Saturday, March 23, 2019

Another Shooting Hoax?

In our time of movies, TV and video games saturated with over-the-top violence, why would the New Zealand government take such extreme measures to prevent its citizens from seeing the video?
The answer perhaps is that if the people of New Zealand actually saw the video, they would realize the mosque shootings were a gigantic false-flag hoax perpetrated on them in order to advance gun control. (The video can still be viewed on BitChute, the file-sharing video hosting service, and also here.)

How we know New Zealand mosque shooting video is a CGI fake

Rate this post
On March 14, 2019, New Zealand sustained its deadliest mass shootings in modern history when a lone gunman, 28-year-old Brenton Tarrant, killed 50 people and injured another 50 at Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand. The media immediately identified Tarrant as that most
noxious of all monsters — “an alt-right affiliated white supremacist”. (Wikipedia)
The gunman recorded and streamed on Facebook Live a video of the first attack at Al Noor Mosque, with 4,000 overall views before it was taken down. The video is banned by the New Zealand government because it is deemed “objectionable” — whatever that means. Anyone who possesses or shares the video is threatened with 10-14 years in prison; corporations (such as web hosts) face an additional $200,000 ($137,000 US) fine under the same law.
Even without being asked by the New Zealand government, mainstream U.S.-owned platforms such as FacebookYouTubeTwitter and Scribd eagerly complied with the ban by scrubbing the video and the shooter’s manifesto. YouTube went so far as to intentionally disable search filters so that people cannot find the video or other Christchurch shooting materials.
Websites such as Dissenter, Zero Hedge4chan8chan, and video hosting platform LiveLeak, among others, which hosted footage of the attacks or simply allowed people to engage in uncensored discussion of the shootings, have been partially or completely blocked in both New Zealand and Australia for the sake of “protecting consumers,” according to New Zealand Telecom, the privately-owned telecommunications provider.
In an open letter to FacebookTwitter and GoogleNew Zealand telecom CEOssaid the suppression hasn’t gone far enough, and urged that U.S. social media follow European proposals for hyper-vigilant policing of content for the sake of “protecting consumers”. The letter reads (Zero Hedge):
“You may be aware that on the afternoon of Friday 15 March, three of New Zealand’s largest broadband providers, Vodafone NZ, Spark and 2degrees, took the unprecedented step to jointly identify and suspend access to web sites that were hosting video footage taken by the gunman related to the horrific terrorism incident in Christchurch.
As key industry players, we believed this extraordinary step was the right thing to do in such extreme and tragic circumstances. Other New Zealand broadband providers have also taken steps to restrict availability of this content….
We also accept it is impossible as internet service providers to prevent completely access to this material. But hopefully we have made it more difficult for this content to be viewed and shared – reducing the risk our customers may inadvertently be exposed to it and limiting the publicity the gunman was clearly seeking.”
In our time of movies, TV and video games saturated with over-the-top violence, why would the New Zealand government take such extreme measures to prevent its citizens from seeing the video?
The answer perhaps is that if the people of New Zealand actually saw the video, they would realize the mosque shootings were a gigantic false-flag hoax perpetrated on them in order to advance gun control. (The video can still be viewed on BitChute, the file-sharing video hosting service, and also here.)
This post offers four reasons why we can confidently say the mosque shooting video is a CGI (computer generated imagery) fake, using the chroma key compositing (or “green screen”) technique:


In an audio interview and on James Fetzer’s blog, Dr. Scott Bennett, former U.S. Army psychological operations officer and State Department counterterrorism contractor, points out that in a real shooting with real bullets, especially when civilians are shot, they would be in a state of hysterical, emotional shock. Panic-stricken, their bodies flooded with adrenalin, they would violently flail, run or crawl away. They do not simply fold up and fall to the ground like sacks of potatoes. 
In the mosque shooter’s live-streamed video, however, the victims immediately fall to the floor like sacks of potatoes, face down (since faces are more of a CGI challenge). Once fallen to the floor, the victims stay still, with nary a moan nor twitch.
It stretches our credulity to think that the mosque shooter is such an expert marksman that every shot he fired was a kill shot. The fact is that in real life, bullets can bounce, ricochet, and miss the target.
Writing in “What really happens when you get shot,” Wired, Dec. 8, 2015, Connor Narciso, a former Army Green Beret who served in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, with 3rd Special Forces Group, explains:
As a combat medic in Afghanistan, I treated a variety of gunshot wounds. And as the husband of an emergency room provider at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, gun violence has remained—at least peripherally—a significant part of my life….
[E]ven multiple gunshots to the torso won’t guarantee death, or even incapacitation. Arun Nair is an attending physician in the ER at Johns Hopkins, and an International Health Fellow. “Bullets are magic,” Nair tells his students. He recounts the story of a young man in Lebanon who survived after being shot six times.1 He took repeated shots to the chest and throat. One of the six bullets stopped inside his pericardium, the narrow space between the heart and its thin protective membrane. Another bullet ended up in the victim’s esophagus; he swallowed it. Amazingly, the patient was alert and speaking lucidly to the doctors. You can’t assume anything, says Nair.


