Fluoride Information

Fluoride is a poison. Fluoride was poison yesterday. Fluoride is poison today. Fluoride will be poison tomorrow. When in doubt, get it out.

An American Affidavit

Sunday, December 27, 2015

False-Flag Terror Research: The Coincidence Theorem by Kevin Scott King from Memory Hole

False-Flag Terror Research: The Coincidence Theorem 22

Kevin Scott King
One method I use to try and ascertain what the truth is from any narrative is what I call the Possible-Probable test. The first question I ask myself; “is what I just heard/read/seen possible?” And at this point my definition of possible is very very broad, in affect I’m willing to stretch to accept that something is possible. I’m trying to keep an open mind, I’m trying to be unbiased and neutral. With an emphasis on ‘trying’. Therefor I am reluctant to use the word impossible, until I am thoroughly convinced it is.
falseflag1As an extreme example. If you randomly select one person from the world’s population could they run the 100m dash in under 10 seconds? It is possible, but improbable. In fact so improbable, so unlikely, that you could safely answer ‘No’. Now change it to 20 seconds. 30 seconds. The probability changes radically with each 10 second interval. Now let’s take two cases of alleged shooters from Sandy Hook and San Bernardino. Many have claimed that Adam Lanza and Tashfeen Malik were physically incapable (impossible) of carrying out their supposed feats of shooting. I beg to differ. Not impossible. Difficult, hard to move, slow… yes. Improbable? Yes. But realistically possible. If a young malnourished Somali boy can handle an AK-47, I’m confident these two could gear up and handle the weight for the short amount of time they were supposed to have been active. For the record I don’t think either did any shooting. I just disagree with the line of reasoning that it would have been impossible for them to do so. Hence I would not use it when trying to make my case for a false-flag.

So first I judge the possibility, and then I consider the probability. And when we get to probable it then moves to a sliding scale; from highly probable to highly improbable. So once I decide if something is possible, I then decide how probable is it. And as referenced with the 100m dash question above. The probability is so incredibly low of a random person running the 100m dash in under 10 seconds, that you could then safety assume it will not happen from your selection…, and though technically not impossible, for all intents and purposes you could consider it as such.
Of course as just mentioned we can move into such high improbabilities that we then can consider the impossible. The absolute impossible exists. But rarely do we see this, because it can be so quickly dismissed. But what we see time after time after time in false-flag events is a whole bunch of improbable elements, also called ‘coincidences’. And this becomes particularly important as we start to add these different elements together that then create the larger narrative.
As an example. Let us take Flight 77, the Boeing 757-200 that supposedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
It is possible that based on the provided flight path that a 757 was able to execute this acknowledged difficult maneuver and fly into the Pentagon?
– possible, improbable
Is it possible that a pilot who could not even fly a single-engine Cessna, with limited time on a real simulator, and no time in a real large body jet fly this maneuver?
– possible, highly improbable
Taking the last question but adding the fact that numerous professional pilots with 1000’s of hours in 757s have stated that the alleged flying feat of Flight 77 would either be a) extremely difficult or b) impossible, do you think Hani Hanjour performed this maneuver.
Now many stop here but we cannot assume that Hani was flying the plane, a more plausible or probable explanation would be remote control.
Is it possible a remote controlled 757 flew the alleged flight path into the Pentagon?
– possible, neutral
Hmm. Ok, well let’s consider a few more pieces of info. There are numerous pilots who when they claim that it was impossible for the 757 to make this maneuver it is because of the reported height of the plane just before it hit the Pentagon. According to some at this very low height a vortex of air is created between the ground and the plane that will pull the plane into the ground. Another consideration is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon where the alleged plane hit, based on the photographs before the wall collapsed. Then we have the issue of having no video feeds of the plane actually hitting the Pentagon, just some still frames that actually show nothing that can be identified as a plane. As well as we have the question of why did the plane not just crash into the top of the Pentagon, instead of performing a very difficult maneuver, crashing into the side opposite the direction it came, and hitting the only section of the Pentagon that had recently been renovated and hardened to resist missiles strikes?
