by The Agoraphile
The mainstream media is again abuzz with voices denouncing Mel Gibson for alleged misdoings. Self-declared “voice of the left” Arianna Huffington has even argued for a revival of “Hollywood values” [sic] and for Gibson to be burned at the stake:
“(…) Now is the time”, invokes Huffington, “for Hollywood to show what those values really are by making Gibson pay the price for his bigotry and intolerance.”
Meanwhile, new evidence has emerged that raises serious doubts as to the veracity of the claims made against Gibson.
“These copies were professionally made for distribution,” said forensic audio and video expert, Arlo West, CEO of Creative Forensic Services in an interview with Holly-WoodLife, “Their quality is extraordinary …I would be willing to bet that someone with a background in recording these types of messages helped Oksana do so to entrap Gibson. I would also expect that a person or persons also helped her edit the recordings.”
Arlo insists the recordings have been professionally edited, probably to eliminate words or piece together phrases.
“The audio files were most certainly edited intentionally and the forensic terminology for this, is tampering,” says Arlo. “The edits that I found would have been done postrecording and are clearly done to redact dialog — which means to intentionally remove words,” says Arlo. “I can tell there are gaps and edits in several ways by using waveform analysis and zero crossing analysis. These are most certainly digital recordings so there is no tape involved.”
HollywoodLife.com went on to report that another forensic expert, Frank Piazza, is the President of Legalaudio.com and also worked on the Natalee Holloway case as well as others including the famous Jon Benet Ramsey murder case of 1996. Frank tells us that he can support Arlo’s finds that there were edits in the audio.
“There are redactions, things were taken out, there were obviously things people didn’t want others to hear,” says Frank.
“The most interesting piece of information that Frank found was that Mel was coming through a standard phone while Oksana was speaking through a high tech microphone,” reported HollywoodLife.
“Oksana was speaking through a large diaphragm microphone,” according to Frank. “Mel’s responses are on another channel and he is on a speaker phone. Whoever is helping her is patching it through to her. They are using something called a hybrid coupler which is used to separate the two voices. The coupler’s purpose is to accept a phone line and enable you to record what’s coming back from the phone conversation.”
The blogosphere is saturated with independent reporting on the case, many arguing that Gibson has been deliberately targeted for politically motivated reasons.
Paul Watson of Infowars.com reported: “Just like in the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when every important person both inside and outside Hollywood had the dubious honor of reserved blackmail-space in the FBI-director’s desk, the arrows have now been directed at Gibson, not for anything he might have done mind you, but rather with the aim of stopping the man from capturing audiences around the world with any more influential films about freedom versus tyranny. In other words: the current “controversy” serves to hinder the filmmaker from doing his job. In an age where many filmmakers, sniffing it up in the bathroom, are instruments for the New World Order by producing predictive programming to audiences everywhere, the crusade launched against Gibson should raise all thinking people’s eyebrows.”
Watson elaborates as to the motivation for Gibson’s character assassination by pointing to an interview conducted by Playboy in 1995, wherein “Gibson identified the power behind the throne with stunning accuracy”.
“With the conversation turning towards then-president of the United States, Bill Clinton, Gibson suggested that he was obviously groomed for the job early on in his career”.
“Do you really believe that?”, asked the surprised interviewer (which he shouldn’t be), to which Gibson replied:
“I really believe that. He was a Rhodes scholar, right? Just like Bob Hawke. Do you know what a Rhodes scholar is? Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes scholarship for those young men and women who want to strive for a new world order. Have you heard that before? George Bush? CIA? Really, it’s Marxism, but it just doesn’t call itself that. Karl had the right idea, but he was too forward about saying what it was. Get power but don’t admit to it. Do it by stealth. There’s a whole trend of Rhodes scholars who will be politicians around the world.”
“Flabbergasted by his words,” continued Watson, “the interviewer retreaded to the mantra of the numb and the ignorant when confronted with a sudden outburst of truth:”
“This certainly sounds like a paranoid sense of world history. You must be quite an assassination buff.”
Gibson: “Oh, frack. A lot of these guys pulled a boner. There’s something to do with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy did and Reagan tried. I can’t remember what it was, my dad told me about it. Everyone who did this particular thing that would have fixed the economy got undone. Anyway, I’ll end up dead if I keep talking poop.”
“Not dead, thank God. Although the New World Order is pulling all the stops to make sure his career will be.”, concludes Watson.
Others in the blogosphere have raised questions about Oksana herself, pointing out that “twice-divorced 39 year-old Oksana is an ambitious girl from the former Soviet Union, with ties to individuals such as Sergey Kuzmin, who had ties with career criminals and underworld figures throughout Russia and EU.” One blogger ends with the question, “Could it be that she was introduced to Gibson for the purpose of blackmail and subversion?”
In an interesting juxtaposition to the Gibson drama, polish Jew Roman Polanski, it was reported, will not be extradited to the U.S. from Switzerland for drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13-year old girl. Much of the Hollywood crowd and corporate media have been supportive of Polanski, marginalizing the scandal and holding him in high regard.
– Agoraphile
With Mel Gibson and Michael Richards killing themselves, what is to become of racial epithets among stars? Is there a double standard among black and white comedians? Chris Rock talks about how not enough dead crackers there are in his monologue and he is invited to the white house. Why don’t white people protest against black racism the way blacks do?
This is a shame,because I really like Mel G. as an actor. I hope that he is not a part of the NWO.As so many actors in Hollywood are new agers/Illuminati controlled slaves. If he is,I pray he can get out of it-alive.
Arnold,Hi. I just read your reply. I have always wondered the same thing. In fact,my daughter and I just discussed this very topic a couple of days ago. After pondering the question, I wondered if:1) maybe some white individuals feel guilty about what their ancestors have done in the past,and that whatever predjudice these white folks experience now, it is nothing compared to what the black race has endured for hundreds of years at the hands of the white race. You know? It is just my humble opinion, but at times I do wonder the same thing. Because if a white person is somewhere public, and a black individual shouts out,”Die,honky!” or,”I hate all you crackers!”, it is offending.But it is not taken as seriously as if a white person shouts out in public,”Die,melanin enhanced!”,or “I hate all you melanin enhanced!”(Forgive the N word-I really despise it,and I’d never use that word toward a black person.) The truth is, that the black race has suffered greatly at the hands of the white race. And they aren’t the only victims of the white people. How about the Indians? There’s a nice bedtime story of racism for your children to hear. For some sickening, and arrogant reason, the white race believed that they could just move to the wilderness,and take over,(steal) the Indians land which they occupied for hundreds of years. And in our greedy, maddening thirst for power we just decided to take possession of that land at any price. Never mind the fake treaties we had no intention of honoring,or the hundreds of Indians we killed in trick ambushes, and countless other ways. We wanted their land,and had absolutely no intention of sharing it. It was all or nothing, and nobody was going to stand in our way. Come hell or high water,we were going to take what we desired, and leave a trail of tears,and bloodshed of the innocent, but most of all- a legacy of greed,dishonor,and betrayal. It makes me feel bad every time I think about it.And of course, the hideous treatment, and enslavement of the black race is beyond reprehension,and occured at our hands again. What made the white race think that they could just march in, and take over whatever they wanted anyway??
Anyway, 2) perhaps some white people would rather complain about any racism they may be experiencing because taking any kind of action feels too hard. Change requires effort, and for a lot of folks it is easier to just ignore the situation.
Obviously, there are more reasons for your question. But personally, my first answer best suits why I would not complain or rally. I’d only do so if the racism toward me and my family was very, very serious, and a threat to our survival.