Saturday, March 23, 2019

Another shooting hoax?

WE LIVE IN SOME STRANGE TIMES
In our time of movies, TV and video games saturated with over-the-top violence, why would the New Zealand government take such extreme measures to prevent its citizens from seeing the video?
The answer perhaps is that if the people of New Zealand actually saw the video, they would realize the mosque shootings were a gigantic false-flag hoax perpetrated on them in order to advance gun control. (The video can still be viewed on BitChute, the file-sharing video hosting service, and also here.)
READ BELOW

How we know New Zealand mosque shooting video is a CGI fake

Rate this post
On March 14, 2019, New Zealand sustained its deadliest mass shootings in modern history when a lone gunman, 28-year-old Brenton Tarrant, killed 50 people and injured another 50 at Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand. The media immediately identified Tarrant as that most
noxious of all monsters — “an alt-right affiliated white supremacist”. (Wikipedia)
The gunman recorded and streamed on Facebook Live a video of the first attack at Al Noor Mosque, with 4,000 overall views before it was taken down. The video is banned by the New Zealand government because it is deemed “objectionable” — whatever that means. Anyone who possesses or shares the video is threatened with 10-14 years in prison; corporations (such as web hosts) face an additional $200,000 ($137,000 US) fine under the same law.
Even without being asked by the New Zealand government, mainstream U.S.-owned platforms such as FacebookYouTubeTwitter and Scribd eagerly complied with the ban by scrubbing the video and the shooter’s manifesto. YouTube went so far as to intentionally disable search filters so that people cannot find the video or other Christchurch shooting materials.
Websites such as Dissenter, Zero Hedge4chan8chan, and video hosting platform LiveLeak, among others, which hosted footage of the attacks or simply allowed people to engage in uncensored discussion of the shootings, have been partially or completely blocked in both New Zealand and Australia for the sake of “protecting consumers,” according to New Zealand Telecom, the privately-owned telecommunications provider.
In an open letter to FacebookTwitter and GoogleNew Zealand telecom CEOssaid the suppression hasn’t gone far enough, and urged that U.S. social media follow European proposals for hyper-vigilant policing of content for the sake of “protecting consumers”. The letter reads (Zero Hedge):
“You may be aware that on the afternoon of Friday 15 March, three of New Zealand’s largest broadband providers, Vodafone NZ, Spark and 2degrees, took the unprecedented step to jointly identify and suspend access to web sites that were hosting video footage taken by the gunman related to the horrific terrorism incident in Christchurch.
As key industry players, we believed this extraordinary step was the right thing to do in such extreme and tragic circumstances. Other New Zealand broadband providers have also taken steps to restrict availability of this content….
We also accept it is impossible as internet service providers to prevent completely access to this material. But hopefully we have made it more difficult for this content to be viewed and shared – reducing the risk our customers may inadvertently be exposed to it and limiting the publicity the gunman was clearly seeking.”
In our time of movies, TV and video games saturated with over-the-top violence, why would the New Zealand government take such extreme measures to prevent its citizens from seeing the video?
The answer perhaps is that if the people of New Zealand actually saw the video, they would realize the mosque shootings were a gigantic false-flag hoax perpetrated on them in order to advance gun control. (The video can still be viewed on BitChute, the file-sharing video hosting service, and also here.)
This post offers four reasons why we can confidently say the mosque shooting video is a CGI (computer generated imagery) fake, using the chroma key compositing (or “green screen”) technique:

