it’s a mirror, he said.

You go through it, you get cut by the glass.

images are code

IDES OF MARCH  2019 

THE DEANS AVENUE AND LINWOOD MOSQUE ATTACKS: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND.

                     15 MARCH 2019.

  A truth/lie dichotomy,

INTEGRITY OF ACTIONS SEEN ON THE DEANS AVENUE ‘GO-PRO’ AND LINWOOD IPHONE VIDEOS, AS THEY APPLY TO THE SUMMARY OF FACTS PRESENTED by THE COURT TO DESCRIBE THEM.

THIS IS A comparison of publicly available data, recorded OF THE CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE AND LINWOOD COMMUNITY CENTRE ATTACKS, set AGAINST THE SUMMARY OF FACTS READ by THE COURT, SAID TO corroborate THEM.

THE COMPARISONs are BUILT AND BOUND BY FOUR ‘EVIDENTIAL’ DATASET.1.THE SUMMARY OF FACTS PRESENTED to COURT by police, 2.THE ‘GO-PRO’ CAMERA DATASET FROM DEANS AVENUE: 3.THE LINWOOD ‘AFTERMATH’ IPHONE VIDEO DATASET. 4. MEDIA REPORTED EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS.

THE INFORMATION SOURCED WAS AND IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN; EVEN WHILE THE DEANS AVENUE DATASET IS CLASSIFIED AND ILLICIT IN NZ, IT CAN STILL BE ACCESSED AND STUDIED IN what is left of THE FREE WORLD, BY INTERNET.

the classification, making it illegal to watch in NZ, does not require the actions to be, necessarily, real. only that, whatever it depicts, it satisfies the expert authorised to determine it’s message; that it’s message is harmful enough to warrant classification.

AFTER ASSESSING THE ACTIONS, STREAMED, APPARENTLY ‘LIVE’, TO A WORLD AUDIENCe BY THE INEXPERIENCED AND DERANGED AUSTRALIAN, Brenton Tarrant, THE thinking person is ASKED TO JUDGE WHAT real GUN VIOLENCE is AND what real DEATH BY GUN VIOLENCE ACTUALLY LOOKs LIKE.

THE AUTHOR IS NOT ARGUING that NO PERSONS WERE MURDERED OR MAIMED IN CHRISTCHURCH THAT DAY. this writing precedes that question, presenting observations and anomalies in the dataset without intent to insult or offend the living or the dead. rm.

This is not an easy thing to do. No viewer touched the blood. Sat in the car. Smelled the smells. Most of us have no connection to gun-death beyond the digital representation of it in media. By actors in an industry. Our judgments are not built on empirical or forensic experience. Our recognition of violent death is, generally, vicarious; by Hollywood staging, actors and video gaming.

It is reported the weapon used by Tarrant fires a 5.56mm NATO (.223) caliber cartridge, with a muzzle velocity (the speed of bullet leaving the rifle) of over 900 meters per second (2952 feet per second), expressing 1854  joules of kinetic energy, with a maximum effective range of 600 yards. The other weapons were shotgun: semi automatic and pump. Most NZ farm boys have had close hand knowledge of the damage these weapons do to living creatures. They are very messy.

In the age of iPhone and CCTV, we have access to streams of unedited video gun-violence from the conflict zones around the world - never before in History so immediately available and voluminous - to compare against. Footage of a terrorist attack in the Shah Cheragh Mosque in Shiraz on the 26th of October 2022, for example, shows vastly differing crowd behaviour, than those recorded in Christchurch. Similarly, the execution murder of young Kurdish women fighters, by uniformed soldiers in the mountains of Kurdistan, their heads rested on or close to the rocks their heads bounced, broken, from, give explicit examples of the kinetic energies released at close range execution by these weapons. Footage of the damage one shot through one arm by one .223 round, (Rittenhouse/Grosskrewitz, in the following essay).

The question is, what does the empirical evidence present ? What does the available evidence say of the moments recorded beyond, or before, the individual readers experience and bias decide it.

Have a guess. Watch this as many times as you’re able and ask yourself the question. Watch the old fellow in the teal ski jacket on the floor. See if you can spot him at video end. Ask, what he’s up to ? What is he doing. Why are we seeing this ? Who made it? Why? What is supposed to be going on here. And again: why are we seeing this.

BELOW, in bold; ARE THE COMMENTS OF THE AUTHOR, as if responding TO tarrant as THE SUMMARY OF FACTS are read to the court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURH REGISTRY, I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CRI-2019-009-2468 [2020] NZHC 2192 THE QUEEN V BRENTON HARRISON TARRANT HEARING: 24-27 AUGUST 2020 APPEARANCES: M N ZARIFEH, B HAWES AND P NORMAN (K GRAU AND H LAFRAIE ON BEHALF OF THE VICTIMS) FOR CROWN DEFENDANT IN PERSON PHB HALL QC AND C J LANGE AS STANDBY COUNSEL K H COOK AS AMICUS CURIAE JUDGMENT: 27 AUGUST 2020 SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

1] Brenton Harrison Tarrant, you are for sentence this morning for the murder of 51 people and for your attempt to murder 40 other individuals. You are also to be sentenced for engaging in a terrorist act on 15 March last year. The facts:  

[2] On that Friday morning you travelled from Dunedin to this city to attack two Christchurch mosques with the purpose of killing as many of the attending worshippers as you could.

[3] You had with you some six firearms, including semi-automatic shotguns and two military style semi-automatic rifles, and a large amount of ammunition. You carried four incendiary devices that you intended to use to burn down the mosques. You wore military style clothing and a bulletproof vest that contained at least seven magazines and a knife. On your helmet you mounted a strobe light to confuse your victims and a camera to provide a livestream to an online audience.

[4] After arriving in Christchurch and while in the vicinity of the Al Noor Mosque you sent a document, described as your “manifesto”, to an extremist website. You sent emails containing threats to attack the Christchurch mosques to the government and to various national and international media organisations, to which you also attached your manifesto. These messages were sent only minutes before your attack and provided no opportunity to the authorities to intervene.

[5] The ideological motivation for your attack is readily apparent from the people you sought to target and the document you distributed. On your weapons you wrote references to the Crusades and recent terror attacks, and marked them with various symbols, including those of the Nazi SS. Your extremist views and motivation were plain.

You drove North from Blenheim Road along Deans Avenue toward AL Noor Mosque. But, in what can only be described as odd behaviour; you stopped, @3:06 on the video record; parked; sat and idled your vehicle for one full minute. Sixty seconds. You appeared to be waiting. ALL audio was scrubbed for thirty seconds from 3:09 until 3:39. The scene is set in complete silence. Vehicles are passing but no sound. ALL audio input completely absent until @ 3:39 when the audio record was again switched on. One later version has audio ON during this time, playing background ‘music’; indicating differing versions of the dataset already exist.

You took your helmet off, and briefly showed your face to camera. You said something incomprehensible and put your helmet/camera back on. And sat waiting again until indicating by rapid finger movement on the steering wheel @4:03 the only pedestrian seen walking past your vehicle during your stop. This pedestrian was wearing tan trousers and a Red wind-jacket with label and lanyard around his (other observers say her) neck. This person walked past your vehicle on your left, toward Blenheim rd. Moorhouse ave.  Immediately after which, @ 4:25, you began driving again: North toward AlNoor Mosque.

It must also be said, the geography at this end of Deans Avenue is; to the right as you travelled, Hagley park and to the left, the emptied landscape that once were the Addington stock yards for at least 4 blocks; empty of any buildings. Also, any technicalities involved transmitting ‘live-feed’ action globally, from a head camera of the type and in this instance, would have to be addressed by experts.

[6] You parked your vehicle in a driveway next to the Al Noor Mosque Driveway of 107 Deans Ave and made your final preparations. It is estimated that some 190 worshippers had gathered at the Mosque for prayers. Predominantly men of various ages, the congregation also included women and children. You chose Friday prayers because you knew a large number of people would be assembling at the Mosque on that day at that particular time. Your intention may well have been, ‘to park your car in a driveway next to the AL Noor Mosque’. But first you had to find and turn left into the driveway closest to the Mosque North boundary, at Number 107 Deans Avenue. This long lane serviced a group of apartments at it’s rear. You were to turn about(a nine-point turn), drive back toward Deans ave and park just inside the footpath line; leaving the car facing Deans Ave while you went into the Mosque. @ 5:02 into the dataset, you missed your turn into 107 Deans Ave – and so had to stop and reverse. This mistake exposed a figure standing to the right of that entrance way dressed entirely in red overalls and black boots. A white armband worn on his right upper arm; and wearing a white patch on his back with indecipherable elements printed in black. This figure would ordinarily not have been seen as any more than a blur in the dataset; had you correctly entered the driveway. But, as said, with your incorrect turn, you had to stop and reverse, to realign. This meant your camera filmed your looking back over your left shoulder as you reversed, and in that moment, the red man decided to walk in-front of your reversing vehicle, toward the Mosque exit way. And your camera recorded him.

Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume this man is, or was, a worker for local industry wearing red overalls with white patches and armbands and black boots as everyday working apparel. Pest control or suchlike; just happening along at that moment and confused by the vehicle missing the driveway right Infront of him, balked, then walked. Equally, he is a marker buoy set to guide you, Tarrant, under influence of 5 XANAX as you yourself described at video’s end; to act as guide into the designated driveway at 109 Deans Ave. Until proven one way or the other, one has to allow for either.

