Shall We REALLY Have A Good Hard Objective Look at NZ?

The following is not my work, not one word of it.  It is my translation from the original German of a German Original:  Wofgang Eggert.  He has dissected the "Prohibited Video" - three optional links to which will appear for you in this writing - and, based on his forensic research of what other "Hoaxers" - i.e., those with the practiced capacity to expose where the holes in a narrative lie - have discovered and indeed perhaps uncovered, Eggert gives us a thoroughly graspable run-through of 24 - twenty-four! - cogent, concrete problems with the video itself and the narrative it proposes to have the international public, all of New Zealand and its PM, the German and American liberal FakeMedia - and you, friends, believe, accept and embrace as fact, let alone as truth.  I wish I could say that those I most dearly would have look at this might do just that - but they are unfortunately exactly those who not only would not do so but would roundly condemn my "heartlessness".  Whatever.  I now give you everything - everything:

Wolfgang Eggert is a German journalist and historian. He has decided to leave the German madhouse with his traditionalist self-sufficiency village project http://www.siedlergemeinde.org/

 Video Forensics: The "Forbidden" Christchurch Video - 24 Inconsistencies That Occupy "Hoaxers"

(Link to original full article in German:  https://www.contra-magazin.com/2019/03/video-forensik-das-verbotene-christchurch-video-24-unstimmigkeiten-die-hoaxer-fesseln/?fbclid=IwAR0LGgWq5X6jqOrbNA0jyFSLKxSt-ewWHyaYeW4Uwh2CwQVIQwcu55FqUcE&cn-reloaded=1 )

 

The video of the Christchurch assassination seems so manipulated that one must assume a staged representation. Here is an overview of the questions you have to ask yourself.

By Wolfgang Eggert

What we know:

1. The official culprit

Brenton Tarrant. The "unemployed speculation winner" has navigated all over exhilarating crisis regions halfway around the world in recent years, allegedly radicalizing himself to the right. Whether this happened in the holiday paradise of North Korea or in the Balkans, Israel, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan or China's Xinjiang civil war region is not explained. In Pakistan, where the alleged racist and Islam-hater also was, just 5 months before the shootings in Christchurch, he seems to have felt very comfortable, very close to the hotly contested Kashmir region. In a Facebook post he praises the inhabitants and indirectly the government of the Muslim country.

This is the Vita, the official Vita, which until a few weeks ago appeared as "complete". In the meantime we have learned that Tarrant was also a member of a right-wing Order of the Knights Templar, which among other things is concerned with "infiltrating Islamist groups in order to report their terrorist plans to the authorities".

How is it that one finds oneself thinking of secret service work in this vita?

2. Radicalization in full view
Now there are rules with most secret services: the employees are to investigate, and may thereby behave milieu typical. Hitler greetings (not yet given toward by Tarrant) are allowed. Propaganda and the formulation of extremist views are also allowed. On the other hand, carrying out terrorist attacks is not part of the work spectrum. This is exactly where Tarrant now seems to have "landed". He is said to have recently attracted attention on the Internet through wild propaganda - and then to have resorted to arms. Both cases, "purported to have". Because even this last, most recent part of his life can also only be "attributed".

Anyone who takes a closer look at intelligence services will notice that there is a very popular "trick" there, which on the one hand fixes desired political narratives and on the other hand overrides the reconnaisance of the state police and media competition: it consists of threading mutually hostile intelligence agents into dirty events.

The suspicion that "work was done" in this sort of direction exists in various terrorist incidents:

> There is the (Berlin) Christmas Market attack, in which the papers of the alleged agent for the Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz, German "Homeland Security") Anis Amri were found in the driver's cabin; before he could testify about his earlier activities he was shot.

>  There is Daoud Sonboly, who is blamed for the Munich rampage; shortly before that, the man who had voluntarily trained in weapons in Iran - or someone else under his name - got himself live-fire weapons, via the Internet - Sonboly was shot.
>  There are the extreme right-wing (actors) Uwe Böhnhardt and Uwe Mundlos - head of the so-called NSU cell - who went underground with the help of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Homeland Security) and were sent money while underground. When, following a series of murders in the highly remunerated drug/weapon/money laundering milieu and a guilty party was being searched for, both men were found shot and their last act is said to have been the sending of confessional videos.

> There is Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged killer of John F. Kennedy, who'd spent a long time in the CIA environment. He was shot dead. Afterwards a souvenir photo was found, on which the sniper is to be seen, his murder weapon in the proud arm. It's fake.