(1) WHEN SHOT, PEOPLE DON’T JUST FALL LIKE INERT SACKS OF POTATOES

In an audio interview and on James Fetzer’s blog, Dr. Scott Bennett, former U.S. Army psychological operations officer and State Department counterterrorism contractor, points out that in a real shooting with real bullets, especially when civilians are shot, they would be in a state of hysterical, emotional shock. Panic-stricken, their bodies flooded with adrenalin, they would violently flail, run or crawl away. They do not simply fold up and fall to the ground like sacks of potatoes. 
In the mosque shooter’s live-streamed video, however, the victims immediately fall to the floor like sacks of potatoes, face down (since faces are more of a CGI challenge). Once fallen to the floor, the victims stay still, with nary a moan nor twitch.
It stretches our credulity to think that the mosque shooter is such an expert marksman that every shot he fired was a kill shot. The fact is that in real life, bullets can bounce, ricochet, and miss the target.
Writing in “What really happens when you get shot,” Wired, Dec. 8, 2015, Connor Narciso, a former Army Green Beret who served in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, with 3rd Special Forces Group, explains:
As a combat medic in Afghanistan, I treated a variety of gunshot wounds. And as the husband of an emergency room provider at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, gun violence has remained—at least peripherally—a significant part of my life….
[E]ven multiple gunshots to the torso won’t guarantee death, or even incapacitation. Arun Nair is an attending physician in the ER at Johns Hopkins, and an International Health Fellow. “Bullets are magic,” Nair tells his students. He recounts the story of a young man in Lebanon who survived after being shot six times.1 He took repeated shots to the chest and throat. One of the six bullets stopped inside his pericardium, the narrow space between the heart and its thin protective membrane. Another bullet ended up in the victim’s esophagus; he swallowed it. Amazingly, the patient was alert and speaking lucidly to the doctors. You can’t assume anything, says Nair.

(2) SHELL CASINGS DON’T VANISH INTO THIN AIR

At the 8:56 mark in the video, the gunman is outside the mosque’s front gate and begins shooting down the street. At the 9:06 mark, the gunman turns around and shoots down the street in the other direction.
Curiously, the video shows shell casings being ejected from the semi-automatic, but the casings then disappear into thin air. No shell casings are on the ground because this footage was actually taken not on the street but before a “green screen”, which explains why we see shell casings being ejected but no casing actually falls to the ground.

(3) BULLETS LEAVE NO MARKS WHEN THEY HIT THE VICTIMS

After shooting up and down the street, ejecting shell casings that vanish into thin air, the gunman returns to his car and exchanges rifles, tossing the one he had used to the ground next to his car, which later also vanishes. He then inexplicably returns to the “crime scene” to shoot again and again at the crumpled bodies in the mosque. Strangely, the “bullets” leave no marks on the victims’ clothes or bodies. Upon impact, we see only a puff of air on the victim’s clothes, which suggests the gun was a toy gun that blasts air instead of solid projectiles.
Yesterday, in an email to James Fetzer, Gordon Duff, senior editor of Veterans Today who is, like Fetzer, a U.S. Marines veteran, wrote:
“I generally recognize any part or accessory available worldwide for this type of weapon the common sellers, palmetto state armory, delta team tactical, classic firearms…and nobody has part for real guns that look like the things in the video. mike and i have built thousands of custom AR weapons in every size and caliber this stuff is crap…..and quite possibly toys….What we have in NZ appears to be (real or fake) video of fake guns.”
Indeed, in a comment, Kevin J. Lankford, a reader of FOTM, observed that the shooter’s guns “looked like nothing I could identify,” and that the reason why the guns are painted with white symbols all over is precisely “to disguise the fact they are fake.”

(4) BULLETS FIRED AT WINDSHIELD LEAVE NO  HOLES OR SHATTERED GLASS

After the gunman finally leaves the mosque, he gets back into his car. While driving away, he shoots at the car’s windshield three times. Strangely, the bullets leave no marks on the windshield — no bullet holes, no smashed glass — as you can see in the GIF below and the pic of his arrest by police.
To conclude, the shooter’s livestream video was made with a live man shooting guns, at least one of which is a toy air gun, against a “green screen”. The “green screen” is then filled in with CGI images of the mosque and victims being shot; of the street outside the mosque where the gunman fired shots, ejecting shell casings that vanished into thin air; and of his car, wherein the gunman shot at the car’s windshield, leaving no bullet holes or shattered glass.
All in all, the video was poorly and sloppily made. Wellington should have hired Sir Peter Jackson’s Weta Workshop to do the job.
Go here to watch a video demonstrating the fakery of the mosque shooter’s livestream video by juxtaposing it with footage from a video game.