 After a nine-point turn at the end of that long driveway, you returned and stopped, nose first, at Deans Avenue. Three men passed in-front of you on the footpath. The first, a single male in black (suit) trousers and white shirt but no tie indicated to you and you to him; to walk past. You gave him a thumbs up. It is not being suggested this signal was anything other than normal acknowledgment between strangers signalling presence. He was then followed by two other men, one quite large, dressed in olive or grey suit clothing, the other, smaller, dressed in black trousers and black jersey @5:54. All are argued having walked into the mosque grounds. [7] You took with you two semi-automatic firearms and multiple magazines and made your way along the footpath to the Mosque. At that time four worshippers, Mounir Soliman, Syed Ali, Amjad Hamid and Hussein Moustafa, were at the Mosque’s front entrance.  @ 6:01, carrying a semi-automatic 9 shot shotgun and an .223 M16 assault ‘rifle’, also semi-automatic, you walked toward the Mosque street entranceway, along the footpath on Deans Avenue; past the pedestrian gate set beside 107 driveway featuring at the end of the video; toward a Mr Mohammad JAMA and an unidentified Woman standing beside him on the footpath. They were standing beside a small red car parked on Deans Avenue, at the mosque drive-way exit, facing north. There was a fluorescent road-cone marking that exit.

He looked at you and you at him for the briefest moment as you walked into the Mosque driveway. You did not engage with him in any way other than that, although later Mr JAMA gave FIVE different media outlets five different versions of this ‘encounter’ with you - including DW, TV one, Radionz: which included him stating his being shot at; him being hit by a blow and knocked to his knees losing his glasses; had him running; calling out three differing versions of “hey…what (are) you doing?”; one of his actually putting his hand on your arm; the next, putting his hand on your back and lastly, physically being 20’ from where he appears on screen. Toward the Mosque entrance-way.

In that first interview, he readily identified an ‘M16 something’ as the weapon. By the third interview he had forgotten what the weapon was; and; being reminded (RNZ checkpoint) vocally and categorically from another voice behind him, sounding very kiwi; that it was an ‘M16 semi-automatic.’ However, none of the actions described took place on camera. None. In the summary, Mr JAMA is not mentioned at all. You simply saw him, turned right, and walked past toward the entrance way. 

Why were these two not targeted? The man you signalled ‘thumbs-up’ to moments before, was also in range at this time as you walked into the Mosque entrance drive way. He was briefly seen further to your left, south across the car park.  Why was he not targeted?

AS you walked toward the encounter, in-passing you filmed the back-door half open of a car parked rear-on, to your immediate left, with no apparent occupant. Also recorded is a little picnic/card-type table set up between that vehicle and the next car positioned to its left, with unidentifiable objects on it. In front of you, a silver Toyota ‘WILL’ FQH875; is parked immediately to your left; just before the entrance door/hall way, with a cone behind it. There is an unidentifiable red object in the shrubbery immediate to FQH875 and the entrance-way.

You begin, @ 6:38 into the dataset, firing your semi automatic shotgun 9 times while walking steadily towards the entrance-way . The first casualty is recorded facing you saying “Welcome, Brother’ as you approached. Unfortunately for him, your military-type uniform and shotgun aiming at him, firing, the slung M16 rifle with ‘multiple magazines’ protruding, your ‘Helmet-with-camera’ – in other words, full combat paraphernalia – none of these signs of trouble coming, gave him any warning . Without warning you discharged the shotgun multiple times in quick succession, killing each of them. A wounded Mr Moustafa was despatched by you at point-blank range with shots to his back and head.

 You discharged it 9 times at this person as you approached. He appeared to be a youngish man, in his mid to late thirties; dropping him and apparently two others behind him although details are shadowed and the low-resolution doesn’t help. You then drop that weapon in the entrance way, and begin firing with the M16 @ 6:47. There are three men down at this stage. Two apparently lifeless, one wounded. You do not kill ‘each of four worshippers’ at the front entrance at this time and certainly, not by shotgun alone.

In this sequence, the empty shotgun cartridge cases appear to disappear in mid-flight, and this phenomenon requires examination by digital experts, since it is not the only time in the dataset similar disappearances ‘appear’ to happen.

There are two persons at the front entrance “keeping the shoes.” The numbers of shoes expected in the vestibule entryway of the quoted one hundred and ninety (190) worshippers stated as present, are difficult to determine. But there are racks on either side, floor to ceiling, with shoes in them; So, an approximation can be made. Whether 190 shoe-pairs are present would be addressed by the courts. Mr JAMA’s testimony, that there were anywhere between 250 and 500 worshippers present, will likely be found as flawed as his memory of your non-interaction with him.

The first man was killed, by a number of the nine shotgun blasts at steadily decreasing range, showed precious little evidence of the damage expected. There clearly will be forensic records of it in the autopsy files, but, on video record, the exposed torso and what could be otherwise seen of the body, showed precious little-to-no impact damage of upwards of 5 shotgun blasts at close range. Blood was many minutes later recorded proximate to the body, but, initially, no material evidence of blast damage to the body is recorded.

In those first seconds, the second-man down, Mr Moustafa?, was killed as he crawled along the hallway. His feet are bare. A third body lies half into the hall doorway to the women’s room immediately to your right. We have the briefest glimpse @ 6:49 of a fourth fleeing male figure running through an outer (north wall/womens room) exit doorway… (Mr Elmadani perhaps) whom you fired upon as he fled, possibly killing him. This was not recorded. If so, he could be the fourth person described in the summary, as having been ‘killed’ in the vestibule. [8] As you made your way down the hallway of the Mosque to the main prayer area you shot Ata Mohammad Ata Elayyan and Ali Elmadani, murdering both men. These would have been the fleeting figures seen running left to right ahead of you as you walked down the hallway. As said, the ‘Women’s room’ was to your immediate right upon entry into the hall, from the vestibule/front entranceway. Your camera clearly showed only one person present in the women’s’ room, through that hall door. Otherwise, that room appears to be empty.

You then entered the main prayer room at the rear of the building. There were over 120 worshippers present. They had heard the gunfire. Appreciating that something was very wrong, they moved to each side of the large open prayer area to where there were single exits in each corner.

“Over 120 worshippers present”, means, at this point, 70 fewer than the 190 cited in attendance 26 seconds ago. Which means 70 people exited the rooms in that 26 seconds between your discharging the first shot, and the 7.04 mark when you shot Mr Rashid. That, with one of the escape doors locked and the other apparently already blocked in the crush.

Remembering; these observations must be examined against the dataset to establish the truth. They must be considered preliminary argument only; while the data remains unavailable for independent re-viewing in NZ due to the legalities protecting it.

To continue.

The main prayer room was at the end of the corridor, shaped as the top bar in a capital ‘T’, pointed north /south.  The corridor/hall, enters at it’s centre at more or less east to west. So the prayer room ran left and right from the corridor, in equal measure.

In that first instant, as you recorded yourself coming into the wider prayer area, you were firing semi automatically – that is: single finger-pull-trigger speed - and randomly; toward left of centre as you entered that bigger room with no aiming apparent. In that quick look left, a group of people hover, paused, crouching in the south eastern corner; to then suddenly drop en masse into lying positions, unmoving; remaining so throughout the entire action in those same positions. No faces toward the camera. You did not fire into that group at this point. The centre of the main prayer room was empty. The pulpit turned slightly toward you, also appears empty.

Your camera swung quickly first left (south) firing your weapon indiscriminately as said; with no appreciable aim and not reaching the south eastern corner where that first group were recorded huddled in-front of the exit door [later said to be locked (Mr Alnobani testimony)]. Then, quickly swinging right, north, you begin to fire a rapid single shot (semi-automatic) pattern into the (right-north eastern) clump of figures, who were also already lying on the floor.

So, until this stage, NO aimed shots had been fired left (south clump) yet all figures in both south and north groups were already lying down, or dropped immediately, upon your entry, into what were to remain their final positions. All but one or two in both groups were face down with their backs to the camera, exhibiting only nuanced movement; to all intents and purposes already dead or unconscious or feigning. No scrambling, no panic. No screaming.

A low moaning is heard.

No mention is made in the summary of a large ’folding wall’ concertina type opening between the main prayer room -right/North side - and the womens room adjoining it; where those two rooms opened into each other. This folding wall was wide open; so easy access between these two rooms is made plain in the video. There were two men standing either side of the opening facing toward each other in those first recorded moments. The figure in the prayer room took up to six shots without any immediate effect except to begin running when you -only now- swung the camera away left -

and fired the FIRST targeted, single shot pattern into that ‘south-east’ group - all still lying exactly as they were when first recorded; very still; essentially noiseless, with their faces away from camera.

You again swung your gun and camera back towards the clump on your right (northern group). The man you had fired multiple shots at standing, was lying down with feet and hands crossed – coffin-like - perhaps 6 feet to the nor-West of his original position.  No mention is made of the numbers of women present when you began firing. Evidence shows twenty + - souls in each corner; all motionless. All appear to be men.

This was now around 18 seconds since the first shots were fired. Which, again, meant up to 70 women and men were managing to escape this carnage without any appearance of having done so. That is, apart from one fleeting figure crossing the ‘centre’ as you appeared from the hall, and one other, darting through a window space in the southern wall.

There is, arguably, no one hiding in the pulpit before you. Certainly no screaming or trampling as dozens of terrorised worshippers crammed the two single door exits…the southern of which was later reported to have been locked (Alnobani)…no smashing of windows with chairs to get the hell out; only a low moaning is heard that has no apparent synchronicity with the shot and film patterns. No panic was showing in any of the figures present. Remembering that these were refugee men and women from the Global War Of Terror; the GWOT; Men and Women some of whom would be versed in war situations - in terror events. In fact, ’terror events’ were the reasons these women and men were refuged in NZ. Nobody moves.