Each of these men documented his dangerous intentions. Or got it documented. Tarrant fits into this chain. He is said to have been caught. The pictures, which should show him in court, are pixelated.

3. The exercise

If one wants to compare Brenton Tarrant with a terrorist "precedent", then his agreement with Anders Behring Breivik would be the most obvious. In the "Manifest", written under his name, Tarrant refers to the Norwegian who first bombed half of Oslo's government district into ruins and then slaughtered several dozen participants at a youth camp.

Like Breivik, Tarrant visited a radical Templar order. Most of the photos shown by Tarrant - like those by Breivik - show post-processing. And: his "sharp deployment of Christchurch" ran completely parallel to an anti-terror exercise of the police, at the same place, at the same hour - as was the case with Breivik's bloody special deployment.

This interaction is also, as chance would have it, a specialty that negative whisperings attribute to the secret services: To adapt anti-terrorist exercises, to use one's force there, to strike and afterwards to let the responsibility rest on the authorities of the host country for the resulting mess, or at least the after-taste that has arisen from it.

Here is a small selection:

> Norway, 22 July 2011: The terrorist attacks attributed to Breivik were a direct extension of an official terrorist exercise, with almost identical content compared to what happened in reality. In the previous four days and on this fateful Friday, the Norwegian Terror Department trained in dealing with a "mobile" terrorist attack in which "one or more terrorists aimed to kill as many civilians as possible and attack the police on arrival". The exercise was completed at 15:00. At 15:26 the bomb exploded in the government district of the Norwegian capital Oslo.
> The terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015, including the Bataclan nightclub, were coordinated attacks at five different locations in the 10th and 11th districts of Paris and at three locations in the suburbs of Saint-Denis. On this exact day, the emergency medical services, police and fire brigade held an exercise in Paris involving attacks by an "armed group in several locations in the city".

> On September 11, 2001, the American Air Defense was "otherwise engaged. In Canada, the "Global Guardian" exercise trained military response to hijacked civilian aircraft, while in the USA, the "Vigilant Guardian" exercise was a computer-simulated emergency exercise: it also included hijacking civilian aircraft to test readiness if the World Trade Center was hit by hijacked aircraft. Osama bin Laden, who is considered to be the brain of the actual process taking place at the time, was in close contact with the CIA from the end of the 1970s until months before the attacks. (See here, here and here: http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/0/78/07/19/20150908/ob_02bb38_benladen-cia-figaro.jpg
http://www.mai68.org/ag/331.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism

> The bombings on 7 July 2005 against the London public transport system: Ex-Scotland Yard anti-terror agent Peter Power, later director of one of the largest crisis training groups in England, organised an exercise in the hour of the bombings in which the reaction to bomb attacks was to be tested against exactly those underground stations where it actually happened at the same time. The people who were later identified as perpetrators - and who disappeared - all had connections with British intelligence. Whether they were actually at the scene of the crime is questionable, since the only images they show together on the day of the crime (at a subway station) were obviously generated on the computer.

> As already mentioned, a reality-covering anti-terror exercise also took place in Christchurch. On the day of the drama. Topic: armed shooters make the city unsafe (see here: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213551).

It was members of this troop, not normal policemen, who at the end of the alleged amok run, possibly according to the training script, secured "explosives" in several cars, including the vehicle of the mosque shooter.

Commissioner Bush, 3 hours after the attacks (https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2019/mar/15/christchurch-shooting-injuries-reported-as-police-respond-to-critical-incident-live?page=with:block-5c8b2bbee4b016d23425c3c5#liveblog-navigation): "several IEDs attached to cars have been made safe now."..."This speaks to the seriousness of what occurred."

It was also they who are said to have arrested Tarrant. There is a moving image recording (https://www.nzherald.co.nz//nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213956&ref=clavis) which clearly shows the access. As professionally as they went about it - the car was rammed - it looks like part of the current exercise scenario. If you have Tarrant's curriculum vitae in mind, which suggests usage of anti-terror practices, then the headline could read: How special forces correctly pull a colleague out of circulation. Fact is: the New Zealand Herald reports that Australian snipers took part in this or an accompanying exercise and were also seen near the crime scene.

If Tarrant was part of that, it would explain how he'd managed to bring his weapons into the country. But how did he get off the track? Or: Did he do that at all? All this is still barely clarified. The police authorities are holding back information. According to media reports, the access officers from the exercise troop are just starting their annual vacation, of course their names are kept secret. And: The face of the arrested person was made unrecognizable during the demonstration show in the courthouse; which raises the question of whether it IS the Australian shown in the picture by the worldwide media.