Pilots stating plane would crash into ground if as low as officially stated, so ultimately this gets back to could a 757 actually fly this maneuver and hit the Pentagon?
– possible (but considering impossible), highly improbable
Does the damage to the exterior of the Pentagon indicate it was hit by a large commercial airliner?
– possible, highly improbable
Is it possible the only video feeds of the plane hitting came from the gate entrance location?
– possible, highly improbable (thus raising a huge red flag. Where are all the video feeds?)
Would the pilot instead of crashing into the huge top part of the Pentagon and hence doing maximum damage choose instead to pull a very difficult maneuver and hit the only hardened section of the Pentagon which is on the opposite side of the planes flight path?
– possible, highly improbable
So when I add all these element together I get case after case of improbable, to highly improbable, to pretty much impossible. And based on this preponderance of improbabilities I am comfortable in proclaiming that no 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Taking any of the above in isolation I would be unable to say impossible. But together they equal only one conclusion: impossible.
Let’s take another classic example. The Warren Commission(WC) claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunmen using a scoped Mannlicher–Carcano Model 91/38 rifle (rifle or Carcano for short), shooting from the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. So then the question to be answered is; could Oswald use this rifle to shoot and kill JFK?
The official narrative is that 3 shots were fired; the first shot hitting JFK passing through him and hitting Governor Connally (the ‘magic bullet’ theory, which according to the WC defied physics and left the slug un-deformed, but that is another discussion). The second shot missed and this is the one that kicked up a cement fragment that struck James Tague standing beneath the underpass along Main St. The third and last shot then is the alleged shot that hit Kennedy in the head and killed him.
As part of the Warren Commissions investigation they gathered three expert shooters to test whether the actual MC rifle purported used in the assassination could could be fired 3 times accurately within the estimated time window. Frankly I still not sure what the official estimated time window is, it’s either around 5.5 seconds or around 8 seconds. Now these shooters were in a tower, though how tall is not listed. But, they were NOT shooting at a moving target. They were shooting at 3 silhouette targets placed at the appropriate estimated distance of the rifle shots.
So basically these three guys were able to pull off the exact same shooting, and would you believe but all three missed the 2nd shot on the first attempt? Hmm… I wonder that the chances of that are? But they also had unlimited time to make the first shot. But if someone was shooting from the 6th floor window they would not have unlimited time for the first shot. Just the opposite, they have to pick up Kennedy coming from under the trees, track and fire. The second issue is how high was the tower they were shooting from? The height changes the angle, the greater the angle the more difficult the shot. But lastly, and the reason why this test is invalid, they were not shooting at a moving target. I can tell you from personal experience, that shooting at a moving target is much much more difficult than hitting a stationary one, and that is at close range being level with the target. One other piece of information, whatever skill level of shooter Oswald was, he was not in the same league as the three experts who shoot numerous rounds regularly.
Much has been made of Oswald’s shooting prowess. That he did not have the skill to make these shots. Oswald was a Marine, and all Marines, regardless of role (cook, truck driver, pilot, riflemen) must qualify Oswald_Timeregularly with a rifle, which Oswald did. Oswald was an intelligent man, which is why he was a radar operator, and not a truck driver. He had enough skill to fire a weapon accurately. However, his experience would be with the semi-auto M1 Garand, and not a manual bolt action rifle. There evidence of him shooting with a .22 bolt action rifle. Did he practice shooting before the event? His wife initially denied him ever practicing with the rifle. The better question is did he or how could he practice shooting at a moving target from an elevated position?
The other bone of contention is that the rifle itself was incapable of being the murder weapon. The Manlicher-Carcano rifle is cited in particular as being a poor weapon. It seems that it was an average weapon at best, with a somewhat tricky bolt, and by that I mean it was difficult to open and drop the bolt back, which pulls the used shell from the barrel. One thing is for certain there were many far better choices as a weapon than the alleged rifle, and easily obtainable in Texas, such as other bolt action WWII era rifles like the German Kar98, the Russian Mosin-Nagant, or the American Springfield M1903.
