of a bigamous marriage and is therefore illegitimate. In those circumstances, it is clear beyond doubt that the petitioner, Colin Moynihan, must be the rightful heir and that his Petitions must succeed.”
Who in God’s name are these weird people?! Whoever they are, that, my friends, is how you get your sim into the Upper Legislative House of the United Kingdom!
Just after the match gets called off, you can see spectators going up and speaking to Steve Nichol. Would that have been possible to fake in 1989[?].
Was it possible to fake? That tiny piece of “live” footage could have been filmed months earlier! All we see is Nichol and some unknown person, standing on some grass.
Excepting the grass itself – which is always much-of-a-muchness, there’s no fixed object in the frames for any point of reference. We’ve no proof it really was filmed “live” in Hillsborough, Saturday 15 April 1989.
Brian Clough was not the sort of person who you would think they would get to be involved in what your talking about.
Why not? According to Wonkypedia he was certainly no saint. The chair of an FA inquiry considered Clough to be corrupt, guilty of accepting “bungs”. With touching innocence, wonkypedia suggests this is why he never became England manager. Au contraire. He sounds the perfect choice to me:
Clough was charged with misconduct by the FA, who later dropped the case due to Clough’s ill health. Former Premier League chief executive, Rick Parry, who led the inquiry, said: “On the balance of evidence, we felt he [Clough] was guilty of taking bungs. The evidence was pretty strong.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Clough#Corruption_allegations
You can see people walking round the pitch to get back out of the ground by going up the steps of the stands and the passages beside the pens.
Just two minutes into the prestigious game – after forking-out a small fortune for tickets – after travelling miles to attend – and people are already leaving the ground??
Why? There was no “crush”, real or imagined, at that stage. So just bored maybe?! I know I would be. Maybe those people are there to lend animation to that area of the frame? To disguise a super-imposing line left-over from video layering, perhaps?
What about the families and the witnesses who were there. What about the footage of the people who were there that day. There is no way that they could all be actors. They can not get some credible actors to do these hoaxes these days, But 25 years ago they were amazing.
There are some relatively convincing “eyewitnesses” and vicsim families from 7/7, but that’s all they are: relatively convincing, persuasive enough to serve as crisis actors. Selected for their thespian skills at selling sob-stories.
And if crisis actors aren’t up to the standards of 25 years ago that’s maybe because they don’t need to be – because we’re more gullible than ever!
The footage that was shown on the BBC will be very hard to come by with the BBC being a government agency and the police being the cause. Some of the footage has been used in some of the documentarys that have been done on the subject and maybe after the inquests some more of the footage might be made available.
Where is all this BBC footage on youtube? Why is it missing, if it ever existed? As said, everyone has anorak soccer friends; the kind of nerds who record almost every soccer game – to re-watch them in slow-mo, months or even years later. Where are all those home-recorded videos of the BBC’s “live” coverage of the Hillsborough Disaster on youtube? It was, after all, the soccer disaster of the century.
Over recent years, the BBC transferred a vast amount of its analogue archive footage to Getty. Is that where it’s officially gone? All that missing Hillsborough footage we’re told was screened live in 1989? Conveniently, it’s now in the custody of an unaccountable private enterprise?
Not unlike the Lunar Landing Hoax, where again, original NA$A footage from that hugely historic event just vanished without trace or explanation. No doubt by today’s standards, the video fakery was so amateur it couldn’t possibly stand up to modern scrutiny, and therefore had to be “lost”.
Is that the best guess for the BBC’s Hillsborough footage? Officially Lost for the sake of simple expediency?
—-
Let’s take another look at the shadowing in that “rare” RTE footage that we do have from Hillsborough. To my mind, it’s deeply suspicious, inconsistent and anomalous. Are these really just optical illusions or something much more ominous?
Let’s remind ourselves first, of the lines painted on a soccer pitch. All the straight white lines across the pitch run parallel to each other:
So how can this occur?
Shadows running parallel to the white lines:
Shadows NOT running parallel to white lines:
The only explanations I can muster, both suggest fakery:
1) The “live” game footage is not continuous. It was not filmed over six minutes, but over several hours, or even several days, and then spliced together. Explaining why (and how) the angles of the shadows cast by the players seem to vary, in relation to the parallel white lines on the pitch. The sun simply moved across the sky, changing the shadow angles. And that doesn’t happen in a few minutes.
2) to the choreographers’ instruction, the soccer players acted out a few minutes of the game, under strict studio conditions, perhaps using green-screens. Then someone decided that the sun should be shining – it being, as usual, a glorious day for a cup semi-final – and so shadows were artificially added using video-editing software, and the editor just did a bad job.
Any better ideas?
Looking again at that RTE footage of Hillsborough, and even from the outset, things aren’t ringing true.