9 comments:

  1. Anonymous3/23/2019

    I didn't see very much blood on clothing or carpets or anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  2. large tom3/24/2019

    I agree. I watched the video and I saw no blood. strange days indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another web site pointed out that there are no shoes visible at the entrance, and a "victim" who is shown barefoot, a few seconds later is clad in blue socks. Plus carpets are laid out incorrectly for a mosque, and a mosque does not have those side rooms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No shoes visible? That's strange, considering how you can clearly observe footwear at the entrance, right at the corner as Tarrant drops his Mossberg.
      About the side rooms and invalid angle of carpets, that might've just been an architectural defect rather than an actual flop, because - think about it - if it was fake, the government would probably place more effort into this rather than actually just say "fuck it" and invest 100 dollars.

      Delete
  4. fACE BOOK IS BANNING THE LINK

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is something No One has brought up that I can find. Lack of any sort of Muzzle flash coming from the weapon? What muzzle flashes that do show up are blue? gun powder does not burn with a blue flame. No holes in the windshield from the shotgun either?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a crack in the windshield if you look close enough. 12 Gauges aren't as powerful as people believe them to be, and won't shatter windshields like people believe. It'd take more than 5 shells to actually successfully shatter a windshield, and that's if you're shooting in different places.
      Lack of muzzle flash might indicate an integrated flash hider, most likely.

      Delete
  6. The first 'argument' is entirely bullshit. Sure, they'd be in a state of excessive state of adrenaline, but they wouldn't be able to run after 5.56 had hit them. THis is because 5.56 cartridges expand their fragments on impact, which would lead them to completely be paralyzed - especially since they were shot on their backs. You can see someone crawling away at the beginning, leaving a trail of blood behind due to the body's natural reaction to being slotted by a 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun - so there's also that. Plus, Tarrant also used a 50-round drum at first, which would contaminate for the amount of large crowd being dropped so easily.

    Second argument - you can clearly see shells dropping onto the ground in distinguished pigment from the carpet, and - outside - casings were prompted onto leaves and nearby ground, and you can actually investigate online if you dig deep enough for casings taken from the crime scene.

    Third is explainable because of the camera's poor quality. Due to it being a livestream, the gunman had no time to actually edit quality and was left with what he had. However, when shot through clothing - this is taking how they were wearing robes too - bullet holes can't be observed at the first moments of injury. However, at the right side of the screen - when the gunman pops more rounds into the victims to make sure they are dead - you can see a blood-covered victim. The lack of blood trail is explained due to the piled corpses, but you can also see blood at the beginning of the shooting as a victim crawls away.
    The weapons are indistinguishable due to the fact that they are customized with the thumbhole grips, modified magazines and scribbles. This was probably the shooter thinking he was edgy, or something like that.

    And the end, if you look close enough you can see a distinct crack on the windshield which is of different transparency of the rest of the windshield - windshields don't fall apart on impact of a 12 gauge. Hell, windshields don't even fall off when a human is hit at vigorous force. This could also suggest that he used a slug, or a form of modified birdshot available for commercial purchase.

    Overall, even if it WAS fake, you should take account that this is a western-influenced country, who could've probably performed better. It isn't Kazakhstan trying to limit its human rights to a minimum for geo-political benefit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coming back to this, I've managed to identify the weapons.

      The first rifle is supposedly a Windham Armory AR-15 with a definite custom handguard, either that or a Ruger SR-556, while the other is a modified-to-the-peak Ruger AR-556 produced after 2014. The first rifle uses an ergonomical vertical grip, a 50-round drum magazine, and EMAG/PMAG 30-round magazines, and an EOTech XPS-2 Holographic sight, while the second rifle uses an Aimpoint M68 CCO for a sight, a replaced stock thumbhole stock, and maybe some type of flash hider.

      The shotgun he uses at the beginning is a Mossberg 930 SPX with some type of red dot sight mounted atop of it, which (according to my research) is maybe a Bushnell TRS-25 sight, but I am unsure.

      When driving, Tarrant uses a Ranger 870 pump action shotgun with no type of modification to it. In his car, he also had a Mossberg Predator bolt action rifle with a riflescope on it and a magazine, along with an Uberti .357 Magnum lever action rifle, the lateral being used during the Linwood attack.

      All rifles are scribbled with inscriptions and logos made from a white sharpie, and both rifles I believe have modifications that make the trigger lighter, and thus making the rifles able to fire quicker.

      Delete