But the real issue with the rifle is not the weapon itself but the scope. It was reported as loose when the weapon was found (I have read/heard this many times but could not confirm). Also reported during the WC tests that shims were used in order to align the scope properly on the rifle, shims that were not originally there when the rifle was found. If the shims were not present when the rifle was found this would explain the scope being loose. The rifle was not designed for a scope (which explains the need for shims), and hence in order to mount a scope it had to be offset, meaning it does not sit directly on top the barrel but off to the side. This is inherently less accurate, and makes sighting in the scope more difficult. But the most damning evidence about this ‘inexpensive’ 4x telescopic scope as it is identified in the WC report is the following.
Robert Frazier, FBI firearms expert (WC testimony)
Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself–that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
The above is particularly damming. Imo it proves unequivocally that the scope is fundamentally flawed. To the point of more accurately being labeled broken. Also interesting in the WC where the three riflemen are testing the rifle there is no mention of issues with the scope at all. Which would indicate to me one of two possibilities. The scope had been properly mounted and aligned with shims before the test, and/or possibly repaired. Or an entirely different scope was used.
The Testimony in regards to the testing of the MC rifle is given by Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
There is another serious problem. The primary purpose of the WC’s test with the three shooters was to see if the 3 shots could be performed within the time window. But what they do not mention is numerous witnesses who said they heard 3 shots, said that the 3rd shot immediately followed the 2nd. This is impossible with a bolt action rifle of any kind… period.
Would three expert shooters replicating the alleged shooting, in which the 1st and 3rd shots were hits but the 2nd a miss, all miss the 2nd shot on their first attempt?
-possible, highly improbable
Would Oswald, with experience with rifles, mail order a Manlicher-Carcano rifle, when he could easily obtain a better rifle where he lived in Texas?
– possible, improbable
Could Oswald accurately and consistently hit a stationary target, let alone moving one, with the rifle using an un-shimmed flawed scope and therefor misaligned?
– possible, highly improbable
Could anyone accurately and consistently hit a stationary target, let alone moving one, with the rifle using an un-shimmed flawed scope and therefor misaligned?
– possible, improbable
Did Oswald have the basic shooting skills to being able to make the alleged shots?
-possible, slightly probable
Could anyone get off the three shots hitting Kennedy twice, using the alleged rifle with it’s flawed scope?
-possible, improbable.
Could anyone get off the three shots hitting Kennedy twice, using the alleged rifle with it’s flawed scope, where the 3rd shot immediately follows the 2nd shot?
– impossible
Based on the above then I can confidently assert that Oswald did not make the three alleged shots using the Mannlicher–Carcano Model 91/38. And from there I would go to the next level. Did Oswald do the shooting at all? If the alleged rifle is not the murder weapon than what is and where did it go? Was there more than 2 bullet hits as reported by the Warren Commission? Which then leads to the next round of possible-probable questions in the fascinating JFK case.
SideNote: I need to be clear that my above examples are not an exact replication of my thought processes. It is never that orderly or precise. Quite the opposite. First, because rarely does one gather all the information together at one time. Normally you get bits and pieces. So my thinking initially can be quite scattered and non-linear. It’s only after a good deal of reading, research, speculation that I then think through the data in a more disciplined manner. But I use the basic possible-probable test to help decide where to focus. For instance, I view the ‘Magic Bullet’ theory as impossible, actually I move it pass impossible into ridiculous. Therefor I won’t spend my time there. I also try, mind you I said try, to stay open and willing to change if presented with evidence that contradicts a position I hold. I’m not trying to be ‘right’, I’m trying to discover what actually happened. And since we never do, and probably never will, get all the facts or all the testimony, then all our conclusions are made using partial evidence of what really happened. What has become important for me personally is that I can justify to myself why I believe the things I do.