0m08s in the RTE footage and the ball, or at least a ball, is on the centre spot:
At 0m13s — we get a wide angle shot of the whole pitch. And that ball which was on the centre-spot just seconds ago has vanished!:
And yet the referee and a nearby Forest player remain in essentially the same position. No other player has entered the centre circle. So where did it go? There are a few other balls being kicked around in practice. Is it one of those? Though why would anyone remove the ball from the centre-spot, seconds before kick-off?
Also at 0m08s — notice the shadow cast by the referee. In length it’s about half his height, and falls roughly perpendicular to the centre line, i.e. it’s roughly parallel to the side-lines:
The ref’s shadow seems inconsistent. e.g. two seconds later, at 0m10s, it disappears altogether:
Yet not so for the nearby Forest player, whose shadow remains strong at 0m12s:
0m29s — take a look now at the angles of the shadows being cast by the players. Do they match the shadow cast just seconds earlier by the referee? Shadows now seem to be cast at about 45 degree to the centre line:
Yet some of the players don’t seem to be casting shadows at all.
E.g. look at 0m34s and the Forest players on the far right: no shadows! Yet all the Liverpool players on the near left are casting strong shadows of their own:
0m43s — Forest manager Brian Clough is filmed in the tunnel. That could have been shot at any time, and just spliced in. The camera cuts and we don’t actually see Cloughie emerge into the daylight (although the crowd apparently cheers him on!):
0m49s — shadow issues again. The cameraman is on the centre-line. And yet the Forest players on the far right are still casting no shadows. While the Liverpool players, a similar distance to the left, are all casting strong shadows:
0m56s — kick-off (genlocked mess!)
1m12s — look at the shadow angle now. It’s being cast virtually parallel with, rather than perpendicular to the penalty line:
2m02s — now look again at the shadow angles. Play is at the other end of the pitch, but the shadows are far from parallel with that penalty line. Maybe 30 degrees from parallel? How so?:
3m20s — the camera shot is now on the centre line, and the shadows are still consistent with those cast at 2m02s – perhaps 30 degrees from a parallel with the centre-line.
4m53s — very strong shadows still being cast at roughly 30 degrees from the centre-line parallel:
5m00s — suddenly the shadows disappear and it feels overcast (although we can’t see the sky to confirm for ourselves):
5m23s — first sign of a pitch invasion. Low scale; a handful on the grass behind the Liverpool goal line. No remark as yet from the commentators:
5m33s — number of spectators behind goal line – far side of the Liverpool goal – has swelled.
5m35s — sizeable crowd now on the pitch, near-side of the Liverpool goal. None look especially disturbed. Some seen climbing on the barrier:
5m46s — the commentator announces that “the police have taken the decision to open the gates to ease the crush“. The police and commentators really were in such immediate and close contact?
—
Another issue in this RTE footage, which stands out to me (albeit as a soccer rookie) is what appears to be a distinct dis-interest, almost a de-synchronisation between the alleged spectators and the alleged ball action.
From their head motions, the supporters at times don’t really seem to be following the ball movement at all.
Something else. At various points (e.g. 2m10s) there are quite a number of people walking briskly and meaningfully behind the advertising boards at the Liverpool end:
Who are those people? They don’t seem official (no uniforms) and don’t even seem interested in the game. At 2m16s there is another shot of them on the move. Who can they be?
Also, at that point (2m16s) there are several people climbing on the barrier, but no obvious sign of any sort of crush in the Liverpool stand. In fact, it looks like there’s still plenty of free movement.
Hmm..
Isn’t it odd that there is NO live British TV footage of the alleged game on Youtube?
I knew quite a few soccer-anoraks from back then. They videoed every televised game to analyse later in slow-motion. Yet they and others all forgot to hit record on that fateful Saturday afternoon?
All we have is that single “live” excerpt from Irish RTE. Video recorders were commonplace in the home in 1989, yet there’s no “live” BBC/ITV footage? Doesn’t that tell us that the alleged game was NOT screened live in Britain?
For all the wrong reasons, it was a hugely important soccer event. Yet there’s no surviving footage in the public domain to speak of. Sorry, I’m not buying that.
Aren’t the TV cameras in a soccer stadium normally operated by a third party, any way?
Commercial third parties who then license their feeds to the broadcasters (BBC/RTE/ITV) ? Who then mix those live feeds in with their own mindless commentary, etc. Isn’t that how it works?
If so, the “live” RTE footage of the alleged game would be from that same contracted commercial third party. Which means that even if the BBC had screened it live – it would be the same footage shot from identical cameras as the RTE footage.
The Hillsborough Disaster has all the hallmarks of a hoax, not a staged event.
I would suggest that the “live” footage was pre-recorded. Meaning the players in both teams would have to be in on the scam; perhaps recording those few seconds of “live” footage in a pre-match friendly kick-about.
