Hollywood producer claims Boston bombing was a "false flag attack"

Folks: Back in 2013 I was watching the events unfold and as a producer, you can pinpoint very specific things that didn’t seem right. And I started to realize that we are watching yet another false flag event unfold. And as I started putting the pieces together I realized that we are up against an environment that is trying to create a fear factor in the media. And the fear factor is to keep us scared and to keep us in fear as long as they can.

And the events that I know to be true, including the "Boston hero" who was a person in my last film, “The prosecution of an American president” and his wife, I started to recognize that this was not an event that was at all 100% true.

Hollywood producer claims Boston bombing was a "false flag attack"

Bombshell stuff here from producer Nathan Folks, who not only claims the Boston Bombing was a false flag but said he recognizes one of the crisis actors involved because THE MAN WAS IN HIS LAST FILM.

Whoa.

This isn't just a random crazy off the street. Nathan has a substantial career in Hollywood, and might have just completely torpedoed his reputation for coming out and offering his perspective on the events in Boston last year.

Remember this is a person who also has directing experience. He's familiar with the limitations of technology, and knows what tells that would give away a scene as staged. And he says:

Folks: From what I understand, they... it looks to me like they used a second street in order to re-enact the scene, over and over, to get it right and by using Green Screen they were able to show the buildings that were actually on Boylston Street and when you use a Green Screen it is a lot like Titanic. In the movie Titanic in 1997 we are watching the film and we are watching this boat sink and we are watching the water fill into the boat and we see people falling off the boat. That is obviously not happening in real life, we are watching it on Green Screen. They are putting a digital layer behind the screen of real action people. And we are watching a boat sink in the background and that is what they did in this example.

They just did it on television. We are watching green screen on television to re-enact a street scene that happened for real, but just a smoke bomb but when they re-enacted the people that were hurt they had to add the blood and the amputees and to put one the makeup.

This man has zero reason to lie about this. He's essentially imploding his career and putting himself at risk just for saying this stuff. To me it doesn't seem like he's delusional or irrational--he just seems like he's genuinely interested in uncovering the truth.

So there's another take on last year's Boston Bombing. And just like other events that occurred at a to-remain-nameless school around that general timeframe, it leaves us with far more questions than answers.

The one point he made ( I read the interview earlier)

That stuck out to me, no matter what the "scenario" was, real or not.

IS the HD camera comment he made.

He commented how for some reason, the Videos (live) where UPSCALED from standard def.

TV equipment for modern broadcast, is HD, So why the Standard Def video and pic?

His postulation that its to cover edits makes a sorta sense.

Lower def, worst detail shots, less chance of a mistake being caught.

That was the one thing he said that IF true, to me, says something is up.

But than how do you explain the actual injuries and deaths that occurred on that day?

They are all in on it and living "underground"?

Seems a bit far fetched to even a conspiracy theorist like me.

The death, blood and mayhem that day was quite real and not superimposed on greenscreen in my opinion.

1)Bombshell? So any person can claim it was a false flag and it counts as a bombshell?

2)This article lost all credibility when it referred to Folks as a well known producer. He's a c-list producer, at best, who is looking for a little publicity. Dude is only even known of at all because of a relationship with lindsey lohan.

In my opinion you should check out facts before you post nonsense.

My sister was injured during the bombing.

She is not an actor, her injuries were real.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

Does any of what you said vitiate his credibility in judging whether modern technology was used to alter images/create illusory impressions of what actually transpired?

Ad hominem, my friend. Logical fallacies carry no weight.

See also: the kind of "publicity" he's going to get from this is going to kill his career in Hollywood. No sane person would shoot themselves in the foot like that unless they believed in the cause.

originally posted by: minusinfinity
In my opinion you should check out facts before you post nonsense.

My sister was injured during the bombing.

She is not an actor, her injuries were real.

I don't know your sister. I don't even know if you have a sister.

But I do know this guy is actually involved in Hollywood, and has actual knowledge of greenscreen techniques and other modern tricks directors use when filming false/misleading scenes.

originally posted by: JonButtonIII
a reply to: captaintyinknots

Does any of what you said vitiate his credibility in judging whether modern technology was used to alter images/create illusory impressions of what actually transpired?

Ad hominem, my friend. Logical fallacies carry no weight.

The credibility of the article is VERY in question, and I ask again, what about this guy makes him more trustworthy than ALL of the witnesses and victims?

Complete and utter crap.

He is looking for publicity. Nothing more.

Wheres his evidence? What does he have to back up his claims other than "this is what I see"?

Again, complete and utter crap.

originally posted by: JonButtonIII

originally posted by: minusinfinity
In my opinion you should check out facts before you post nonsense.

My sister was injured during the bombing.

She is not an actor, her injuries were real.