At the 8:56 mark in the video, the gunman is outside the mosque’s front gate and begins shooting down the street. At the 9:06 mark, the gunman turns around and shoots down the street in the other direction.
Curiously, the video shows shell casings being ejected from the semi-automatic, but the casings then disappear into thin air. No shell casings are on the ground because this footage was actually taken not on the street but before a “green screen”, which explains why we see shell casings being ejected but no casing actually falls to the ground.


After shooting up and down the street, ejecting shell casings that vanish into thin air, the gunman returns to his car and exchanges rifles, tossing the one he had used to the ground next to his car, which later also vanishes. He then inexplicably returns to the “crime scene” to shoot again and again at the crumpled bodies in the mosque. Strangely, the “bullets” leave no marks on the victims’ clothes or bodies. Upon impact, we see only a puff of air on the victim’s clothes, which suggests the gun was a toy gun that blasts air instead of solid projectiles.
Yesterday, in an email to James Fetzer, Gordon Duff, senior editor of Veterans Today who is, like Fetzer, a U.S. Marines veteran, wrote:
“I generally recognize any part or accessory available worldwide for this type of weapon the common sellers, palmetto state armory, delta team tactical, classic firearms…and nobody has part for real guns that look like the things in the video. mike and i have built thousands of custom AR weapons in every size and caliber this stuff is crap…..and quite possibly toys….What we have in NZ appears to be (real or fake) video of fake guns.”
Indeed, in a comment, Kevin J. Lankford, a reader of FOTM, observed that the shooter’s guns “looked like nothing I could identify,” and that the reason why the guns are painted with white symbols all over is precisely “to disguise the fact they are fake.”


After the gunman finally leaves the mosque, he gets back into his car. While driving away, he shoots at the car’s windshield three times. Strangely, the bullets leave no marks on the windshield — no bullet holes, no smashed glass — as you can see in the GIF below and the pic of his arrest by police.
To conclude, the shooter’s livestream video was made with a live man shooting guns, at least one of which is a toy air gun, against a “green screen”. The “green screen” is then filled in with CGI images of the mosque and victims being shot; of the street outside the mosque where the gunman fired shots, ejecting shell casings that vanished into thin air; and of his car, wherein the gunman shot at the car’s windshield, leaving no bullet holes or shattered glass.
All in all, the video was poorly and sloppily made. Wellington should have hired Sir Peter Jackson’s Weta Workshop to do the job.

Go here to watch a video demonstrating the fakery of the mosque shooter’s livestream video by juxtaposing it with footage from a video game. Also, this is where I "borrowed" this story from. 19th Ward Chicago


  1. There is something wrong with you.

    This is no hoax. People that perpetuate these kind of lies do nothing to encourage actual dialogue.

    While nothing can justify NZ's political reaction to these events, wild conspiracy theories will simply make it easier to drive wedges between otherwise reasonable people.

    1. Evidence says hoax. Feels and politics says real. Control no matter the reality.

    2. So, do you care to explain the scene where the gunman fires a SHOTGUN at the inside of his car's windshield at point blank range and there is no damage to the glass? Please explain that away. I'm waiting.

      What's that? He inadvertently loaded that firearm with blanks? OK, that's possible. I must have several hundred rounds of 12 gauge 00 Buck blanks stored, so could have made the same error. /s

      Mine is a jaundiced eye? I don't think so because I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. Nor do I ignore obvious facts. Mine is a curious mind and one not easily swayed by illusions. More likely YOU need to look more closely at the available evidence.