The fake footage of the crowd, and the “tragic crush”, would then be recorded separately on a separate video layer, and overlaid onto the “live” action on the pitch.
Of that six minutes of RTE footage, only a few dozen frames included BOTH the players and the spectator crowd. It’s quite feasible, even back in 1989, for those few frames to be video composite fakes.
On reviewing previous [BBC] Match of the Day titles, and looking perhaps for a Woolwich/Arsenal reference, (Woolwich Arsenal is a well known London Station on the DLR line and looks a ready-made reference. Drummer Lee Rigby -DLR) — I hit the jackpot when I went back to 2007.
I’m unable to post screen shots here which would be ideal, but I’ll just point the viewer to it…
Here you go..
After we have seen various ‘clips from the day’ we enter another section where a goalkeeper dives across in the foreground and then we see Cesc Fabregas in a number 4 Arsenal shirt. In the background as this happens, a little man in white walks along, fleetingly making the number 14.
As the number 14 is framed in the shot, if you pause it, the identity of the mysterious man at the locker is revealed. There standing nonchalantly in civilian clothes – Grey/blue jeans, grey hoodie is Germaine Defoe – imitating ( in advance!) the famous image of the Woolwich killer, Adebolajo.
It takes a good imagination to see the number 14 in there. Besides, it would have no relevance any way, as the Woolwich murder PsyOp occurred in 2013, not 2014.
Further, I see no similarity in the posture of that soccer player in the grey hoodie – and the famous image of Woolwich murderer Michael Adebolajo.
The phony Islamist killer was always pictured as above: wildly waving a machete and knife in his hands. At no point does he, nor could he cross his arms, like that soccer player is doing.
Besides, who’s going to make that link between an Islamist murder PsyOp from 2013, and the trailer for a soccer programme, broadcast over six years previous?
And the site of the Woolwich PSYOP was south-east London, while the Arsenal soccer ground is in north London. So what’s the connection there?
Well, there you go. Number 7 in 2007- pointing forward to 14.
Well, I don’t really see any 14. And, as said, the psyop was in 2013, not 2014. So the digits 14 have no particular relevance.
The old Woolwich op was long planned.
Really? Planned six years earlier, based on the tenuous proof above?
The next station up from Woolwich Arsenal is King George V – named in 2005. This appears a handy reference.
Really? Why? Would it have made any difference if the station had been named King William IV, in 2004. Or King Edward VII, in 2007?
Good or bad, if Arsenal are kept in people’s minds then this built-in reference on the underground map, does it’s job. The alignment to Royalty with the V for victory, seems appropriate.
V for victory now, eh?! What about F for fairytale?!
To be honest, I thought the 14 reference was indicating a league win for Arsenal this year 2014, but this seems highly unlikely, now.
You’re right. the 14 (if we momentarily accept that numerology) could just as well be 1+4 = 5 or 4-1 = 3.
So get this: that’s the number of years (1+4) that BBC childrens’ TV presenter Floella Benjamin has been divorced from her third (4-1) husband!
If Arsenal have great success then the alignment with Royalty and the Victory V, seemed logical to me. They would win with ‘resilience’ ( a word clearly pushed through the pundits and manager’s this season).
1+4 = 14 = v for victory = george V, and that seemed logical?!
Arsenal, may or may not, be penciled in for league success, later. With our understanding these days, of the complete control of mainstream sport, then it’s clearly an option. Arsenal are still in the FA Cup semi-final this year.. A win in that competition with it’s proximity ( 17th May) to the anniversary of the Woolwich incident (22nd May) may be enough for the Arsenal 14 winning reference.
It would take a brave man to have a flutter at the bookies based on that evidence!
They had chance to, including a dress rehearsal the previous year.
Serious overcrowding was observed at the 1987 quarter-final between Sheffield Wednesday and Coventry City and again during the semi-final between Coventry City and Leeds United at Hillsborough. A Leeds fan described disorganisation at the turnstiles and no steward or police direction inside the stadium, resulting in the crowd in one enclosure becoming so compressed he was at times unable to raise and clap his hands. Other accounts told of fans having to be pulled to safety from above.
Was that reality, or was that predictive programming in readiness for the psyop proper?
Football hooliganism was a very real thing throughout the seventies and eighties. It’s a credible, noble lie, that this could be sold on. Do I think it’s a legitimate one? No. But maybe it’s easier in retrospect. At that time, in that place, there was perhaps a presented reality that crowds were becoming a real problem.
Hillsborough truly helped change football. Barriers actually came down. Football was safer. More women and children started going to games. SKY TV came in and the premier league began –
Hillsborough was an ignoble psyop for the gentrification of the sport; the pretext for banning stands in favour of all-seater stadiums, on the grounds of safety.