The above two examples have been looking at two pieces of much larger events. Drilling down into the details. It is the piecing together of the details that allows one to view the bigger picture. Attempting then to see the bigger picture, let’s step beyond looking at one false-flag event and look at mass shootings in general. When we do so we find a common theme that happens again, and again, and again. Coincidence? Hmm. Actually there are multiple common themes as mentioned in my original article. But I want to focus on one in particular, and use the Possible-Probable test.
Our last two mass shooting events (Paris Friday 13th, San Bernardino) had this identical occurrence, that of some kind of emergency services drill occurring on the same day, or time and at the same location or close by. Emergency services can include Police, Firemen, EMT, and go from local, state, to national organizations being involved. In particular the specific kind of drills performed can include mass shooting events. In which Law Enforcement practices response actions to such an event, and Fire and manufactured terrorEMT practice how to deal with mass casualties. In order to make these drills more realistic, and hopefully then more effective, they often times employ crisis actors. Who can simulate perpetrators, victims, or injured. Or emergency personnel for that matter.
These drills tend to be rather elaborate affairs, and if they are simulating a mass shooting with mass casualties then they will involve a large number of personnel and their associated vehicles. One other important point. These drills are government sponsored. And they cannot run these drills just anywhere. For instance a Mall is not going to allow a drill like this to occur, as they tend to be all day events. Therefor since these are Government drills the easiest place and least disruptive to the public is to conduct them at government controlled locations. Such as a school that is closed, like during the summer, or closed permanently… such as Sandy Hook. Or like the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, a government funded facility providing services for developmentally disabled persons.
Let’s then consider two items. How many potential soft target locations are there that could be chosen by a perpetrator? This number is huge. Churches, schools (public, private, college), restaurants, retail stores, banks, convenience store, pharmacies, office parks, grocery stores, etc. Many, many, many locations that have a large number of potential victims in a relatively small area.
Now let’s compare that to potential number of locations that could be used for drills. You can rule out many simply because the location is not or cannot allow an all day drill to disrupt their business. So then the potential number of drill locations is but a very small subset of all possible locations.
Lastly, and let’s just stay in the USA for the time period, a mass shooting could happen anywhere and anytime where a large numbers of people congregate. But for any one day in the USA there is only going to be a small number of drills being conducted. So potential targets in the USA would be in the 10’s of millions, and number of emergency services drills in the… hundreds, thousands maybe?
Simple math will show that the probability of a mass shooting taking place at the same location and time period as a drill are ridiculously small. I’ll be super generous and say 10,000 drills are occurring everyday in the USA. So let’s say there are 10 million potential targets. 10,000/10,000,000 = .1% (or 1 chance in 1000). Let’s go crazy generous and say 100,000 drills and 1 million targets, 100,000/1,000,000 = 10%, still a very low percentage.
A 1% chance of the perpetrator(s) picking the same date/time/location as an emergency services drill is being extremely generous, but let’s use it since it keeps it simple.
Is it possible that perpetrators for any one event picked the same date/time/location where drills were currently occurring, occurring at the same time close by, or occurred within 24 hours?
– possible, highly improbable
For events where the drill was actually occurring at the same date/time/location as the shooting, what are the chances that the perpetrators would not notice personnel/activity related to the drill?
– possible, improbable
For events where the drill was actually occurring at the same date/time/location as the shooting, what are the chances that the perpetrators would notice personnel/activity related to the drill and choose to go ahead with their plan regardless?
– possible, highly improbable
One last tidbit of information here, we’ve been focusing on mass shootings and drills practicing for mass shootings. Did you know on the morning of 9/11 there were multiple drills practicing an airplane hijacking? Did you know that during the London 7/7 bombings they were practicing the EXACT same scenario that actually occurred? Did you know there were bomb drills occurring during the Boston Marathon on the day of the bombing? Did you know on the morning of the Paris, Friday 13th attacks that emergency personnel practiced a large scale terrorist attack involving multiple locations?
What are the chances that numerous mass casualty events could be having drills occurring at the same time and of the same type if these events are perpetrated by people completely unconnected with one another?