[9] When you entered the main prayer room you initially fired at worshippers who were lying on the ground. You shot Ziyaad Shah. You then turned to the two large groups gathered on each side of the prayer area. There was little chance of escape. You fired your semi-automatic firearm into the mass of people on one [the right] side of the room. The rate of fire was extremely rapid. You repeatedly moved your weapon across that side of the room before turning to the other group of trapped people on the opposite side. The rate of fire was at the pull of your finger. Calling it ’extremely rapid’ is suggestive of automatic fire. To subjugate or dominate a room of that size - as said, full of men and women from the battlefields of GWOT, without automatic fire, will be an interesting argument to be made by those ‘experienced in the arts’ of live-fire, as opposed to exercise training, when this matter reaches the courts (as if).

[10] As you turned your semi-automatic weapon on these worshippers, Naeem Rashid ran at you. Despite being shot, he crashed into you, forcing you down on one knee and dislodging a magazine from your vest. As is quite clear in the dataset, Mr Rashid did not run AT you. He desperately and deliberately tried to AVOID you; running inside your barrel line @ 7:04 as you swung left, toward him. He was trying to run into the hallway. You only just managed to secure a shot at his upper left shoulder as he careened PAST. At which point he connected with the barrel and you fired. You were pushed backwards into the wall and down to one knee according to the account above. Had he been running AT you, you would likely now be dead. He would have hit you with such force, smashing you back against the hallway wall, that there would have been no recovery before others got to you and ripped you apart. As it was, the impact appeared accidental, but manageable. The Summary also explicitly stated the ‘dislodging (of) a magazine from your vest’ which perhaps accounts for a later anomaly where observers argue a magazine was lying in the hall prior to your arrival. Mr Rashid had been hit in the shoulder and, as he lay on his back, you fired further shots at him.

By the visual account, Mr Rashid received five, six or even seven shots including three at his head at close range with your high velocity rifle, as he lay in the hallway. No evidence of impact/exit is evident in the dataset. In fact, Mr Rashid later moved into a more comfortable position during the ongoing period his body is filmed as the dataset records it. Here you changed magazine for the first time @7:13; in the hallway, between the woman’s room doorway and main room. As mentioned, this part of the summary appears to recognise and suggest a reason for there being a weapons magazine apparent in the hall on the floor to your front left – but; was it there when you entered for the first time? Not as result of Mr Rashid hitting you?  This matter obviously requires evidential evaluation. Also, at this point, your camera strobe-torch lit up the earlier second man shot while crawling along the hall, in bare feet; now appears to have blue socks on. This photo capture is of the same figure from opposite ends of the hall.

Adult New zealanders are not allowed to see these images, above; but are allowed to see these images, below.

   Karl RITTENHOUSE fires a similar weapon at similar range into the arm of GROSSKREWITZ, August 25th,2020. BLM riots in Kenosha. Showing impact as a mist of flesh resulting in the massive wound below.

Mr Rashid died but his bravery allowed a number of his fellow worshippers to escape. (This is not apparent) [11] By this stage you had emptied a 60-round magazine. You replaced that in the hall @7:13 with another. Returning to the main room, and Standing in the middle of the room, you fired rapid bursts first left, then right @7:26. ‘Rapid bursts’ again, denotes automatic fire. You never fired automatic. Yet this mischaracterisation is entered into the literature as authentic to the truth. towards each side of the prayer room where people were trying to hide or were attempting to escape. Again; there is little to no evidence in the dataset of persons ‘trying to escape.’ No frantic scrambling. One or two only, are seen ‘escaping’. You return to the main room and fire both left and right; then @7:47, you fumbled the next magazine change for 13 seconds   > count them.

ONE - TWO - THREE - FOUR - FIVE - SIX - SEVEN - EIGHT -NINE -TEN - ELEVEN - TWELVE - THIRTEEN seconds; of fumble.

The room remains eerily silent while you clatter and struggle with the magazine. A distant moaning is heard. There is no screaming of smashed bodies. No guts. No DUST. No wall fragments..no bloody carnage nor single advantage taken against you as you fumble the magazine change like a drunk, for thirteen seconds.

This calm exists until @ 8:02

You discharged rapid bursts across both sides of the room before approaching individual victims and shooting them. Rapid bursts. The author exceeds her or himself again. This is at best inaccurate reporting. At worst, a narrative designed to suggest to an audience unable to see the visual evidence; that automatic fire had occurred.

It never did. @ 8:10 you appear to change or at least adjust the magazine, again, from the same position in the hall. Then, back into the main room.

As Ashraf Ragheb sought to escape from a side room - seen through the concertina opening into the ‘Women’s room’- as you swung around-to the right down the hallway to the main entrance, you shot and killed him. He ended up dying against the first victim in the entrance way; managing to have the first victims left arm and hand between his legs. This person has his right arm covering his face and, incidentally, is quoted in media being buried as an 71 year old ‘welcoming the Australian born terrorist into the Mosque’.  Whereas, in the dataset, he has all the appearances of a 35 +- year old man. As seen below.

Already there were many dead.

[12] You moved closer to each now piled  …..’each now piled’ suggests the piling had taken place between the beginning of the video and the ‘now’; whereas your video clearly shows each group ‘already piled’, and in the same positions all the way through. group of people lying deceased, wounded or feigning death on each side of the main prayer room. Worshippers, who were either crying out for help or who appeared to be alive, were systematically shot in the head. One of those was a three-year-old child, Mucaad Ibrahim. He was clinging to his father’s leg and you murdered him with two aimed shots. Without visual confirmation (ie: the jury being allowed to see the dataset) one imagines of this summary, a room full of wildly struggling, active wounded; being picked off one by one by your cruel gun. Yet, It is not accurate to the camera evidence. No visceral results of the systematic head shots – except once - are shown in your camera. No bloody wounds of the nature expected of close range high velocity shootings. (RITTENHOUSE) The child looks older than three years But, again; these are initial and quick observations, open to contest by people able to access the data and parse or dissemble them. Certainly, at the blunter end seen online and in the days following before classification, there were no screaming wounded, no guts or head or leg damage evident anywhere near what would have been thought, ‘live action’ … no real panic, no DUST, no wall fragments exploding into the air or the smashing of window glass; nor unconscious movements of mortally wounded in throes of shock and pain as evidenced in the Ceaucescu execution..

 [13] At this point you made your way out of the Mosque, (@approx 8:46 into the action) checking prone victims as you went to ensure they were dead. You glanced at prone victims; you did not ‘check’ prone victims to ensure they were dead. You exited the Mosque through the same door you entered, bending to pick up the already noted-upon-entry magazine laying in the hall and clipping it to your weapon (fourth? fifth?) @8:33. You stepped into daylight. And at this moment, you were aware of the vehicle parked next to the entrance way, directly before you: FQH875. You saw what appears, in the low-resolution, to be a figure sitting in the driving seat of that small Silver Vehicle; FQH875. Daylight and reflection make it difficult, but the camera recorded the vehicle registration number later identified as FQH875. You pointedly aimed and held your weapon at the driver position for two seconds,

but did not open fire. 

Why not? Why didn’t you pop this guy right there and then? You were full of boasting about ‘bagging’ as many people as you could, but you let this driver go” Why.

Instead, you ran out the exit way onto the Deans Avenue footpath, where Mr JAMA’s red car was still parked, and the fluorescent traffic cone remained; and on that footpath@ 8:57 into the dataset; you stood stock still, facing south, and fired a TWENTY-SEVEN shot fusillade deliberately and without deviation, down the footpath toward Blenheim Road/ Moorhouse Avenue intersection; 800 meters south. 

[The M16 uses the 5.56mm NATO (.223) caliber cartridge, with a muzzle velocity (the speed of bullet leaving the rifle) of over 900 meters per second (over 3,000 feet per second), and has a maximum EFFECTIVE range of 600 yards. 548.64 metres effective. The projectiles do not stop at 600yds.]

Twenty-Seven shots.   

Count them. One. two. three. four. five. six. seven. eight. nine. ten. eleven. twelve, thirteen. fourteen. fifteen. sixteen. seventeen. eighteen. nineteen. twenty, twenty-one. twenty-two. twenty-three. twenty-four. twenty-five. twenty-six. twenty-seven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shots down what appears in the digital record to be an empty suburban footpath firing-line - with perhaps one possible but unidentifiable target in the far distance – south.

 Why did you leave the building for this extended period and fire your weapon 27 times down an empty street?

Why didn’t you fire on the driver in FQH875?

 One can only imagine the opportunities being taken advantage of inside the Mosque to triage friends and escape; to stem this nightmare. The noise dozens of people in crisis would make in the quiet Christchurch afternoon, by the park. You could have been in your Subaru and half way to Linwood by now, with all your killing done at Deans Avenue, bar one or two.