    3. Obviously, you missed the question mark Anonymous. There are a lot of unanswered questions in regards to this shooting. I’m a live and let live kind of guy,and I understand false flag ops but when one gets down to the “nutcutting”, I don’t know any reasonable Muslims. I don’t suppose you gave much sympathy for the 200+ Christians slaughtered by Muslims in the past 4 days in Nigeria.

    4. Idiocracy.
      We've been through this before.
      Anybody that wasn't comotose during the Obama years knows this is fake.
      It is SOOOOOoooo friggin obvious!
      I laughed when I saw the shots thru the windshield.
      And -- apparently, Mooslums don't scream or protect their young.
      Sooooooo lame.
      Go to and read Scott Adams' on the censorship of

    5. "This is no hoax." Did you watch the video and listen to the reasoning? I noticed the lack of shell casings on the ground and was trying to figure out if he had removed the windshield because he did shoot through it and nothing happened. There was no bullet wounds on the body nor any blood. In that one close head shot, his head should have exploded from the impact. This video is a fake. No wonder they NZ government is afraid too many people will see it.

    6. Those who say this was a hoax are effing retards.

  2. False Flags are nothing new and one world parasites with stop at NOTHING to disarm us.

  3. I used to analyze all of the mass shootings but no longer have an interest. These events serve to disarm the people with a tear jerk reaction from the public. Half of the shootings are real and the other half are fake.

  4. Anonymous, There is something wrong with people who automatically believe everything that the powers that be spew out, especially when it fits their agenda. This might be a false flag, it might have been real. The question does bear asking, though, why would they try so damn hard to keep people from even seeing the video of this shooting?
    And after just one mass murder, NZ immediately bans all semi automatic weapons, and then claims that people are turning them in even before they had made the announcement. I don't have any close sources down there, just a woman I went to high school with. But from what I hear, the huge rush to turn the guns in, is actually but a trickle, of a few dozen.
    Once a person tastes freedom, they won't give it up quite so easily, without some incentive. The threat of jail is often not enough, when the alternative is death.
    Do you remember the shooting in Las Vegas? And how the shooter was supposed to have all of those bump stocks? Don't you find it strange that it was never released if he used them or not? When pressed for that information, the FBI simply remained silent. Why might that be?
    You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to look into some of the evidence that those who are have assembled. The evidence that Sandy Hook was a false flag is overwhelming. But of course, no one would dare to say such a thing. But if one had an open mind, and looked into the available data for why some people claim that it is a false flag, even if you don't believe it, you might understand that those who do think that way are not crazy, but merely distrustful of the government.

    1. +1. Pigpen, right there is the reason I blog and enjoy the comments from those that come here. Thanks.

    2. Well said Sir. "Christ`s Church?" Give Me a break

    3. I also did not see any empty shell casings on the pavement when he was shooting outside. I saw plenty on the floor when he was shooting inside. I saw quite a lot of blood from the man shot in the mosque entry way with the shotgun. He shoots his shotgun inside the car three times, twice through the front window and once through the side window - the side window shattered visibly. Since the windshield is safety glass, it should not shatter. Now, it looked to me as though the shots fired through the front window were quite close to the bottom of the window - if you continue to watch the video as he drives away, you will see that there is a wide, light colored area at the bottom of the wind shield with cracks running away from it - this is only visible when the light hits it correctly.

      I can't comment on why people fell to the ground and didn't move after being shot. Some of them may have been playing possum - which was probably why he continued to shoot at the people laying on the floor.

  5. There also seems to be a lack of blood (no blood!) sprayed all over walls and people. High velocity rounds would tear people apart.

  6. I didn't see a single bullet hole in any of the walls inside the mosque , either .

  7. Anonymous is a troll. Betcha. No person could be THAT stupid

  8. Linked this post on Crusader Rabbit.

  9. It does raise some interesting issues with the NZ shooter's video. The anon commenter is a troll or a bot and isn't worth anyone's time responding.

    As to the Vegas shooter's guns, I found that the way those guns were set up was desperately silly. It makes no sense to have a bipod and a scope on a gun with a bumpstock. It screams " I want to make my guns look as scary as possible, with no regard for functionality." So the guns ARE the message, the killing is just to get your attention. I also think that because the police are unable to tell us the Vegas killer's motive, that they are either pressured not to look, or they didn't like the answers they found.

