Faking the Boston bombing: How it was done

by Jim Fetzer

Everything about the Boston bombing was staged using crisis actors, fake blood and phony injuries


Nathan Folks, a Hollywood producer and director, nailed what was going on during an interview with “Voice of Russia”, during which he identified one of the key players in the event as an actor he had cast in one of his own films and explained that what was taking place is known as “hyper-realistic filming” in which scenes are created to be as realistic as possible for the benefit of inexperienced troops, for example, to acquire a sense of what they may encounter in combat.
Here I want to lay out the proof that Nathan has it right by presenting overwhelming evidence that the Boston bombing was staged, in the first place, and that it was done using hyper-realistic filming, in the second.

Caravan to Midnight’s expose

John B. Wells, the host of “Caravan to Midnight”, featured two students of the Boston bombing, PeeKay (who is a video blogger from Australia) and David Weiss (who has also done extensive work on Sandy Hook). They spent nearly two-and-a-half hours demonstrating that what happened there was completely staged and that no one died or was even injured.
Although CTM is normally “by subscription”, about 2/3 of the way through the show, John B. Wells declared that this was so important he was going to make it public by publishing it as a YouTube video. And that was a most appropriate decision for him to have made, as you will see from watching the following presentation:

About Hyper-Realistic filming

While Nathan has explained the idea behind “hyper-realistic filming”, here is a video that makes it completely vivid by illustrating how it is done. Indeed, this is an example of exactly what he was talking about in presenting scenes that are as realistic as possible so that inexperienced troops will have a sense of what they might encounter in combat.
But it can be extended to other setting, especially through the use of crisis actors, such as we have discovered was the case during the faking of the Boston bombing. We have to appreciate the importance of this technique, which can be used for good (to train troops) or for evil (to deceive the American public) for political purposes:

Training & Simulation Journal article

An article that appeared in Training & Simulation Journal (17 June 2011), moreover, elaborates on a kind of fake skin called a “Cut Suit”, a prosthetic human body worn by a person like a skin-tight gown, which includes fake skin and organs and a reservoir of fake blood.
Weighing in at 30 pounds, soldiers can make cuts into the suit or treat cuts that are already there as a form of “casualty treatment”, such as they might be expected to have to perform in combat. Because the injuries appear so realistic, these suits are especially valuable in setting where deception has a high premium. We know about fake legs and other prosthetics, but this innovation goes far beyond them:
Journal title
Special suits for fakery

Nobody died at the Boston bombing

Here is a short-take discussing one aspect of PeeKay’s research, including a fake dummy that was used during the exercise. For those who have less than two-and-a-half hours for the “Caravan to Midnight” elaborate exposition, this video focuses on the use of a child-dummy, which appears to be hanging onto its mother, but the entire scene is fraudulent, where the child dummy is even passed around to create the impression of more parents and children in distress.
As it observes, the whole thing was fake–and there really is no room for doubt about it. We live in a world of illusion, where, as Karl Rove once observed, while you are studying our latest “created reality”, we are producing yet another:

Even the trial itself is fakery

And for anyone who entertains any lingering faith in our judicial system, here is further proof that the trial itself appears to be a staged event, where the judge, the prosecutors and the defense attorneys are collaborating in an elaborate fraud on the public and the jurors. The evidence that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan had nothing to do with the bombing is extensive, compelling and easily accessible.
I and others even called and wrote to Judy Clarke to offer Nathan and myself as expert witnesses on behalf of the defense. But their set pieces were in place, they were already committed to their roles and were not inclined to deviate from the script. So they simply did not bother to call back:

And the Oscar goes to:

Judy Clarke
From the Rules of Professional Conduct for the Practice of Law in California, it is obvious on its face that she has violated several of its conditions. Those include two clauses of Rule 5-200, Trial Conduct, which specifies “a member (A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth” and “(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law”, which she grossly violated by falsely asserting to the Judge and jury, “He did it!” 
Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct
Judith Clare Clarke

Judy Clare Clarke

She has also violated Rule 5-220, Suppression of Evidence, which stipulates, “A member shall not suppress any evidence that the member of the member’s client has a legal obligation to reveal or to produce”.  That would include video of the police with bullhorns, the tweets from the Boston Globe announcing that a “controlled explosion” will be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities, and other evidence presented here and elsewhere. There was not even probable cause to warrant an indictment, much less proof to justify a conviction.

Please follow and like us:

21 thoughts on “Faking the Boston bombing: How it was done”

  1. For God's sake, you can SEE the bombing "victims" squirting the wrong hue of fake blood from containers in their hands onto themselves whilst looking about side to side to see if they're being observed, and at least one amputee was ALREADY an amputee for years.

  2. For God's sake, you can SEE the bombing "victims" squirting the wrong hue of fake blood from containers in their hands onto themselves whilst looking about side to side to see if they're being observed, and at least one amputee was ALREADY an amputee for years.

  3. What about all the children who "died" at Sandy Hook (who didn't die)? They were either fake (as in the case of the "bombing" victims or perhaps a real officer was sacrificed in his cruiser (which I doubt sincerely, given the scene with random luggage strewn outside the car for some ridiculous, unstated reason). Since 9/11 and 7/7, the ptb decided that engineered crises' would be easier to control if they were completely staged/fake, with no survivors (like 9/11's Jersey Girls) suing for disclosure of truth.

      1. Woodman., no offense, but you do realize you are asking a question of someone who posted here 5 years ago, do you not?

  4. People could still have died, that doesn't mean it wasn't controlled and stage managed by the government, aka the U.S crime syndicate of Barry S.

    I prefer to believe that, while many elements were faked or added for effect, some things, maybe even a handful of injuries, could be real, but the event itself was staged, controlled and perpetrated by the U.S government and the two brothers were useful idiots coerced, by flattery, promises of money, a career as a spook type intermediary between America and the Caucus based jihadi that the older brother may well have contacted while visiting that area in the year(s) before the bombing, or threats, and the whole thing was used for several reasons.

    1) Ramp up the fear of homegrown terror as opposed to abstract foreigners with no access to America…which has been the norm for a while now, as Chatanooga, San Bernadino, Pulse nightclub and Boston were all perpetrated by those born or raised in America…funny that.

    2) Continue the spending and snooping that the "war on terror" has initiated…after all, no threat, no worries, calm and safe, means no need for all that money and all that snooping.

    3) Restrict the sale of specific, bomb making ingredients?

    4) Attempt to tie it to gun control?

    The last two less likely, I agree.

    1. That’s what I am trying to figure out. I believe the whole thing was staged, but how do you fake deaths? For example, take Martin Richards. How do the friends of the Richards not look on the Richards family with shame?

  5. Gordon took down my article about JADE HELM, which I have republished here, and after I talked about what had happened with Stew Webb, whom he had recently fired from VT radio, he booted me from VT–and the first thing I noticed was that this article (which is not about JADE HELM) had disappeared. I am asking him what happened to it, but this is one in series of events that are profoundly troubling me.

Leave a Reply