– impossible
What are the chances that numerous mass casualty events could be having drills occurring at the same time and of the same type if these events are perpetrated by the same or similar groups of people?
– possible, highly probable
You can write off one coincidence, or a couple. But not numerous ones, not one after the other at a single event. And not the same ‘coincidence’ happening at these supposed unrelated events time after time after time.
When researching or doing deep study of potential false-flag events one keeps running into all these ‘coincidences’. To the point, as stated above, that it’s simply impossible to have so many. Which led me to create my ‘coincidence’ theorem.
Coincidence Theorem:
1 coincidence: possible
2 coincidences: suspicious
3 coincidences: a plan
10+ coincidences: False-flag event
100+ coincidences: Massive False-flag event (9/11, JFK)
Using then this theorem in regards to drills at mass casualty events one can but only conclude that this is no ‘coincidence’ but a deliberate plan. That these events are not unrelated. That specific groups are conducting these false-flag events for specific agendas. These groups have national and international reach. They at the least have access, control within the Government(s). They are either creating the drill to create the event, or piggy backing onto an already scheduled legitimate drill. This requires Federal(National) level of involvement.
I want to reiterate that at any event, regardless of how large. It only takes a relatively small number of individuals to control the ‘scene’. The insiders, the secret society members. Most participants are simply knowing-willing participants in a legitimate practice ‘drill’, who then become unknowing-unwilling participants in a drill taken ‘live’. But the ‘controller’ of these events does have to be high up the chain of command, they have to have the requisite authority to control the situation. And usually this person(s) will be at the Federal (National) level of Government. DHS, FBI, FEMA, etc.
In the above examples the focus was on one element within a much larger event (9/11, JFK), or looking at false-flags in general. Going from the specific to the broad, or highly focused vs looking at the big picture. When researching one event both are done. First looking at individual elements within an event and determining possible-probable, and then taking all the elements together to see the big picture. By doing this one is able then to determine for themselves the likely hood of whether any particular event has been staged or is legitimate.
If you have never spent serious time investigating any one false-flag event I would highly encourage you to do so. I would avoid 9/11, JFK at first simply because they are both so huge. Pick one of the smaller events. And do a detail study of it. Make a concerted effort to stay neutral. Investigate all sides. Be open, then be critical. Ask yourself questions as you investigate. Does this make sense? Is this possible? Why would they do this? Who benefits? Question your sources of information, are they bias, or possibly misinformation agents? By making the investment to study one event in detail you can then be certain in your own convictions as to what did and did not happen, and be able to justify your positions. And by becoming an expert in one event, it makes it easier to study others.
I consider myself well versed with the JFK story. With that being said when writing this article I forced myself to back-up some of the often cited ‘evidence’ concerning Oswald’s shooting acumen and the accuracy of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The common themes being Oswald was a terrible shot, and the rifle could not hit the broad side of a barn. So I did some digging, or more digging to be precise. Jumped back into the hole, as it were. Imo, and this is backed up be evidence, Oswald was an intelligent man. Most persons with the time and proclivity can become an accurate, consistent shot with a firearm. It seems to me what I was reading about Oswald and firearms is that he had no particular interest in them. Possibly found it boring, and hence his effort was unfocused or half-assed. I think if Oswald wanted to be a good shot he could have been, it just was not his thing. So I don’t buy into the common sentiment that Oswald was incapable of making the supposed shots. Now how probable, that is a different issue.

As for the rifle. As stated there were much better WWII era rifles than the Carcano, and all readily available. Not to mention a plethora of hunting/deer rifles. An excellent question to investigate is why the Carcano? And there is plenty of information available that gives a good explanation as to why for those who wish to dig deeper. Was it a POS? No, nor was it a tack driver either. Tack driver means when shooting multiple times at a target the grouping of shots is so close as to be on top of each other. It was accurate enough at 100yds to get the job done. (This is a change of opinion for myself).