    1. Las Vegas also appeared to use disappearing cartridge casings, since after all that shooting only a few scattered casings were seen on the floor in the few released photos. Where was the mountain of fired brass that should've been there? {crickets}

      Maybe the patsy, oh sorry I meant the "shooter," ate them all before shooting himself; that makes as much sense as the rest of the official narrative!

    2. Maybe all the guy needs to do is to declare that he's just a patsy. The evidence be damned. It worked for Oswald, right?

  10. So if it's such an obvious demonstrable hoax then the NZ PM and police accomplices should be facing arrest and criminal charges. Has anyone actually seen the alleged victim bodies? Can one demand under FOI or similar to inspect them? If this was proven to be a false flag, imagine the consequences...

  11. Hi Irish,
    So, now we know.... the answers!! ...Only to pose more "Question's!!!" I figured as much that this was weird!! A supposed lone gunman eradicates a rack of rag heads and wounds a bunch more?? Then the "Head Cheese" of the country don's a raghead "head scarf" and goes into this extreme diatribe that they are now going to "BAN ASSAULT WEAPON's!!!!!" I mean, like the dead bodies haven't even quit twitchin' or gotten to room temperature yet!!.... and immediately the culprit is identified and the rein in has started!! "The "AR!!" You Know that means "ASSAULT RIFLE!!!!" not "ARMLITE RIFLE!!!" Just think what if the perp had used a "Carpenter's Hammer" and just bashed the fifty in the head with a quick simple blow to the head!!!!! Would she go nutz over Hammer's and have all Carpenter's turn in their "HAMMER'S?????"
    As the late Frank Gallop would say in a situation like this in his throaty, baritone voice,"REALLY!!!!!!"

  12. Automotive windzhields are built out of laminate of glass and polymer film. The glass used is treated so that it is tough, but it doesn't shatter in the same manner as tempered window glass. It is also a structural component of the vehicle. This is another reason for designing it so that localized damage does not cause the failure of the entire sheet - relatively minor damage would result in the frame around the occupant cabin being significantly compromised and a losing frame stiffness and strength that would impact both the performance and safety of the vehicle.

    The shotgun puts holes in the glass, but the ability of the windshield to keep damage limited locals areas prevents total failure. Also, the shotgun is firing with the curvature of the glass, not against it. Th is means that the glass is being stressed and broken in tension, not compression. The glass is breaking, but it is breaking in relatively clean holes or plugs. Impacts from outside cause compression fractures with the typical hole and web pattern.

    Drywall doesn't show bullet holes for much the same reason. The drywall is laregly granular, so it won't create radial cracks around the hole. The drywall is broken stressed in compression on the entry side and tension on the exit side. The bullet causes much more visible damage on the exit side, with a large conical portion being broken out because that side ia failing on tension. The entry side will only show small, caliber sized holes.

    Movies and TV show large cratering at the surface in drywall because they use pyrotechnics to blow the material out from the other side for visual effect. Glass windshield blow out because they are replaced by tempered glass sheets rhat shatter in a visibly impressive way.

    1. Sorry, but shotgun blasts blow hell out of any windshield at point-blank range; I've shot some and I know. Even 9mm handguns make very visible bulletholes, with cracks spreading away, and they can also blow out the windshield on occasion.

      Here's a cop shooting through his windshield, it's perfectly noticeable (1'20" video):

  13. There's no need for false flags. There's 7.5 billion people. Enough of them are crazy enough that they make bad things happen with enough regularity that it scares the sheeple into letting their politicians reduce rights and increase power.

    Claiming false flag conspiracy theories just makes the sheepke think the shooting community is packed with the same sort of crazies.

    Windahields don't explode from being shot through. Drywall doesn't crater opposite the application of force. People don't explode into fountains of bliod when shot. Digital vuseo cameras have a frame rate, so the video is comprised of a limited number of still frames, making casings look like they disappear into thin air. Cameras also have limited resolution, so somethings can be hard to capture in an image. Digital compression and aliasing makes that image even less clear.

    So, the video raises "questions" which have now been addressed, at least in brief. This whole conspiracy theory business is ridiculous.

    1. If you look at the "arrest" photo, there is no damage to the windshield. Try again.

    2. People are stupid. They think that what they see in the movies and on TV is real. Oliver Stone's JFK. Ever watch that? "Back and to the left". "Back and to the left". The effing retards think that bullets really do knock people back like that when striking.

