Hollywood producer claims Boston bombing was a "false flag attack"

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: JonButtonIII

How is his "credibility in question?"

Well, first and foremost, like I already said, they lie about him being well known. Second, what evidence is presented?

VERY questionable.

Is he not a producer? Does he not have directing experience? Is he not someone quite familiar with the nuances of modern filmmaking technique? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Producers rarely have anything to do with filmmaking. They are backers. According to IMDB he has ZERO directing credits. According to IMDB, I have more directing credits than he does.

Nice try, though.

In court, that'd be enough to give him expert witness status. The opinion of an expert witness is admissible, and can be considered by a jury. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

No, it wouldnt.

Honestly, he's more than qualified to say "this looks like a greenscreen." Just like he said one of the "heroes" of the B Bombing was someone involved in one of his previous movies. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course you think so, because it fits into your narrative. I ask again: WHERES THE EVIDENCE TO BACK HIS CLAIM?

(1) That the writers of the article frame the background of the interviewee in a certain way does not diminish the credibility of the Nathan. Nathan didn't write the article.

Also, "lack of evidence" does not speak to the individual's credibility. Illogical.

(2) Let's see your IMDB. Otherwise, if you can't provide evidence, you've now (under your weird "logic") completely lost credibility. Is this where I should BWHAHAHA?

(3) Yes, it's more than sufficient for expert witness status. See here

(4) The evidence is his professional opinion as someone well-versed in the industry. That's the definition of expert witness testimony--an opinion given by someone in the know.

My My, OP it most mean something, suddenly the thread gets derailed on page 1 ( seems except for Benrl no one is talking about the article ) I'l have a read, Ty for bringing this to my attention.

a reply to: MessageforAll

Well it would appear to me that some people have crossed the line set precedent while talking about Sandy Hook. I foresee a thread closure TBH.

only the people that were involved in the operation would have been informed, jesus that isnt half obvious is it the whole area is cordoned off. everyone one else gets all hell scared out of them, the herd gets spooked and stampedes people get injured fear and adrenaline enhance the stories.
its perfect, the real and the unreal come together to create the perfect illusion, its not that hard of a concept to understand really.
maybe this video will help the new ATS members understand how a false flag operates.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Glad to see people more worried about getting on me than answering the questions.

That pretty much sums up how this garbage goes.

I read the article, I dismissed all the points he made, except for the SD video comment, as it stuck out.

Your only question is, who is this guy to question.

Thats all you have come up with, nothing of substance.

I don't buy any of his conclusions, only that one item he raised struck me as interesting.


Debate the issue not the messenger, as its the first sign that your argument is weak.

a reply to: JonButtonIII

(1) That the writers of the article frame the background of the interviewee in a certain way does not diminish the credibility of the Nathan. Nathan didn't write the article.

I didnt say nathans credibility was in question. I said the article's credibility was.

Also, "lack of evidence" does not speak to the individual's credibility. Illogical.

Presenting an outlandish claim, then providing no evidence ABSOLUTELY DOES speak to a persons credibility. Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accuser.

(2) Let's see your IMDB. Otherwise, if you can't provide evidence, you've now (under your weird "logic") completely lost credibility. Is this where I should BWHAHAHA?

Soliciting personal information is against the TOS on ATS. Might want to remove that. On top of that, my IMDB is not relevant, other than that i used it to show your claim, that he has directing credits, to be a total lie.

Now YOUR credibility is in question.

(3) Yes, it's more than sufficient for expert witness status. I can fax you my bar exam scores, if you like.

No, its not. A person with no directing experience would not qualify as an expert witness on filmmaking. Making on producing. Producers are rarely even on set for filming. They has next to NOTHING to do with the actual filmmaking.

(4) The evidence is his professional opinion as someone well-versed in the industry. That's the definition of expert witness testimony--an opinion given by someone in the know.

You could have just said he has none. Would have been a shorter sentence.

a reply to: benrl

Your only question is, who is this guy to question.

Actually, no. I never asked that question. I know who he is. A c list producer.

Let me post the question again, since you all seem to be having a hard time with it:

Why is this guy more credible that all of the witnesses and victims?

And again, to all those accusing me of derailing: Why are you all avoiding the VERY ON TOPIC quesitons I posed, and instead, focusing on me? Sure feels just the same as all the SH nonsense....cant back up any claims, so attack anyone who questions them.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

Nice try, my friend. Nice try. But bailing water does not always rescue a sinking ship.

At this point I'm content to let the pieces fall where they may. You've logically eviscerated yourself numerous times by now, and the intelligent posters at ATS will clearly be able to see that.

So let's just agree to disagree.

Temporarily closed for staff review.

And has been reopened.