Proof Of Video Fakery In Norway, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 12-2-2012 @ 08:55 PM by pshea38
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to
post by pshea38



Breivik doesn't exist. He is a computer generated, purposely designed, contradictory
and enigmatic boogieman.


Toward what end? Why all the expense of this elaborate charade? Who gains?


The links I posted contain the answers.

MONEY FOR NOTHING

Did you wonder - where's the cash? Where's the motivation behind this Oslo PsyOp?

If anyone is wondering how the Breivik PsyOp could possibly generate huge amounts of cash for the folks behind the hoax (all indications pointing to Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and his "Arbeiderpartiet" - the ruling Norwegian Labour Party), here's an interesting article - published only 4 days after the event:

mobil.bt.no... ... 44241.html[url]

The article says, in substance, that if Breivik himself cannot cover the expenses of his deeds, there's a Norwegian law that says that, in the case of a defendant not having enough money to cover the costs of his criminal deeds, the state will cover for those expenses. In other words, the Norwegian taxpayers will pay for the destruction of the government buildings (2.4 billion Nkr) and for the family members claims (300million Nkr).

To put this into perspective, 300mil Norwegian kroners are roughly $50million US dollars - and 2.4 billion Nkr are roughly another $400million !

In other words, the Arbeiderpartiet stands to make about 450 million dollars out of this hoax.


[url]http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2363957#p2363957
edit on 12-2-2012 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 12-2-2012 @ 09:02 PM by pshea38
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to
post by pshea38



We need to ask ourselves 'could something this be faked?'
And if the answer is yes, everything else makes sense.

Well, the answer IS yes.


First of all, the answer is "no." Too many people were witnesses to every aspect of the entire affair for it all to have been CGI. But let's set that aside for a moment.

Your fundamental assumption seems to be "if something can be faked, it must be faked." Someone can place you in a car with curtains across the windows, then shake the car in such a way that you are convinced that the car is moving. Does it then follow that cars do not really move?


If a reported event could theoretically be faked, and investigation uncovers
an abundance of evidence for fakery, is it out of the question to consider whether
or not said reported event was in fact faked? No, it is not!


reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 01:27 AM by PsykoOps
reply to post by pshea38



Ok if this is not going to quit I'll bite: You say abundance of evidence. Give me your single biggest and best evidence. Explain why and how it proves fakery. One single piece please.



reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 06:57 AM by DJW001
reply to post by pshea38



If a reported event could theoretically be faked, and investigation uncovers
an abundance of evidence for fakery, is it out of the question to consider whether
or not said reported event was in fact faked? No, it is not!


You haven't provided any evidence that it was faked. It was Breivik who photoshopped his head onto those video game bodies, and the reason the flashes on those videos don't match up is because whoever made that video deliberately synchronized the videos badly. The expose is a hoax. Why do you believe it?


reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 08:10 AM by strangedays
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to
post by pshea38



We need to ask ourselves 'could something this be faked?'
And if the answer is yes, everything else makes sense.

Well, the answer IS yes.


First of all, the answer is "no." Too many people were witnesses to every aspect of the entire affair for it all to have been CGI. But let's set that aside for a moment.

Your fundamental assumption seems to be "if something can be faked, it must be faked." Someone can place you in a car with curtains across the windows, then shake the car in such a way that you are convinced that the car is moving. Does it then follow that cars do not really move?


EXACTLY. OP is asking the wrong questions. He should be asking why the people are taking the action of shaking the car, and who they are.


reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 09:33 AM by DJW001
reply to post by strangedays



-I think you are easily convinced by your source material because you see how the apparent loss of life seems comical.


No loss of life is ever comical. I think you have some soul searching to do.


reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 10:31 AM by Aeons
reply to post by pshea38



I've reviewed your link before. A couple of times. Holy Mecca of Inverted Pictures Baby.

No one trusts me. I consider it an excellent example of erotic irony.
edit on 2012/2/13 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 10:47 AM by strangedays
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to
post by strangedays



-I think you are easily convinced by your source material because you see how the apparent loss of life seems comical.


No loss of life is ever comical. I think you have some soul searching to do.


Wow way to take it out of context and attempt to cast me in a bad light. Good try.

Is it comical that TPTB walk these "pawns" into death, people (like you im sure) know about it, and just sit there and watch and do nothing. If thats not comical to you well it is to me. Its pathetic. Like your attempt to take what I said out of context. If I could negative rep you I would.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Zombie Apocalypse is Real! And it\'s Here Now!
  Posted 17 days ago with 87 member flags
While Americans keep arguing about Trayvon-Zimmerman
  Posted 11 days ago with 79 member flags
Proof ATS is being watched!
  Posted 1 days ago with 67 member flags
Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary
  Posted 13 days ago with 59 member flags
This is scary!
  Posted 18 days ago with 57 member flags