I don't know your sister. I don't even know if you have a sister.

But I do know this guy is actually involved in Hollywood, and has actual knowledge of greenscreen techniques and other modern tricks directors use when filming false/misleading scenes.

Exactly. Just like the CT nuts, you people will only accept that which fits into your narrative.

Guess what? Ive worked on green screens MANY times. Care to show me ANYTHING that you claim to be greenscreen?

Naw, you will just pick and choose who you believe by whether or not it fits your narrative.

Bunk. Trash. Crap.

a reply to: JonButtonIII

See also: the kind of "publicity" he's going to get from this is going to kill his career in Hollywood. No sane person would shoot themselves in the foot like that unless they believed in the cause. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bwahahahahahaha! you are showing your naivete. ANY publicity is good publicity in hollywood.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: JonButtonIII
a reply to: captaintyinknots

Does any of what you said vitiate his credibility in judging whether modern technology was used to alter images/create illusory impressions of what actually transpired?

Ad hominem, my friend. Logical fallacies carry no weight.

The credibility of the article is VERY in question, and I ask again, what about this guy makes him more trustworthy than ALL of the witnesses and victims?

Complete and utter crap.

He is looking for publicity. Nothing more.

Wheres his evidence? What does he have to back up his claims other than "this is what I see"?

Again, complete and utter crap.

How is his "credibility in question?"

Is he not a producer? Does he not have directing experience? Is he not someone quite familiar with the nuances of modern filmmaking technique?

In court, that'd be enough to give him expert witness status. The opinion of an expert witness is admissible, and can be considered by a jury.

Honestly, he's more than qualified to say "this looks like a greenscreen." Just like he said one of the "heroes" of the B Bombing was someone involved in one of his previous movies.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: JonButtonIII

See also: the kind of "publicity" he's going to get from this is going to kill his career in Hollywood. No sane person would shoot themselves in the foot like that unless they believed in the cause. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bwahahahahahaha! you are showing your naivete. ANY publicity is good publicity in hollywood.

If you think questioning the current establishment is "good publicity" in today's Hollywood, you obviously haven't been paying attention.

BWAHAHAHAHA! (There, am I doing it right?)

a reply to: JonButtonIII

How is his "credibility in question?"

Well, first and foremost, like I already said, they lie about him being well known. Second, what evidence is presented?

VERY questionable.

Is he not a producer? Does he not have directing experience? Is he not someone quite familiar with the nuances of modern filmmaking technique? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Producers rarely have anything to do with filmmaking. They are backers. According to IMDB he has ZERO directing credits. According to IMDB, I have more directing credits than he does.

Nice try, though.

In court, that'd be enough to give him expert witness status. The opinion of an expert witness is admissible, and can be considered by a jury. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

No, it wouldnt.

Honestly, he's more than qualified to say "this looks like a greenscreen." Just like he said one of the "heroes" of the B Bombing was someone involved in one of his previous movies. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course you think so, because it fits into your narrative. I ask again: WHERES THE EVIDENCE TO BACK HIS CLAIM?

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Bwahahahahahaha! you are showing your naivete. ANY publicity is good publicity in hollywood.

And with this you are showing your Maturity level.

Address the articles points,

Otherwise you sound like you are throwing out random attacks until it sticks.

Producers, would have more knowledge on basics of media broadcasting, and would notice techniques that are similar, which is what he is postulating.

Nothing you said, directly address that.

Even if all his conclusions are silly, the questions certainly are not.

Why would SD video be what they broadcast-ed?

I can come up with NON-conspiracy angles, things like maybe the choice was made that HD gore was not best.

But you can't even muster that attempt, so WHY bother commenting on the thread?

a reply to: minusinfinity

I feel for your sister, and I'm sorry that she was injured. I wish her a full recovery.

I'm just popping in to say, in order for it to be a false flag, the whole thing doesn't need to be false. I mean, the scoundrels have made it clear to me that life means nothing to them. Why would they care if a few, or a lot, were injured? As long as it furthered their agenda.

They don't care about us, so why does the whole thing have to be fake.

The argument is not whether this was a false flag attack or not.

What I don't believe is that according to this Hollywood Producer - the injuries, blood and death were all superimposed on a greenscreen.

People did die that day just like on 9/11, false flag or not - people died, people were injured, people lost limbs and lives were ruined. That is not up for debate to any rational thinking individual.

Therefore once you lean in with that statement, that the blood and deaths were all staged, nothing else will sound rational.

a reply to: benrl
Yippe kay-yay.

If even the slightest piece of evidence is presented, ill touch on it. Until then, my questions remain: Where is his evidence? And why is HE more credible than ALL of the other witnesses and victims?

Glad to see people more worried about getting on me than answering the questions.

That pretty much sums up how this garbage goes.