There is surely real argument to be made that the 27 bullet casings ejected during this insane action, disappeared on the video into thin air. They are not recorded landing, or rattling, or rolling - brass casings have a distinct ring on asphalt. They are not apparent, once having landed, lying still on the asphalt even if the resolution were to lose them during flight. We need a digital imaging expert under cross-examination, arguing these casings hit the ground. One not already bound to secrecy. The camera capacity-resolution argument has to be properly drawn out. But for arguments sake, if those casings and projectiles did exit the weapon, and somehow managed their flight down the footpath firing line; what would be the result ? What could be the result, reasonably expected of a fusillade of 27 high velocity .223 NATO rounds fired steadily down one footpath in suburban Christchurch, on an early Friday afternoon?  The author lived there many years – he knows the place. The number of shooters in any given street in Christchurch varies, but, enough of them exist would know: firing 27 rounds down a suburban street in Christchurch would be noticed. 27 bullets pouring along their street and ricocheting over the intersection into whatever stood there at volley’s end . It is reasonable to expect damage, to be found days later. Damage to vehicles crossing the major T intersection in the line of fire and or parked directly on the other side of it…to utility boxes and poles and sign posts and street signs and lights and footpath surfaces in that direct firing line. 27 is a considerable number of bullets. Ricochet would have occurred. We know what the shot pattern was. We can clearly observe the weapon barrel line held steadily down the footpath. It does NOT deviate left or right, up or down. It is steady. Those shots continued at a steady pace for the full 27 shots in the pattern.

Is it reasonable to expect evidence of it? Down the line? 10 days later ?

At this point, we are introduced to the first independent eye-witness.

Kath JAMIESON

– who told camera : “Thats when we saw the car that’s just down there, and the people that were in that car [a Dark Blue Honda FIT (2010) registration LDZ 784,] had been going to the Mosque and, um, the guy started shooting at them..the, um gunman, and the cars riddled with bullets and all the windows are blown out, um,..and they’d backed up the car and, um, in a hurry, um, there was a guy out there dead, um, just lying there y’know, in his socks..had obviously decided to run away from the gunman and probably was coming through here, um, to escape. And just gunned down..just lying there dead at the fron of the lane there….um.. just shocking. Absolutely shocking.”

The car had, according to this well informed witness, been driving North up Deans avenue, came under fire, backed up - reversed gear, into Palazzo lane, a cul-de-sac 90 metres south of the Mosque; and there, caught in the firing line, ‘riddled with bullets and all the windows blown out.’ Thus, apparently, supplying motive for that 27-shot fusillade described above. We can surmise the man in socks will be mister Faruk, happening upon the car backing into Palazzo lane; perhaps driven by Mr.Wasseim Daragmih, with his fouryear-old daughter as ‘the people that were in that car’ as it was riddled with bullets etc. Doubtless vehicle registration will confirm that speculation. However, this evidence is hear-say. And needs be cross examined very closely, by experienced council. Because Ms JAMIESON was no eye witness. She admitted to camera, that she wasn’t there during the shooting. “I’d just nipped out to the shops for a short time and came back down Deans Avenue about 9 minutes after the shooting started, and tried to get in from this end, down here, and people were saying ‘no, no, don’t go down there, theres been a shooting’; and so I went right round Hagley Park and …um…and as we were coming past the hospital there were Police everywhere with guns, running around and ambulances you could hear….” She had returned after the attacks were over, to her house -we presume- in Palazzo Place. Where she is seen in the interview. There is a blue car placed backwards, onto Palazzo place, from Deans avenue behind her; with a loose blue ‘warehouse’ type plastic tarpaulin - not properly secured – thrown across its roof, moving in the wind. This is a small cul-de-sac 90 meters or so south of the firing position. A question is; how good is the resolution of your camera at 90 meters? It is noticed the imagery in the video as you fired 27 rounds down the footpath, is cropped, obscuring the upper limits of the view down the line of fire, so it is difficult to figure any target at all. Would a dark blue vehicle be recorded across that footpath at 90 meters, as you fired those 27 rounds? Because it doesn’t appear to be there. This ‘eye-witness’, out driving at the time of the shooting, was able to return through whatever was going on, to her place of interview, in the immediate aftermath of this horrendous mass murder and there, sometime later, narrate the vehicles’ demise.  It is possible of course. There may well be a dark blue car in the video being riddled with bullets the writer can’t see and it may well be that the one hundred plus fully armed and special Police operating their exercises that day, rushing to the Mosque, setting up perimeters and cordons and alive with the drama of the moment…might have let Ms. Jamieson drive along Deans Avenue, to return to Palazzo Place, past the Blue car sitting directly in the middle of that cul-de-sac entrance way; and there be interviewed.

Again; the single photograph of LDZ784 proves nothing. The 27 rounds, at muzzle velocity (the speed of bullet leaving the rifle) of over 900 meters per second (2952 feet per second) said to have damaged this vehicle 90 metres from firing position, may well be in evidence in this photograph that the writer can’t see. Even so, that narrative and those questions, will also have to be tested against the ‘Go-Pro’ sequence of the firing showing NO deviation of shot pattern toward any ‘oncoming vehicles’ driving north up Deans Avenue toward you.

To site from the centre footpath firing line you empirically held, to a left approaching vehicle on the roadway coming at you; would have you ‘lift’ the barrel over the parked vehicles all the way along the street between you and that approaching vehicle; that is if you could even see it; Or fire through them. Neither happened. Not according to the dataset. You are not recorded targeting a car driving north up Deans Avenue toward you. It also must be repeated, that Palazzo Place is 90 meters, more or less, south from the Deans Av. Mosque. At 90 meters would your camera have picked up a blue vehicle straddling the footpath immediately in front of you?

So, pretending the official account to be true; that the vehicle wasn’t just placed there later to cover a tactical balls-up in real-time reason you stood out there firing 27 shots at sweet fuck all ; arguing that it actually happened; that the shell casings didn’t disappear into the ether; we would still have to account for the physical violence carrying further on down Deans Avenue, south, from that gun; through that car; and the physical/digital behaviour of the ejecting shells from it as you fired. The effective range of this weapon is quoted, at 600yards. 548.64 metres. That is ‘effective’ range. What about ‘ineffective’ range ? The bullets don’t stop at 600yards. They can no longer be relied on to be specificly targeting, but they carry on nonetheless. Ricochet…some fragment of power, released in 27 shots, will have skipped, flown, bounced into the many and varied signs and installations along the footpath way and reached perhaps the power pole directly planted in the centre line of that footpath dog-leg, or further; hitting whatever was travelling through the ‘T’ intersection – directly in the firing line - in those moments. The author stepped out the intersection to be approximately 800 meters south from your firing position and is that, apparently, is within reach of this weapon, albeit with no accuracy.

This is a major “T” intersection that has traffic sequences alive with vehicles that Friday lunch time, going to and fro…vehicles sat at the lights or moving through during your fusillade. And on the other side of that intersection – directly in the firing line - are new and used JEEPS and MERCEDES vehicles parked in a vehicle sales yard called ‘Prestige Cars’ – vehicles, slightly raised, looking right back up that footpath at you. Each and every one of which, your shots, missed.

Obviously not only possible, but what must have actually happened, for the summary to be accurate. But, 10 days after this crucial strike, when asked, the management of that car yard knew nothing of it.

They reported no damage to any vehicles in the firing line. They had not looked at the video, of course, being law abiding so had no idea those 27 shots came whistling and bouncing down the footpath firing-line directly at them…in fact expressed real surprise when told the video evidence presented it. No vehicle on their lot had a scratch. No anecdotal reports of civilian vehicles hit or passengers injured while passing through those light sequences, or stopped at them, have so far surfaced. Which, given the magnitude of this atrocity in a city the size of Christchurch, and the impact on the local community where ‘collateral damage’ stories would have certainly appeared in local media, in the days and months following; to the writers knowledge, there were, and have been, none corroborating this shot pattern.

One thing is certain: the act of standing still for so long in the street, between two separate incursions into the Mosque, firing these 27 single rounds south at no appreciable target, did not appear the act of a mad man. To the contrary, it seemed to the writer, a determined and solid effort to expend that amount of ammunition, and that amount of time, outside the Mosque confines, doing it. Either way, somehow, a torrent of 27 highly powered point two two three rounds managed to disappear into the ether leaving not a single trace of them that could be found 10 days after the event. This, again, not only has to be possible, but it has to be actual, for the official account to succeed.

[14] Having run out of ammunition, you discarded your weapon and returned to your vehicle you actually returned to your vehicle with your weapon and then discarded it - very clumsily @ 9:31. There is also a photograph or screen shot taken of your discarded weapon ‘broken’ as-if it were a 12 gauge shotgun. Not usual behaviour for a weapon of the kind you you are reported using. where you armed yourself with another military style semi-automatic firearm fitted with two 40-round magazines. You also flirted with/semi-lifted/casually moved/accidentally ‘bumped’ - one of two red-plastic petrol containers sat in the rear of the vehicle, which appeared – by movement - to have very little, if any, weight in them. The author is supposing these to be the ‘IUDs’ referenced in the summary? There are no other ‘devices’ or objects seen in the dataset in any way satisfying that description.

With this other military style semi-automatic firearm, taken from the open rear of your vehicle, clipped with two additional 40-round ? magazines to its side, you stepped back onto Deans avenue where you stopped and pointed your weapon theatrically north, toward Riccarton Road @ 9:48. This appeared to maximise, for camera, the lethality of ammunition clipped to the weapon. You held that position for perhaps 3 seconds without firing, then, turning south, hurried toward the exit gateway where originally Mr JAMA was seen.

As you got to this main ‘exit’ gateway; while still on the footpath, you flipped a look at the Mosque entrance and the camera clearly records FQH875 moving out of its parked position @ 9:54.

The vehicle was moving.

you INSTANTLY turned the helmet camera away, avoiding that evidence of movement, to look south, down Deans avenue; and kept walking toward the Mosque vehicle entrance way gate, another 20 or so meters south. Where @ 9:57 You fired this weapon [[firstly, 11 (eleven) times] down a side driveway towards the back of the Mosque, then after looking about, a further 5 shots down the same firing line @ 10:09 murdering Muse Awale and Hamza Alhaj Mustafa, a 16-year-old boy who had escaped from the main prayer room and was sheltering behind vehicles. Another man, Mohammad Shamim Siddiqui, was critically wounded.

