(Thanks, H. :)

Reader H. writes:

=====

Greetings all, I am compelled to point out something overlooked by Stone and probably many other commentators in the alt media.

Video can no longer be trusted as presenting the truth.

We must also remember that some people have access to technology that we can't even conceive.

Just because the video does not show what it purports to, it does not automatically mean the event did not occur. It just means it did not occur in the way the perpetrators want you to see it.

The agenda: social engineering via gun control and internet censorship.
The story: lone nutter extremist with military style weapons.
The reality: the REAL video was 'swapped out' of the live feed for a "call of Duty" style Pre-enactment of what they planned. Think of it as a CGI practise run that could be created using images of the actual target location.

The capacity to insert CGI into live real time video has existed for years as is evidenced by the insertion of the "first down" line and advertising in live sporting events.

The patsy in this incident would not falsify the video himself because that would contradict his purpose. I am convinced he had no idea it was happening (just like shadowbanned posters have no idea their messages go nowhere).

That is the real reason that no-one is allowed to see the video because sooner or later someone like me - or the patsy himself - would work out that there must be someone else involved who has tampered with the video broadcast. I think there is very high level IT capability involved that is unknown to the patsy because someone other than the patsy is inserting the CGI stream into the livefeed and turning it off again.

The fact that the video apparently shows him driving between mosques seems to prove that someone else has deliberately controlled the feed.

The patsy is also being kept away from all media and external information because he can't be allowed to see that the video does not show what actually occurred.

The possibility that the video feed was controlled exposes the possibilty that a State level military or security apparatus was involved and that is not a possibility that the true perpetrators want publicised.

I doubt they will let this get to a proper open court trial.

To conclude, those attempting to control our perception of our society and reality in general want to destroy the credibility of the 'people - controlled' alternative media. It would concern me to think that Mr Stone's preliminary conclusion might accelerate this process.

Simply put, we can no longer automatically trust what we see and hear on video because real time broadcasts can be manipulated too easily by those wanting to control our perceptions.

**************************************************************