Since a seat takes up three times the footprint of a standing spectator, the ticket prices had to triple accordingly, just to maintain revenues.
And that rise in ticket pricing left the sport unaffordable for the working classes. Today, soccer is a pastime of affluent, mainly middle class families. Was that a good thing? I don’t think so. It was sad to see the game priced out for the sort of people who perhaps gained the most pleasure from it; the very people for whom soccer was invented.
The football hooliganism of that era – was largely an English peculiarity – and had fairly obvious links to British intelligence – orchestrated through far-right political movements, the NF, BNP, and other neo-Nazi outfits, which the Apparatus carefully controlled. That particular Psyop – the weekly pitched riots on the football terraces – had presumably exhausted any useful purpose – and the gentrification of the sport began, starting dramatically with the “Hillsborough Disaster”.
What isn’t immediately evident is any quantity of publicly-released footage from within the Hillsborough stadium. Yet these stadia have dozens of CCTV cameras in and around them. Where’s it all gone?
Football ain’t my thing – long wondered whether the games themselves – at least in the professional leagues – aren’t all rigged – but does this contiguous(?) footage of the fateful day at Hillsborough come across as credible?
Wind forward to 6m44s; the footage is from RTE, the Irish state broadcaster:
A uniformed cop seemingly runs on to the pitch to warn the ref that there’s been a crush at the far-end, and spectators are pouring on to the pitch.
The footage then cuts to those supporters. How could the referee not have noticed them himself, before the cop had to wave frantically at him? And how did the camera team not notice them either?!
Is that really credible? When the corner kick was taken at 6m35s (of that footage), wouldn’t the ref have spotted the pitch invaders, if not alerted by his linesmen?
Why didn’t the referee take action then and suspend play until the pitch was cleared? It’s not as if the volume of people on the pitch was insignificant at that stage. It would have taken some while for so many peeps to pour onto the pitch, and yet the ref really didn’t notice them, or didn’t worry about them? But surely there was a referees’ protocol for pitch invasions, whatever their cause?
And of those peeps who did escape the alleged crush, why aren’t they looking back at the terraces where the disaster supposedly took place? Didn’t they want to see if they could help? Shouldn’t they be looking to assist friends and families still trapped?
Reminds me somewhat of the apparent shooting dead of 14 by British forces at Croke Park Dublin in 1920.
http://www.crokepark.ie/gaa-museum/gaa-archive/gaa-museum-irish-times-articles/bloody-sunday,-1920
Probably there were few if any cameras back then, but even so, there were supposedly ten thousand spectators/eye witnesses. Or were there? Was the game a “sell-out” before any tickets were actually sold?
That’s my same suspicion for the M.O. behind the alleged roof collapse in London theatreland earlier this year. Any genuine would-be purchasers of tickets for the psyop/disaster night were told it was already sold out..
Is that how the Dublin “Bloody Sunday” football psyop was staged? The only spectators in the stadium were in on the hoax? If so, that would belie the hidden hand of the Crown. Controlling Irish republicanism then just as now, as McGuinness and Tebbit could doubtless confirm!
Likewise for Hillsborough – perhaps there were no real spectators. Or at least, those with a view of the true happenings were all ‘in on it’?
Hunch says that no one died in Dublin, likewise for Hillsborough. In the former, the psyop served as a dramatic warning shot to any genuine would-be troublemakers. And the latter – Hillsborough – if there were any real deaths, the Crown would have dusted them swiftly away; never using the media to re-live the tragedy for over 20+ years now.
And from the perspective of the city of Liverpool, the disaster almost too conveniently tied in with the downtrodden psyche that the British government had manufactured for the once-great city.
The city with its large Irish population, and one of the country’s oldest black communities (relic of its links to the slave trade) which somehow sets it apart from the rest of the UK. A city that was not “properly British”, and was being punished by the government for that.
By the 80s, Liverpool was notorious for its deprivation, dereliction, drug addiction, mass unemployment and race riots, and then finally in 1989 for its dreadful soccer disaster.
The psyop message from Hillsborough: how much more misery can poor Liverpool take? There’s almost a sense of martydom to the narrative; appropriate perhaps for a city that’s mainly catholic?
And of course there was a counter-message to Liverpool, epitomised by Kelvin McKenzie and the “stiff upper lip” Tory press. With their inflammatory demands that Liverpudlians must pull themselves together. “We didn’t win the war with whimpering like that, you bunch of whingers!”
Serving only to alienate Liverpool even further. So maybe there was a political backdrop of the day that shouldn’t be overlooked when trying to understand the Hillsborough Disaster/Psyop?
The Times, 11 Dec 1991
The Times, 12 Feb 1992
29 Sep 1994
You must be logged in to post a comment.