Firstly, in this sequence, no one being HIT ‘sheltering behind vehicles’, is evident in the dataset. In the version seen by the author, no persons were seen shot and no barrel deviation to allow ‘sheltering behind vehicles’. The resolution allows it to be argued, one fleeting figure in the distance – maybe - and some white material on the ground three or four cars away, but not apparently targeted and not apparently human either. However; the critical question of this part of the action is: Why didn’t you shoot the driver of FQH875 for the second time? He was DRIVING. You saw him. Driving out toward you; you with your big gun! You were there to ‘bag’ as many as you could, according to your own blowhard audio. Yet you purposefully avoided looking at and targeting this vehicle - twice – Why? Pretending instead another tactic; firing a volley of 11, then 5, steady shots along an empty southern car park ‘pedestrian’ zone. That is, west toward the breeze-block wall perhaps 150 meters distant. Which seemed an act of no purpose except to avoid FQH875.

Would those rounds have impacted the back (western) wall? will be in the Police forensics record of course. As said, there is something white on the ground in the distance you might have targeted, but you fired 11 shots. Then you look left where nothing of the blue Honda LDZ784 supposedly sat, smashed by 27 rounds across the footpath, 70 to 80 meters south down Deans avenue at Palazzo Lane. Then you look North toward Riccarton road; making some dumb arse comment about ‘not bagging more, boys’ – then fire 5 more shots back down that same empty space. 16 in all - at arguably, nothing.

You then stride BACK INTO THE MOSQUE: @10:33 minutes into the dataset.

Why? That’s one question.

Why ?

But; to pause and digress a moment: We have to look further at this vehicle, FQH875. What was it that made you pause? what was it make you not fire?

What do we know, open source, of this vehicle ?

Because FQH 875 had gone; knocking the traffic cone over. And you let it go. On video. Twice.

A vehicle that was in later months, observed, photographed and posted online by a passing cyclist parked outside 66a Milton Street Somerfield Christchurch. 

The property was found registered in the name ALNOBANI LIMITED (8085637)/ Khaled Majed Abdelrauof ALNOBANI / H451260 [Takeaway food retailing]  https://app.companiesoffice.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/8085637/detail?backurl=%2Fcompanies%2Fapp%2Fui%2Fpages%2Fcompanies%2F8085637%2FnzbnPbdView  

In later media coverage of the Mosque attack, one Khaled Alnobani, is filmed discussing the jammed lock on the blocked ‘escape’ door, set into the south eastern wing of the Mosque prayer room. https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/it-doesnt-open-christchurch-mosque-shooting-survivors-describe-terror-at-door/   

The chance, that this is the same Mr. Alnobani, is a good one. In 2021, a GOOGLE street map search of 66a Milton street, has a Silver Toyota WILL parked directly outside of it. Registration blurred. The vehicle is in more or less the same position as the cyclist’s earlier photograph. The image also features a NZ Labour Party billboard prominently on it. Thus, a preference for the NZ Labour party at 66a Milton street is established, with a visible link to FQH875 parked outside of it and registered to it.

Panned 180 degrees, a Blue Honda vehicle is ‘screen captured’ driving back east along Milton Street at this moment. This vehicle has ‘Yani Johanson’’the peoples’ choice’ clearly posted on its side. Johanson is, or was, the ward councillor for Linwood, where the second attack took place and had also been interviewed in the aftermath of the attack.

A confluence of interests, one could say.

What are the chances. A Silver Toyota WILL, registered FQH875 is first recorded on your video parked outside the Mosque entrance doorway as you began the shooting sequence. It was twice NOT fired upon by you: @ 9:41 as you exit the building for the first time, pointing your weapon at what must be argued the shape of a driver and, moments later, recorded in motion, leaving the parked position. So thats clearly, a choice. You chose not to target it. Why?

@10.33 as you return to the Mosque; FQH875 has gone.

An unknown time later that car is photographed by a cyclist and reported by a blogger, parked outside 66a Milton Street, Somerfield ChCh - a property owned by a person found to have the same name as an eyewitness in the official narrative. Not unusual in the circumstances.

This property, by ‘street-camera’, captured in 2021, happened to have parked outside, at that precise moment, a Silver Toyota WILL - rego blotted by google - arguably in the same general position FQH875 had been in when photographed by that passing cyclist earlier. That’s pretty clear.

Scrolling left on the street view record, shows a NZ Labour party billboard on the front fence of 66a. This applies to the question simply because it was the NZ Labour Party in power at the time of the attack and the Prime Minister’s personal appearances resulting from it that propelled her onto the international stage, where she advocated for both arms and internet controls as a result of the attack, identifying domestic terror issues and white supremacy as a new threat to public order. This Internet control is to become an international program, branded ‘The Christchurch Call’ - a global internet surveillance and disinformation program. The details of which, the writer supposes, are not of her making.

We scroll left, then right and just happening to be driving past that address, billboard and vehicle of the same make model and colour of FQH875; at that precise moment; as if to triangulate the argument; is a vehicle sporting the name of the city Councillor for the ward in which the Linwood Community Centre is addressed many miles from Deans Avenue. The second attack address of 15th March.

What are the chances ?

[aside : ‘The purpose of Inform and Influence Operations is not to provide a perspective, opinion, or lay out a policy. It is defined as the ability to make audiences think and act in a manner favourable to the mission objectives. This is done through applying perception management techniques which target the audiences emotions, motives and reasoning.’ ]

To continue.

[15] You then returned to the main prayer room.

What possible motive had you go back? You were in no fear of reprisal ? The Police, whom you must have known were coming, didn’t bother you? You find nothing substantively different in those rooms? NO crazed movements of rescue or triage. No screams…anguish. No roaring of rage. No escapees. No running pools of blood and smashed arms or legs… You returned to see ‘the wounded and dead’…but no limping, blood gaping, gut, brain splashed damage; no DUST in the clear air…no shouts or screams — just the same quiet dull moaning and everybody laying exactly as you left them.

Is this usual?

What templates did the chief censor apply deciding this was authentic behaviour?

As you entered you saw Mr Hoq, who was wounded, sitting up against a window. You aimed one shot at Mr Hoq, @10:48] killing him instantly,   [[But without any effect behind him apparent]] before firing further shots at a group of people lying in one  [[North]] corner.  

@10:58 the ‘white-hat’ sequence takes place. This is against the north main room wall where a young man is seen among the clump of bodies, sitting up, and back to the wall by the window, wearing a white Kufi or brimless hat.

His face appears to have a mask or protective covering, completely ‘greyed-out’. You aim and fire at him, blowing the Kufi off his head, and into the air. There is no apparent damage to the wall behind him or to the featureless mask. The flight of the hat, ‘blasted’ by the discharge, flies from his head in an expected parabolic arc; to your right. Toward a body clumped against the wall in front of him dressed in black.

Slowed down and staggered into ‘frames’, the trajectory of the hat, toward the end of its flight, changes. From the perfect and expected ‘arc-in-decent’ of natural physics - at the end of it’s trajectory, it instead slides horizontally - distinctly - for three frames - in synchronicity with the barrel movement, sideways. Before it disappears entirely and completely into one digital moment; a gap that isn’t there; couldn’t possibly be there: behind a body in black clothing pushed hard up against the white wall where there is no space for it to slide. So, it disappears entirely and suddenly into the digital black and white divide in the dataset.

There were some 30 deceased or critically wounded worshippers in this mass of people. You delivered fatal shots to those who were still alive. To compare, images of Al Noor Christchurch; Shatila and Sabra Refugee camp Massacres in Lebanon. Which we are allowed to see, while images from AlNoor, we are not.

Bicep of Grosskrewtz, shot in self defence (below) with comparable weapon by Kyle Rittenhouse/august 25, 2020 BLM riots Kenosha. The second image below that is at the moment of impact. Notice the mist of blood and flesh both with JFK (above) and Grozzkrewtz. Nowhere in the video taken by Tarrant or the Linwood clip is ANY damage, comparable, recorded.

 [17] After exiting the Mosque[[@11:40]] for the second time you saw two women attempting to escape. [[@11:47]] You shot Ansi Karippakulam Alibava and Husna Ahmed. Ms Ahmed was killed. Ms Karippakulam Alibava was wounded. 

The Summary states the wounding and killing of these two young women occurred as you shot them attempting to escape; there and then, in the moment they fled through the single pedestrian gate.

This gate is set into the Deans Ave Mosque northern perimeter corner, perhaps 50 meters distant. The two are briefly seen running at the gate, apparently dressed in black and grey. This spring-loaded metal ‘filigree’ designed gate, opens toward them, on their right, which adds to the difficulty of escape. It is not certain the gate was not already open, given the time allowed in the recording. However. You quickly aim and fire, twice. Only one person is evidenced being wounded at this moment in the video – Identified as Ms Alibava- who lay in the gutter in front of your car. There is no evidence in the video that Ms Ahmed was killed in these frames. You reach the main exit gate a second later @ 11:54 - where the orange cone lies on its side. Presumably knocked over by FQH875. You look north toward the gate just fired upon, but from the footpath, now. A human shape, dressed in red, appears to hover to your left over against the Mosque inner breezeblock wall. He is seen in two or three frames during this sequence. There is one wounded person lying in the gutter calling “help me”. She appears as a black shape in front of two parked cars - Ms Alibava.

Of Ms Ahmed - reportedly killed at this moment in the Summary – her body is nowhere to be seen.  There is, however, a figure, much alive, briefly seen running across the road toward the park to your right. You do not fire on this person.