However, and I was not aware of this until diving deep, and in particular diving into the Warren Commission report, and specifically the Testimony parts. It is here where I discovered and confirmed that the real problem with the alleged assassination weapon was not the rifle itself but the scope. In which it had 2 huge issues. One, it was essentially broken (it was a POS), and two it was not mounted properly when the rifle was found. Either of which would have made the rifle inherently inaccurate, but combined it renders the Carcano it was mounted to incapable of being the assassination weapon. I do not consider myself a JFK expert, but I am knowledgeable, and I can’t remember any serious focus within the JFK community on the real issue concerning the alleged assassination weapon, that of the scope. And that raises a flag for me… but that’s a different discussion.
This leads me to another point. In my experience from studying potential false-flag events it is relatively easy to prove that the official narrative of the event is incorrect, or impossible. However, what is extremely difficult is piecing together what actually happened. This is where one must ‘theorize’. And one must do so with incomplete, missing, or deliberately tainted information. This is also where disinformation agents move in to muddy the waters. The JFK case in particular has some very thick dark muddy waters. Therefor there are two separate elements when studying false-flags events. First one is disproving the official narrative, the second is a theory as to who and what really happened. Because of this reality some people get hung up in the fact that the official narrative seems to be false, but they cannot or will not accept the proposed theory and therefor decide to stick with the official narrative even if they no longer really believe it either. Better the devil you know? Those who want to keep an event concealed deliberately introduce false information, spurious theories, and illogical conclusions. The point is to distract, generate confusion and thus create doubt… and keep the doubters planted in the official narrative camp.
Less than a month after San Bernardino we get Trenton the blacksmith trying to somehow relate his test of a 1/2 steel bar, using a Furnace!, with inches thick steel girders, exposed to office fires. The timing of this video is interesting. I suspect that the quick and for the most part solid debunking of the San Bernardino event led people to ‘rethink’ 9/11. This video was an attempt to bring those new ‘doubters’ back into line. Of course the creator itself is a solid indicator of who the target audience was for the video. Remember, we are in an information war. One other quick item. You do realize how ridiculously easy it is to create ‘Views’ and ‘Likes’ for a video, right? It’s a simple as typing this sentence. Social media, and that includes YouTube (and it’s comments), is now the primary information war battleground.
But the Trenton video is a common tactic of taking one piece, one element trying to disprove it and then applying it to the whole. This is a type of logical fallacy called the Composition Fallacy; ‘What’s true for the individual part of a whole is true for the entire whole form.’ Technically this would be a Reverse Composition Fallacy. So Trenton supposedly debunking the ‘jet fuel fires can’t melt steel beams’ assertion as ‘ridiculous’ is thereby inferring ALL 9/11 theories challenging the official narrative are false. The test he did is full of holes, but furthermore you cannot compare a thin steel rod to inches thick steel girders. Tied together in a lattice work of crossbeams and support beams. The interior framework of the WTC towers was VERY sturdy, extremely strong. It was the main support structure for the tower, it only housed elevator shafts. The jet fuel burned off quickly, it was offices fires after that. And regardless of how hot the office fires got they were BETWEEN the internal steel grid framework and the external walls, which means their heat was not focused on either. And even if office fires could melt or soften steel to a point of collapsing this still does not explain how the towers completely collapsed and disintegrated.
Go do some research on your own. It’s one thing to read a book where a person makes an assertion based on, say, the Warren Commission, even citing the page and section. It’s another thing to read the Warren Commission document yourself. If you are interested in becoming at least knowledgeable on one false-flag but not sure which to chose from I’d suggest first avoiding 9/11 and JFK just because they are so massive. My suggestions; for recent ones dive into San Bernardino or Paris Friday 13th, they are very fresh and certainly could stand some more scrutiny. Charlie Hebdo earlier this year. Then farther back I would suggest the OKC Bombing, Port Arthur, Australia shooting, or what I think is an overlooked one and possibly would fall under the failed attempt category is the WTC bombings in ’93.

No comments:

Post a Comment