The great appearance of the great unknown one - most about him is in fact unknown - is yet to come, he has allegedly renounced defence counsel.

For the time being, only the crime scene film can provide the interested audience with reliable answers. However, it is difficult to get to it. It is being guarded like a state secret.

4. The suppression of the "evidence video"

Tarrant's video, still available to find here: https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=WO4NOH7OD8Y2,

here: https://videos.files.wordpress.com/AHg7RSw6/new-zealander-shoots-up-mosque-march-15th-2019-1_hd.mp4 

and here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/ 

(New Zealand Mosque Shooting Uncensored), was criminalized in New Zealand by the "Chief Censor's Office" as "objectionable" and pulled from net traffic. The 1993 law allows the government to imprison its subjects for up to 10 years for downloading and/or distributing incriminated films. The New Zealand police authorities have even investigated personal data of users (https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/03/new-zealand-police-request-personal-data-from-kiwifarms-users-who-shared-shooter-manifesto-video/80039/) in the present case, who have expressed controversial opinions about the video and the perpetrator manifesto at ´erdreisteten´ . These censorship measures spread to the entire world network within hours and made it impossible for even non-new Zealanders to judge the video.

By the way, such interventions did NOT occur in the much more cruel ISIS videos, which show beheadings, drownings and of burning alive. Also the relevant "Carlie-Hebdo-Videos" are still available on the internet.

Why this time is different, so the hoaxers say, is due to numerous weaknesses of the perpetrator video of Christchurch, some of which are openly revealed. And they have quite a few points of argumentation on their side.

What the video shows:

5. The matter of the navigation device -16.10 (0.43) logic fail

The "shooter", who according to information had prepared himself for this crime for 2 years, uses his car navigation on the way to the Al-Noor-Mosque, but refrains from doing so afterwards on his - more stressful - way to the Linwood-Mosque.

6. The selfie of the "perpetrator" -13.46 (3.09) Tech-Fail

The driver deliberately pans the camera over to himself at one point, which makes it possible to go to "reconize"..."him". It is the only single "image proof", because there are no surveillance camera recordings from the attacked mosques which show him. The mask-like face one sees in the car video may well be that of "Aussie" Brenton Tarrant, who is now treated as the "perpetrator". But the ponim, which seems to be cut out, doesn't fit to the body below, respectively, the stills show it particularly clearly, too far away DAHINTER. It seems, that this also works with moving pictures, that they were simply placed on the ´wahre´ face by photo shopping.

See here: https://s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/images.deccanchronicle.com/dc-Cover-m482e2r1n2tei6lsvek9ovrvb3-20190315141031.Medi.jpeg

here: https://moderndiplomacy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Brenton-Tarrant.jpg

and here: https://fijisun.com.fj/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Brenton-Tarrant-750x403.jpg

7. The blind "eye witnesses" -10.28 (6.25) basic video versus end product

In the video we see in front of the gate to the Al-Noor-Mosque the passing march of the "shooter" at two people standing next to each other. They don't seem to wonder at all about this passer-by - who in our opinion was helmeted, camouflaged and armed - the "shooter" ignores both "eye-witnesses".

8. The endangerer as friend -10.19 (6.36) basic video versus end product

This obvious illogic continues at the entrance gate to the mosque, where the "perpetrator" is greeted by men standing at the door - his first "victims" - when he puts on his weapon (suggested by the film) with the usual words among Muslims, "Hello, brother" .

9. No weapon recoils -10.18 (6.37ff) Tech-Logic-Fail

The "shooting" begins at the mosque gate. However, the jerk-free video does not show any weapon recoils, which suggests that the filmmaker did not carry a weapon at all and use it. Just by way of comparison, see 3.00ff:

("top recordings from Syria /GoPro /ISIS" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItILe1yWvZ8)

10. 52 rounds fired from a 30-round magazine -10.11 (6.44ff) Tech-Logic-Fail

After the initial scenario (9 shots) the "shooter" drops the gun and switches to his second rifle. Below is the sequence of shots. Crawling: 3 shots; side room: 4 shots; forward into the hall: 4 shots; entrance to prayer room (crawling and second body): 9 shots; on group right in the room: approx. 24 shots; on attacking person: 5 shots plus 3 on the ground. That results - with a magazine of 30! - in about 52 shots without a noticeable magazine change.