Instead, you fire two shots toward Riccarton road, up the footpath line, to the left of Ms Alibava’s prone and wounded body in the gutter, as in clearly seen in the screen shot. You don’t fire at her; nor at the black clad figure fleeing further to your right, across the road toward Hagley Park; nor at that figure inside the wall appearing suddenly to your left inside the mosque property, against the driveway breeze block wall bordering 107 driveway (northern) wall.

Strangely, given the abhorrence otherwise shown by the censors toward images of the violence at Al Noor, two later photographs appear open source, of an apparently deceased young woman lying in a drive way two properties or so north of 107 Deans Avenue; dressed in light grey, pink and purple. These remain in the public gaze. How she managed to be in this position, two properties north from the described events, with no association to them described in either the dataset or the Summary, dressed as she was, is not explained.

But, ever more strangely, why is the body photographed in TWO different locations ? In the first image, is a shrub appearing against the footpath/corner wall which does not appear in the second image. How this dissimilarity exists in the dataset without media attention remains one of the many mysteries of the day.

To continue.

The sad and hopeless image of the shooting of the wounded and prostrate Ms Alibava; firing twice into her head at very close range - pop-pop - @ 12:06 minutes into the dataset; seared into the collective conscious and subconscious, a ‘transformative moment’ in the total experience; smashing the traumatised viewing public into a shocked silence and furthering obedience toward authenticity of the video. An incredibly powerful jolt was administered to New Zealand’s ‘psychological memory’ in that moment, by this act and In terms of it’s societal purpose; the acceptance of it as ‘fact’ was made clear. This execution changed us. Altered our every regard. ‘Blooded’ us as a nation into the greater terrorist world order.

In terms of narrative construction, if studied that way, the videos beginning has your first victim - a youngish man - Welcoming you generously… ‘Welcome Brother’ he was saying. Whom you brutally shot many times with a shotgun at steadily diminishing range to little obvious ‘forensic’ effect - a man later buried as a 75 year old - and in ending the Mosque sequence, you kill a young woman lying in the street in-front of you, [Muzzle velocity over 900 meters per second (2952 feet per second)] plaintively calling for help. For mercy. “Help me…Help me”. ‘Welcome Brother’ and ‘Help me Help me’.

You casually shot her twice in the head as you returned to your car.

These are moments of great impact to the viewer - as said. Any questions -- for instance, that the original victim appears in your video a youngish man (mid-late 30s), later reported in media buried as a 75-year-old; are not asked, because no questions are recognised, so powerful was the shock to the watching public. All the viewers saw, if they saw it at all, was a callous, brutal, casual, horror show and that was enough. You were the quintessential (white)(racist) murderer; beyond any redemption. You were identifiably the evil in the world; you were Shaitan; a ‘friend of AZOV Banderite Ukrainian Nazis’ (whom our country later allied with through NATO in the contrived war against Russia.)

And we wanted you destroyed.

However: The data shows you shoot Ms Alibava ‘at point blank range’ as she lay in the gutter, pleading for help. Perhaps at 6ft..not quite point blank, but close enough with this weapon to suggest certain results. Two shots composing critical psychological triggers for those watching and struggling to understand what they were seeing. In this unsolicited live-feed. Most, having no experience at all of live fire, at this moment will have seared into them the utter barbarity of your behaviour, and have no doubts at-all; that what they were looking at was real. But, of this moment, the question we must ask, are of the ballistics, rather than the cruelty. The cruelty is obvious; ever more so if proven an air-weapon, staged and scripted.

What are the forensic expectations of this physical act? You fired two quick shots directly into the back of a young woman’s head ‘lying in the street’ at very close range, with a Military rifle, said to fire .223.  High velocity, very powerful shot…pop-pop !!

Would this in any way apply ? https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS2Ju39w4/ 

(The writer cannot vouch for the ammunition or weapon or material composition of the surrogate used, above. The title online is 'AR-15'. So the writer takes it at it's word. The writer also can’t say what difference the 15 and the 16 would make at such a distance. What the video does do, is show the result of two, quickly fired, close shots to a surrogate human head, from a similarly charged semi-automatic rifle.)

5.56mm NATO (.223) caliber cartridge, muzzle velocity over 900 meters per second maximum effective range 600 yards.

Air blast from the rifle flicked her hair up in the video, yes; Violently. And one piece of loose black material did fly off, yes; Violently. But. That is easily attributable to air blast and would be expected of both live-fire or air powered exercise weapon. Which also, apparently, do not fire automatic.  So. What are the expectations of high velocity bullets fired at very close range into the skull of a young, living, female ? A young woman. The ‘norms . What are the precedents? For instance, RITTENHOUSE, earlier? The JFK head shot? What would the experienced gun-user, military Ballistics expert or Police Forensics officer EXPECT to find at the site of two quick head shots at very close range into a head laying on the pavement, from a high velocity long barrelled military rifle firing .223 ?? Would they smash and pass through as shown above?

Because, those rounds DID NOT EXIT her skull. Did not impact the material surface her head lay upon. The road. The ground. The concrete/asphalt that person was lying on.

This can be considered fact irrefutable. Fact categorical. Fact Evidential.

The writer determinedly studied that exact ground, in person. with camera, ten days later. The spot is clearly identifiable and findable because it can only BE in one place on Gods green earth: directly where she was positioned in the live-stream, and where SMITH sat laying his hand upon her shoulder: Deans avenue Christchurch, directly infront of the drive way to apartments at number 107. The position was accessed without difficulty and studied accordingly on the street outside the closed and protected Mosque 10 days later. Nothing hit that ground. The writer has ‘shot guns’ - fired weapons. Understands the kinetics of shot hitting live creatures. Knows what animal blood and bone and brain look like after impact. The human being is animal. The result of shot, the same. The comparison is apple and apple. Orange and orange. The writer has since spoken to half a dozen men experienced in the use of highly powered weapons, including a forensics specialist from the NZ Police. All have said without doubt or hesitation, that, of the two rounds, both - but certainly one – would have impacted the ground at point of contact.

Interestingly, the forensics specialist was not called on to assist Christchurch evidence/data mapping, after the event, which appears odd given the scale of things. An egregious mass murder; the shooting of 100 people in an enclosed space, with a further 15 or so killed and injured at Linwood is a HUGE evidence field to protect and gather from, but this forensics officers’ skills weren’t required. One would have thought the need for every forensic specialist in NZ to that initial scene paramount; especially given the time frame of clean up; because, 12 days later, Friday two weeks to the day of the killings, the Mosque was open for prayer again.

Perhaps, of those hundred- and twenty plus armed offender squad specialists in Christchurch for their Armed Offender exercising that day, and their overseas compatriots taking part in armed role playing in ChCh; perhaps enough were forensics Police able to quickly ‘fill the gap’ - ‘go-live’ - and spare officers in other parts of the country the need to be there. Other general Police were, however, ‘called in’. From Hawera, Palmerston North and other points north and south. To stand impressive armed guard at the gates, gathering support from shocked onlookers while work went on behind. The author spoke with three of these Police and found none had viewed the ‘go-pro’ video and so had no idea of the questions being raised right infront of them. It is also reasonable to note no memorable repair-work evident in the 2 days the writer observed the area. No service trucks, vans, skips coming and going, or visible in the car park . Or down either side clearly visible from the street.

Of course, they may well have been ‘around the back’.

Of the ballistics concerning Ms Alibava, there was no damage to the tarmac at all. Nothing. No cleaning. No scratching. No repairing. NOTHING had altered the material patterning of that spot from the immediate and extended physical world around it. The street Patina was untouched; then as it had been for the months and years before.

Which, again of course; is not only POSSIBLE, but must have been what actually happened for the official account to succeed.

These two high velocity military rifle bullets, fired at very close range (5-6ft) directly into a human head and immediate to each other - ‘pop-pop’ - got lost without exiting the brain mass and skull. They might have been cheaper, less powerful or defective rounds. Again; a ‘least likely’ that must have occurred, for the Official Narrative - the Summary - to prevail. Just another magic bullet, fired by another lone nut, in another shooting where bullets manage extraordinary feats and are, arguably, only able to do so due to the political needs of the day. Bullets which, without the ability to access, assess, argue and test the evidence - before a jury of our peers - remain uncontested, unresolved and unacceptable.

The writer is certain these forensics would have been corroborated - certified - by the experts employed by Government in the coroners enquiry held since the awful event. To the question, though: what we saw, we were given to see, is all we can discuss. The whole picture was filmed - for us to see. To authenticate a mass-murder event. A political act. Anomalies discussed do not feature in any official record or media to the writers best knowledge, and analysis of the original data is forbidden by LAW, even while, of these two actions taking place in the street, open for independent ‘corroboration’, neither were.

it must also be understood, that, under the act (Films, Videos, Publications Classifications Act 1993) the classification is not only given power by the ‘authenticity’ of the actions taking place, ie: whether nor not they are REAL. It is enough that the actions depicted are AS IF, real. That is; if these are actors, pretending-as-real the killing of peoples inside the Mosque, then that central pretence, of killing peoples inside the Mosque, is enough to qualify the material as objectionable under the act.