  14. A windshield shot from either outside or inside of the vehicle with a 12 ga. shotgun at that range with birdshot, buckshot, or slug regardless of choke will blow the shit out of the windshield and the damage will be very visible. My son has attended defensive shooting classes where participants shoot at targets outside the vehicle from a seated position inside the vehicle. I have seen the videos and I can state that a 9mm round causes significant damage to a windshield. I am not talking about the overall integrity of the vehicle as Anon outlined, etc. I mean holes with shattering glass. A standard 9mm round is a 115 grain projectile or a little over 1/4 oz. The muzzle velocity is app. 1,250 fps. Any type of windshield, laminate, etc. found in the typical modern automobile is not going to resist at least four times the weight of a 9mm bullet (slug, buckshot, or birdshot) traveling at a muzzle velocity of app. 1,800 fps. from less than a foot and half distance. The damage would be very noticeable.

  15. Was his ammo FMJ or hollowpoint? If it was FMJ then it's not surprising that it punched tiny holes that were not easily discernible. Also brass can get flung a long way and it's not surprising that it was landing out of frame.

  16. The LIVE 4 video loop:

    At the beginning, lower left, notice the right hand/arm of the man moving around from waist to stomach? It's like he's pretending to play dead. Where did the bullet enter? The first shot appears to be aimed right at his chest. No wound, no blood.

    Also note man lying on his back in blue jeans and black shirt: ankles crossed, hands folded over chest. What shot/dead person "falls" in that position?

    Also note "shooting" of person braced against the wall wearing white prayer cap at beginning of clip. See the "shot" where his cap flies off? That's supposed to be a direct head-shot And not a speck of blood splatter on the wall behind him?

    RE: drywall, blood and splatter - there's 15-20 people in that pile. Not a splatter of blood anywhere? Anonymous commenter apparently unfamiliar with the science of blood splatter.

  17. The entire point of this thing is not that these things are all false flags, but that it is no crime to question whether or not something really happened. For instance, there is much evidence to show that the sandy hook school was not open at the time of the attack, and had been closed for some time, due to asbestos abatement. After the shootings no one was allowed into the buildings, not even paramedics to attempt to save any students or teachers lives. Then after the clean up of the crime scene, only a limited team was allowed to be involved, with no pictures or video. Then the building was razed, and 40 million dollars was allocated for a brand new school building. How convenient, a building that was in need of extensive repair, a president in need of another mass shooting for political fodder, and the chance to put the two together, and the school gets a new building, and the president gets another shot at gun control. And anyone who asks questions is labeled a nutjob. But don't look at the pictures of the day before when the students were bussed over to the old school building, and had a drill, being marched as if they were running from an active shooter event. And don't look at the bank records that show that the account for donations for the families of the dead was opened 2 days before the actual shooting.
    I am not saying that all of this is proof of anything. What I am saying is that sometimes there are things involved with thing that seem to be too much of a coincidence.

  18. Very interesting reply's. Thanks for a most intelligent discussion.

  19. This was not a false flag. James Fetzer is a total screwball. A 9/11 truther who has also pushed the claim that Sandy Hook was a false flag. I think he's being sued for the latter. Even his fellow conspiratards don't like him. I think that he also believes that the moon landings were a hoax.

    1. The moon landings were a hoax. Nasahired Stanley Kubrick to film them. He was such a perfectionist, he insisted on shooting on-site, so Apollo 11 went to the moon.


    2. Kubrick was good but I never realized just how good. How did he manage to get all of the film crew up there?


  20. Here I was enjoying the idea of Moslems getting a taste of their own medicine and you had to go ruin it for me by casting doubt on the whole thing.

    1. I know that you are just kidding, because even they must be considered innocent victims. I always believe that these shootings are real, but if they bear investigating as false flags, so be it. I seldom dig into them anymore, because frankly, I am trying to take care of my own house. I have a few false flag events that I do believe, and I also have some events that were perpetrated by the powers that be, to achieve a desired result. But I have decided that the government is just to big to fight. It is fun to watch when the people are called crazies for bring up the false flags, when you have also examined the evidence, and know damn well that something was amiss. Alex Jones is a nutjob. Maybe. Or not.


Leave us a comment if you like...