11. Why does nobody flee? -9.59 (6.57) Logic fail

When the shooter enters the prayer room he does not take the group (which is already cramped in the left corner) under fire at first. At - 9.49 (7.06) he is back in the passage where he reloads - 9.41 (7.14), then he goes back to the prayer room and only now - 9.36 (7.19) he fires at the bodies piled up on the left side. They had the chance to escape through a glass door only two steps away into the garden, but with one exception -9.36 (7.19) nobody did.

12. Space-saving cartridges Tech-Logic-Fail

In the same scene the "shooter" covers the right side of the room with such a wild salvo density that it is completely inexplicable why the walls and windows show no effects of ammunition.

13. Socked barefoot "victim" -8.13 (8.42) shooting with "flaps

A "fatal casualty" -10,06 (6.47) crawling away barefoot at the beginning of the corridor wears blue socks in a later camera setting.

14. Water without rain -7.58 (8.55) turning with "flaps"

During his "amok run", the "shooter" leaves the mosque and enters the street. His camera shows a large water track on the entrance to the mosque, which according to the video timecode two and a half minutes before -10.27 (6.27) was considerably smaller or narrower. In the short time interval - a cone blocking the exit underlines this - no cars can have been driven out. This indicates an extended stage setting, camouflaged by a concealed camera cut.

15. Senseless blasting & cool cars -7.58 (8.57ff) basic video versus end product
If this scenic route "sidewalk/street/side entrance" had been "pre-drawn" like the overall sequence by a previous camera-only drive, then it had to be an "act" (i.e. shots) during a recording of a "deed" (although swept empty and therefore defying any logic). Which also happens here. Strikingly enough, the car traffic on the road continues its normal course!

16. Cartridges dissolving in air -7.58 (8.57ff) Tech-Logic-Fail

The phenomenon of "phantom cartridges" already mentioned under 12 is confirmed particularly clearly when the shooter "opens fire" on the street in front of the mosque. Here you can see the ejection of the cartridge casings - but they dissolve in the air, something we can agree is impossible! The few cartridges that seem to reach the ground without the typical clanking noise disappear there within fractions of a second as if by magic. https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=W9956S2AYY9H

17. No consequences for cars -7.04 (9.52ff) base video vs. end product

While the "shooter" on the street passes the entrance area of the mosque, we suspect from the right angle that a silver van parked in front of the gate is in motion in the courtyard. https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=BGORUSUB2H4N However, the "assassin" ignores the car and prefers to shoot into the empty side entrance. When he goes back to the mosque via this alleyway, the van is already gone. There is only one (!) scene in which "shots" are aimed at a car: This is the windshield shooting at 12.50. Where the shooter, despite 3 attempts, doesn't even make any hit(s).

18. Music contradicts Livestream -6.55 (10.01ff) postproduction

Here particularly clearly... In the video, music can be heard almost continuously, regardless of whether the "perpetrator" is in the car, outdoors or in the mosque. This could only be explained if he had a portable jukebox with him. If that was the case, then the question still arises why the music disappears in the temporal in- and after-field of the shots. In principle, this can only be explained by a post-production. An additional hint in this direction can be found in the "attained" mood building after the head shots on one "escaping" -4.45 (12.13ff) where the background music changes very appropriately to the song "I am the God of Hellfire".

19. The murmuring and the falling down Tech-Fail

The background acoustics attributed to those under attack also stand out: During the entire massacre, one only catches a continuous murmuring inside the mosque. Individual cries of pain, shouts, requests, warnings, cannot be heard at any point. Likewise irritating to the observor seeking clarity are the body reactions of "victims": Nearly all persons are already lying motionless on the ground with the first visual contact, without the viewer being able to follow the effects of anyone having being hit or suffering in the sequential process, it partly -9.59 (6.56) leaves one questioning the relationship of any shots fired and their presumed consequences.

20. Dummies and photo shop? -6.00 (10.55) Basic video versus end product

It is also remarkable that far too little blood can be seen during the "massacre". This applies 100 percent to the first run; which - in the case of a virtual manipulation of the film - would explain why the "perpetrator" had to leave the mosque and "return" to be able to document at least "confirmable" blood at the entrance and at two or three places in the prayer room. The hoax community therefore suspects that the victims were not "real". In a concrete scene analysis https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=XSY1S9AM6W8X from this environment, an arm movement by a "victim" suggests that the bodies shown were not lying together there during the filming, but that they were extracted from other in image and film footage by a mouse-click and then combined on the computer. The discussed arm movement is less compelling than the leg posture in the same part of the picture; the jeans carrier seems to be hovering (a short spotlighting underneath underlines it). Unnatural positions can also be found on other victims, for example the "fatally shot" at the entrance to the main room 7.20/8.13 whose legs are angled at the air side - which is more reminiscent of a dummy than of a human being.