TO CONTINUE: At 12:28 in the dataset, you had to run over Ms. Alibava as her body lay in front of your car. There is argument to be made that little-to-no discernible vehicle movement describes this action. The data does not record the body of a human being, being run over in the classic sense. Again, this is not impossible. Your right wheels probably ran over the lower legs. Your left front and rear therefor probably crushed whatever was left of the skull after two high velocity shot disintegrated it without leaving a scratch on the tarmac. So, minimal ‘bump’ is to be expected there. However, even a crushed melon leaves fruit, and there are no fragments of any crushed melon apparent in the following photograph of Mr. Nathan SMITH, of Poole in Dorset, comforting the corpse of this poor young woman so callously slain. In fact it has been commented no head at all, in the said photograph. The body also remained ‘unmoved’ from it’s original position, even after having been ‘run-over’ by your vehicle. Perhaps the central height of the underbelly of the Subaru allows that. It obviously must for the summary to be correct.

Which brings us to the second eye-witness to whom pause must be given. Please remember; as with Ms Jamieson; this is NOT an accusation. This is a review of verbal statements recorded by national and international media; attributable to two identified sources; as part of the days events; Ms. Jamieson and Mr. Smith. Their actions are as they remembered themselves; and, as these memories and actions apply to other records of them. Asking, Do they match? The author is not attacking the persons named; because, or in case of because; he didn’t invent or interview them. The author has never met either person and would prefer these conflicted witness statements to be cross-examination in a court of law by experts.

However; that option is not open at the time of writing. So this remains a review of the publicly available (open source) data-as-evidence they have given as witness to an egregious HATE crime. Their account of the only two actions taking place in the street that might be independently corroborated.

That’s all we have to go on. The author apologises for any inferences otherwise.

Mr. Nathan SMITH. Poole. British.

Mister SMITH is, on the basis of his own testimony, the central figure in white t shirt in the lower photograph, with his hand resting on the alleged corpse of Ms ALIBAVA. He is reasonably identified as ‘Nathan SMITH’, ‘Father of three originally from Poole in Dorset”, reportedly arriving in NZ 13 years earlier.

In a BBC article, March 20, 2019, Mr.SMITH is said to have escaped from the mosque, saying ‘he found a young woman lying in the road beside the mosque. "I can see she's been shot so I crouch down and try to roll her over...I didn't know her name and I don't know where she's from at the time. I'm just holding her, I don't know why but I'm stroking her back — she's already dead." Later, he is quoted saying he had spent hours at a community center in the hope of finding her husband. "I was just hoping to catch a glimpse of her husband. I need to find him. I don't know his name. I just need to know he's okay."   http://www.chchtruth.com/

SMITH went on to state (2) in The sun.co.uk/news 31 March by Jon ROGERS, the same above BBC narrative, but, was added: “GUARDIAN ANGEL: Brit who survived Christchurch terror attack cradled body of young woman while shots were still being fired.” And “while shots were still flying around.” And, “now people are coming out of the Masjid shouting and crying and people are being shot so I take my jersey off and put it over this girl.”

Mr SMITH sat beside the body, took his jersey off, and put it over the body ‘while shots were still flying and people are being shot’. But there were no shots being fired after Ms Alibava was murdered. She was the last person shot during this part of the action. Mr SMITH said he ‘managed to escape through the back of the mosque’ – by which exit, we don’t know -  and ran to his car – where it was parked, we don’t know - before escaping over a wall.  What wall, we don’t know; then sat ‘just holding her’ “While shots were still being fired”.

 Mr Smith is photographed sitting on the roadside, with his left hand on the gory corpse of a young woman without the appearance of a head (so far as the photograph is concerned), saying, later, “while shots are being fired.”

In the photograph, Police stand about him with firearms ready.. going about their business. People are walking around and speaking to one another. It is a calm scene as-far-as-it-goes. It is after the great carnage but certainly not ‘while shots are being fired and people are being shot’. A macabre act by any measure. Very unusual.

And unless there is another photograph previous to this one; it is staged. It was photographed later. Mr. SMITH, saying there was live firing going on as he comforted a corpse, with people running out of the mosque crying, in no way applies to this photograph. Which is - by itself - an act forensic police would ordinarily never allow. A person sitting physically touching a corpse, without apparent REASON; has to have police permission. Whether English Muslim convert from Poole, Dorset, or not.

However; Mr SMITH, not satisfied with this account, went on to speak with (3) https:www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/brit-survivor-new-zealand-mosque-22577353 (blocked in NZ at the time of writing//ERROR404) Martin FRICKER 25 August 2020: ”Brit survivor of NZ mosque massacre cradled dead boy, 3, during horror attack.” Now, we have introduced another key element from the Official Account. The murder of a three year old boy inside the mosque. In the report ‘reliving the attack’, Mr.SMITH says ‘…he cradled a dead child in his arms and told the killer (later at sentencing) “I will never forgive you.” And “The brave dad of three looked the race-hate monster straight in the eye and said ‘I held a 3 yr old boy in my arms praying he was still alive. But he was not..”  “One of the youngest to die was Mucad Ibrahim, aged 3. Mr SMITH said he saw the killer gunning down worshippers before he escaped through a fire exit.” These are explicit details identifying Mucad Ibrahim’s death INSIDE the Mosque, and Mr.SMITH’s part in his tragic death explained to the British readers of ‘The Mirror’; but not available to New Zealanders at the time of writing, since this link was blocked in NZ. Which begs the question; Why was this link blocked in NZ and how was it blocked? UK internet can easily access that page, or could at the time of writing; but it is denied to us in NZ. That is a conscious act of censorship. Why would that be? Conversely, by blocking the page, we are alerted to it.

BUT. Mr SMITH goes ever further into his memories of the day, testifying (4) on Radionz audio, to “remembering everything like it was yesterday.” The voiceover describes Mr. Smith hearing the pop-pop-pop “amid the chaos Nathan began checking on those who had been shot. Many, including a woman who had been killed, were all familiar faces. Nathan is reported saying : ”She’d been shot in the side. I knew who she was but with everything going on I couldn’t put her face because I’d never seen her without hijab, so, her hijab was pink so I picked it up off the floor and I wrapped it around her head and around her neck and then Iman lifted it up to see who it was and he covered her as well, then we got pushed over into the park. Suggesting they were already outside; to be ‘pushed over’ [the road] ‘to the park.’ “We spent maybe an hour in the park surrounded by Police.”  He (then) went to the hospital (on the opposite side of Hagley Park, many hundreds of meters away) where he was asked by staff if he wanted to help identify the dead and he did so, until the husband of the above body-in-pink rang through, after which, in trauma, he gave up helping.

 There are two photographs of a young woman’s body, in Pink, available in the public space - that is, ‘unclassified’ imagery.

It would have to be argued, in the first instance, the body photographed above is photographed in two different locations. At least in one case many metres further north on Deans Avenue from the Mosque, in a driveway not visible from the Mosque exit. How and why was this body photographed in two different locations? Where does this person feature in the Summary reaching this point and why is this body photographed in two different places ? Was there another young woman in pink Mr. Smith’s account could refer to? Is this supposed to be Ms. Ahmed, described In the summary being killed at the pedestrian gate so many metres back down Deans Avenue at the time Ms Alibava was wounded? So not “amid the chaos” when Nathan’ ‘began checking on those shot’ inside the Mosque where he found the described person in the pink hijab with the Iman; before or during or after cradling the dead three year old in his arms and before his escape through a rear fire exit to his car and over a wall, to sit beside Ms Alibava’s corpse on Deans Avenue while live firing was going on.

It is all possible of course, and has to be for the narrative to survive; but In no single account are all three figures Mr SMITH reported himself interacting with, present in the same testimony. It was Ibrahim in one, Alibava the next, and, the writer presumes, Ms. Ahmed the next. (“Following the principle that his story should involve mostly or almost entirely valid fact, the author of the hoax easily slips into the error of including as much fact as possible…” Butz. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.) Mr. SMITH has managed to associate himself with three of the major characters in the official narrative; without connecting them in any way to each other. He reported himself ‘cordoned in the park’ for an hour, ‘at ChCh Hospital helping identify victims’ (across the Park) and later ‘spending hours at a community centre looking for mister ALIBAVA; differing memories to different media that fall into the JAMA and JAMIESON unexplored and uncontested eye-witness testimonies. All hopelessly entangled.

Which later Includes mister WAHABAZADAH, at Linwood.

In the public ‘discourse’, no questions are ever asked of these witnesses beyond their original statements establishing the narratives. Certainly nothing deviating from them. The themes break down to a series of bullet points that don’t corroborate each other because no one is asking them to; no need…media have established the story-line hundreds of times, repeated in hundreds of outlets; cross-linked and cross-referenced each to the other through the search-engines and backed up by the ‘NGO’ fact checkers and ‘disinformation project’ enablers. As Edward Bernays is quoted saying, ‘satisfying the logic-proof compartment of dogmatic adherence.” It is self confirming. Around and around and around.

With a final protective firewall: classification under the LAW .

In this real life compendium of presented fact, inconsistency and anomaly are on endless narrative loop going nowhere except to restate itself, Informing no one beyond it; because after the initial shock and awe and description, nothing is added except to warn against questioning the dead and injured.

There is no need to question. Outrage precludes it.

[18] As you drove away from the Al Noor Mosque you  continued to shoot at anyone who you considered should be the target of your hate. You discharged a shotgun at two men who appeared to be of African descent. A short distance on you saw Muhammad Nasir and his son walking towards the Mosque dressed in traditional clothing. You again discharged the shotgun, seriously wounding Mr Nasir, before actioning the weapon again and pointing it directly at the boy who was trying to hide behind a wall. You pulled the trigger but it failed to fire Which comes to the third period of record requiring considerable contest.

