Reasonable Doubt in Autohoaxing

Trump Faked It In Butler 100%

I am one hundred percent sure that the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, was fake.

To suggest it "might" have been real is the same thing as saying, "Maybe Katy Perry actually went to space," despite knowing that space travel has been faked since the beginning.

The skeptic’s job isn’t to doubt their perceptions but to prioritize them over what they are being told. When there is a discrepancy, the skeptic suspends judgment until facts can be gathered. Then, after considering all available information, the skeptic makes an informed judgment.

Any residual doubts must be addressed before proclaiming with certainty that the event was real. Mainstream media believers don’t have doubts. They have faith in the media.

If a skeptic cannot prove the event false, they do not then accept it “might” be real.

This is not logical when we’re talking about mainstream media. This would be an example of the either/or fallacy. The approach of treating media as “real until proven fake” is illogical, given the media’s involvement in many psychological operations and hoaxes.

The rule is “fake until proven real” if you’re a media skeptic. If there are doubts, then the only logical conclusion one can reach is “fake because of reasons A, B, and C.” Any reasonable doubts must be accounted for before concluding an event to be real as presented.

The mainstream news consumers “believe by default” because they don’t know about hoaxes and media fakery. To them, the notion that media is involved in hoaxes is itself a conspiracy theory.

If one is apprised of media fakery and psyops, then one cannot advocate for the truthfulness of a particular news story in which doubts have been raised. For example, the 2005 London subway attacks were mirrored by real-time drills and a BBC documentary, both of which eerily “predicted” the attacks with specificity.

The skeptic can say, “I don’t know all the intricacies of the hoax and its performance, but I know it was a hoax,” with the same confidence they can say, “I know that magician isn’t doing real magic even though I can’t tell you how the tricks are performed.” Similarly, one can say, “The astronauts are not really in zero-G, but I don’t know how they are simulating levitation.”

Reasonable doubt is all we need to not believe. The burden of proof is not on us to accept a dubious claim, as skeptics are non-believers. If it’s knowable, we will know it as true with the facts, assuming those facts outweigh the doubts.

In the case of Butler, Pennsylvania, I have a list of reasons to doubt the story.

1. Trump has already been involved with widespread psyops (January 6th, 2020, 9/11)

2. Trump exists as a fixture of predictive programming

3. The assassination attempt was expected and predicted by skeptics paying attention to the predictive hints in movies (see below).

4. The event had all the hallmarks of a hoax.

5. Recycled photographers from previous psyops. The same AP lensman who immortalized Bush’s blank stare on 9/11 just happened to catch Trump’s near-miss “bullet” shot.

6. The PR stunt-like optics and cinematic staging. The imagery—right down to Trump’s pose—reeks of Braveheart cosplay.

“Informed Disbelief” weighs more than “Low Information Belief”

WHAT DO WE KNOW?

• We know for certain that fake news aggregates, piles up unchallenged, and the resulting accretion is called “history.” “Lies agreed upon,” as Napoleon Bonaparte described it.

Fake Until Proven Real IF:

• There are extraordinary claims

• hoax indicators

• ready-made political agendas

• crisis actors

• Relevant predictive/ concurrent programming

Why not “Real until proven fake?”:

• Media cannot pass the burden of proof to its viewers. It’s illogical. Not to mention it’s their job to provide the information.

• How can low-information believers claim it’s real without accounting for the Frame of Reference of the media organization?

• All news agencies assume previous fake news to be true and are, therefore, reality-compromised. They are misinformed by fakery and do not correct their own errors in this regard because media does not acknowledge media-fakery, hoaxes, or psyops.

CONCLUSION:

There is plenty of reasonable doubt about the reality of the assassination attempt in Butler. In addition to “predictive programming” there are examples of “concurrent programming,” that is, the event was mirrored by real-time movie releases that were widely noticed by media itself. For example, the movie trailer for Captain America: Civil War, which was altered because it so closely resembed the event it forshadowed by twenty-four hours.

Moreover, those of us who have been paying attention to the correlation between fake events and the entrtainment propaganda have noted a predictable pattern which makes us capable guessing accurately what’s coming next in the Psyop Entertainment Complex.

We aren’t confused about what is real or what is fake. We aren’t ambiguous; the doubts don’t leave us in a state of confusion. They give us certainty that the liars are lying again.

Media fakery doesn’t operate in a vacuum. It’s coordinated. The entertainment industry runs parallel with psychological operations—not accidentally, but by design. This is Concurrent Programming. They’re not just foreshadowing events—they’re syncing them in real time. Coincidences like that don’t happen by accident. They happen by production schedule.

We aren’t “confused.”
We aren’t “unsure.”
We are calling B.S. with the clarity of experience. We’ve seen this act before.

If you’re still asking whether it was fake or real, you’ve already missed the point. The question now is: What is the agenda behind the fakery?

A couple more points:

1. Reasonable doubt is all you need to reject the official version of events.

2. The only logical explanation for entertainment propaganda mirroring psyops real time is these are coordinated by the same entity, what I term the Psyop Entertainment Complex. We can rule out “higher powers” when it comes to media coincidences. Any such coordination is reason enough to doubt the veracity of the reported news event.

Tim Ozman,

IPR Host

MORE:

.