21. The shoes taken off -5.08 (11.47ff) logic fail

When finally leaving the mosque, the "shooter" stops at the entrance to the house of worship to zero in on two "escaping", who manage to get out through a side door of the site. It is actually a matter of impossibility to hit them because of the distance, the movement and the very narrow angle of fire. Yet he seems to make it with two shots. The camera movement toward the victim shows that the little door is closed (again?), and one meter apart from the woman, for whatever reason, are her shoes. When the perpetrator of the still living woman hits her head, her half-long hair flies to the side as if under the effect of a strong hairdryer, while the hand of the fatally struck reaches for her head. Meanwhile the traffic moves calmly and normally. The second person, who manages to flee, has still not been presented by the media.

22. The missing jerk -4.29 (12.26ff) basic video versus end product

When the "perpetrator" with his car departs from the "crime scene" he "drives over"  this very same woman. The "bump" FROM inside the car is so small that one is compelled to wonder whether this driving over her corpse had taken place at all.

23. Silence on the day of chaos -4.27 (12.28ff) basic video versus end product

During the "escape", or "drive to Linwood Mosque", although the police were alerted two minutes after the first shots and 20 ambulances were on their way, only one siren was heard.

24 The indestructible windshield -3.58 (12.50ff) Tech-Logic-Fail

Shortly before the end of the video  the "shooter" is seen to "fire" three times from inside the car through the windshield - there is no visible destructive effect. Also the perpetrator access recording shows no mentionable damage here. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/111328483/video-captures-moment-police-arrested-shooting-suspected

The lack of acoustic effect is also puzzling: In reality, the bang of a shot - potentiated in a closed and even more so in such a small room - is enormous with real ammunition. The shooter would then be "deafened" and the microphone would have had to override here. This means that the recording device would not have been able to process more sounds in the same track - which is not the case here.

Conclusion:
The fact is, that those who point out that the event is not "real" have several points for their argument.

>  52 shots from a 30s magazine
>  self-dissolving cartridges
>  missing effects of ammunition on walls and windows
>  socked barefooted victim

All of these are real killer-arguments against the credibility of the film sequences and thus against the official narrative.

On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the confessional video was "produced" and edited precisely, before the act, in two editings: In the first one, where the amok route was recorded in pure camera movement and in a second one, in which one "inserted" afterwards the stirring action scenes. Partly with bluebox/greenscreen effects, with photo shopping and picture indentations, possibly even puppets and - typical for exercises - so-called Crises Actors were used.

The question is: Who was in charge of the political direction? The mosque operators and the New Zealander government, together with the subordinate police investigators, would be suspicious here, because they could hold out the - supposedly fictitious - narrative shown. But why they should have shot such a dubious evidence film remains a mystery. It may be a pure exercise film, conceived for internal use, on this day. However, the film may also have pursued further external intentions from the New Zealand side.

Here as there, the realm of suspicion deserves its due consideration, that the product was diverted or saddled by a third party in order to produce its own film from it - in the truest sense of the word. And thus put the New Zealand government under pressure. We will probably never know the full truth.

 

>BONUS:  "FALSE FLAG FATIGUE: CHRISTCHURCH"<
https://nationandstate.com/2019/03/21/false-flag-fatigue-christchurch/

(NOTE to the "heroic arresting officers" at Christchurch:  In the local mainstream article cited in one of the links above, the "hero of Christchurch on whom the article placed breathlessly written focus, was repeatedy described as "very humble" and very self-effacing, repeatedly quoted as "just doing his job", repeatedly everything and then ever so vaguely identified if at all - then quite all of a sudden and without further ado sent off on vacation to some unknown or undisclosed location!  In a FakeNews heartbeat!  Remarkable?  No more remarkable than much else kept from the public.  But remarkable.  The PM rushed to not only don her head covering as if she were touring Pakistan, she then had the gall to call on all New Zealanders - including men!?? - - and including female police officers(!), to do likewise, i.e., don hijabs to "show their solidarity" with an Al-Qa'ida and IS recruiting center such as is the case with either or both of these two mosques.  Remarkable?  Still more remarkable are the New Zealanders following suit.  They don't get it, and they don't want to get it.  What they will get is Islamisation, and I expressly hope they enjoy it.  Because they will have to swallow it whole, just as they're swallowing this narrative - hook, line and sinker.)

CAN YOU SAY, #ISIS ?? It only takes one index finger raised...!

 

 Done for.