There are several inconsistencies here, between the official account and the video evidence of it.  Once leaving the Mosque, you drove a few seconds north toward the Riccarton Road roundabout, along Deans Ave, until pausing the vehicle @12:50 to fire a pump action shotgun point-blank, from INSIDE the vehicle; through the front windscreen of your car at another figure ahead of you, apparently getting into a small light grey/blue parked car on your left - which proceeded to drive away without too much distress observable.

First at 12:50; second @12:53.

At 13:01 you discard a miss-fired cartridge.

You then continued driving north for twenty metres or so with the weapon poised over your steering wheel. You stop the vehicle again and fire at another parked car on your left, through the front windshield again, @ 13: 12.

That is; 3 SHOTGUN blasts at one inch point-blank through your front windscreen glass, from INSIDE. Without shattering the glass into smithereens. Without earmuffs.

What shot were you using?

You drive north; again, pausing to fire through your passengers left front window, shattering it. Did you hit it with your barrel end as you pulled the trigger? It’s possible. Your target, identified in the summary as Mr NASIR, was walking through ‘Argyle in the Park’ Motel car park @ 13:20 with one other man. He leaps behind a hedge and is reported, wounded.

A clear misfire then follows that fourth discharge-aimed toward Mr Nasir as recorded >@ 13:23. 4 shots. Two misfires.

This extraordinarily dangerous action also leaves no apparent discomfort to your hearing and was reportedly done with no consequence to anyone other than Mr NASIR, cited as among the injured. As to the windscreen, there are small linear cracks recorded across the surface of glass as the sunlight reflects on the dashboard, though these are difficult to see. But the windscreen itself - overall - remains intact. It is more or less impossible to find holes in the glass in the video. Stress points are identified, by reflective sun-patterning on the dashboard, as said; but show as ‘runs of light’ as you drive east along Harpers avenue; they do not appear in the pattern later photographed (above) as the vehicle was being lifted onto a transporter - a ‘triangular’ pattern. This, in the normal manner of things, can be tested because It would also seem a fair question, that windshield glass suffering multiple shotgun blasts at actual point blank range and closest proximity to each other, might leave more than such pristine patterning of them.

Mention can also be made of movement of the scent ‘doily’ hanging under the front windscreen rear vision mirror in more or less direct positioning to those holes. This movement could be tested against wind-blow through three air holes as depicted in the glass beneath it; during your 80 - 100km speed driving along Harpers Avenue, if the courts so desired. To see if the recorded patterns can be replicated.

These actions must be argued in the Courts, of course. With those experts in ballistics and windscreen glass under stress to help us along. The writer freely admits this analysis is amateur, but the sequence is perplexing, and given reasonable knowledge of shotgun effect; anomalous.

FOUR shots were fired and two further attempts - misfires - while in your vehicle. That is the record – the documented data - on camera.

Yet, on ITV, in a piece by John RAY describing this part of your action; he produces CCTV footage audio supposedly from the Motel forecourt at ‘Argyle in the Park’ at 145 Deans Avenue, where it can clearly be heard a brief burst of fully automatic gunfire (@ 0:27 into the clip) in the distance.

There was NEVER automatic gunfire in your video.

Then, four shots; a horn blast; and a fifth shot.

https://youtu.be/pM_yJSVv5R4

Your ‘Go-Pro’ audio clearly records

NO automatic fire: FOUR shots: NO horn blast.

Begging the question, If the audio is authentic to the action of the day, then someone else was firing an automatic weapon, a fifth shot and tooting a horn;

because it wasn’t you. Which means one or other or BOTH, are …..what? Inserts? faked? A filler ITV threw in; some made-up audio to back the narrative, so are guilty of lying to the public. Or it is authentic. In which case, someone, somewhere, within earshot of that CCTV camera and microphone, opened up with an automatic weapon. Fired 5 shots. Used a horn.

[19] You then sped away, driving directly to the Linwood Islamic Centre. On the way you came abreast of another vehicle being driven by a Fijian man. You pointed your shotgun at him. Despite repeated attempts to discharge the shotgun it failed to fire. There is no evidence of this on your Dataset that the author saw. Which ended with a remarkably sentient driving sequence, where you had presence of mind enough to indicate lane change while discussing with the ‘online’ audience, your behaviour.  You are finally heard saying you ‘took 5 XANAX’ before you began the recording, which ENDS at this point.

 LINWOOD

In terms of evidence, this 1m18sec Linwood iphone clip is the most bizarre fantastic and important. It should BEGIN the entire presentation, so profound are its implications. It literally films its own staging. One has to practice very hard to see these actions as anything other than amateur and pretending. But go ahead and try. And then try and understand what it is doing in the ‘literature’, at all ! What is it doing here ? And what does it mean, that it is. … Why hasn’t this video been brought to book and threshed on the high floors of justice? The recorded actions are so out of kilter with reality, so casual, almost lazy, that the entire day is turned inside out immediately. Posing huge problems for the official ‘lone-nut’ narrative which, by virtue of this recording, immediately expands into a room full of them. Because more than just ‘the local community’ participated in this exercise. It is literally, the building 7 of the Christchurch Mosque attack.

As it stands, it is the only visual source material out of Linwood this writer has seen.

HTTPS://VIMEO.COM/868899160

One thing is certain; NZ media - all of it, podcast media included - step around this pit of snakes with a determination worthy of JOB.

Continued:

.[20] When you got to Linwood you approached the Mosque on foot down a long driveway, armed with yet another firearm. You saw three people in and around a car. You shot Ghulam Hussain in the head, killing him, before firing at and wounding Muhammad Raza who had got out of the other side of the vehicle. You shot another occupant of the car, Karam Bibi, before advancing up the driveway, where you saw Mr Raza attempting to find cover behind a fence. He attempted to retreat from you. Despite his pleas to spare him, you murdered him. A wounded Ms Bibi sought to hide in front of the vehicle. You walked to within metres of her as she lay prone with her head buried in her hands, stood over her, and killed her.

21] You then advanced towards the Mosque. As you passed a window you saw the silhouette of Mohammed Khan. You murdered him with a single shot to the head. With your weapon now empty, you ran down the driveway back to your vehicle. As you reached the car, Abdul Aziz Wahabazadah, who had courageously followed you down the driveway, challenged you. You retrieved another semi-automatic rifle from your vehicle and fired at him. He dived between some parked cars, before you walked back up the driveway to the main entrance to the Mosque.

This sequence shows an elderly man first seen sitting up taking instruction from unknown individuals. He then lies face down, and gets more comfortable. The last image, at short videos end, has him wandering off in a distracted fashion toward nowhere in particular. In another clip, he is seen stepping over the weapon left lying in the door with ‘HERA’ clearly visible on it’s stock. He knocks the weapon clumsily while stepping over it. Clearly this man was neither injured, nor dead. So what was he DOING ? He is not the only one in the short video but these images will allow the argument to be made, that this is a staging video. Made in the Linwood Centre with full knowledge of those taking part.

Another sequence has two men lying against a wall where one is seen getting into position, to the right; lying down to remain still. After a 30 second scan of the room, the camera returns to that group and records that man gone.

https://vimeo.com/868899160

22] There were several people standing inside the entranceway and further into the building at whom you repeatedly fired. You killed Musa Patel. Walking further into the Mosque, you shot and killed Linda Armstrong. People were huddled in corners of the room or trying to escape as you fired your weapon, killing Mohamad Mohamedhosen. You continued to fire the semi-automatic rifle until it ran out of ammunition, at which point you dropped it and ran back to your vehicle.

 [23] Mr Wahabazadah chased you down the driveway, yelling at you. You removed the bayonet from your vest but retreated in the face of his advance. As you began driving away, Mr Wahabazadah got close enough to throw one of your discarded weapons at your vehicle.

[24] After leaving the Linwood Mosque, your intention was to drive to Ashburton to attack another mosque, but your vehicle was rammed off the road by a police car and you were apprehended by two armed police officers. You were anxious not to be shot and offered no resistance.

[25] When interviewed by police, you told them that you had gone to both mosques with the intention of killing as many people as you could. You regretted not having the opportunity to burn the mosques down by using the incendiary devices, and that you had not been able to shoot more people.

You could easily have ‘burned the mosques down’ - or at least started the fires - If you had wanted to; if you really had intended, to. You had PLENTY of time, and, if there had been petrol IN those cans, plenty of opportunity going in and out over those minutes, to pour gasoline over the piled bodies and inflict grave injustice and degradation upon them by funeral pyre. Easily. But you didn’t. Your ‘regret’ sounds much as your ‘complaint’ over not ‘bagging’ more people; while not bagging Mr. JAMA and many others including the driver of FQH875, twice.

[26] You confirmed to police the ideological motivation for your self-described “terror attacks”, which was reflected in the document you distributed immediately before committing mass murder.

But, by pleading guilty, you did not take advantage of the witness stand to continue that ‘ideological motivation’ - in a loud voice - as would be your legal right. Your compliant guilty plea, allowed NO contest of evidence to take place, anywhere. The content of your ‘manifesto’ has to be argued as a cut and paste intelligence document anyway, but is not part of this essay. And you have never appeared in person anywhere since [we are told] you appeared in Christchurch; lil’ old Kiwi Christchurch, next to the lovely Hagley park oaks; and transformed NZ forever.

The fact that you were an Australian doing this in New Zealand, clearly adds to the ANZAC ‘frisson’ and might be argued as part of any ‘strategy of tension’ perception management dynamic. Any disassembly of which is protected by your guilty plea and classification of the formative -evidential - dataset. Evidence never tested and cross-examined, by experts, in an open court.

Also of note: al Noor shooting survivor Temel Atacocugu, is reported by media having been shot nine times during this attack. It was not identified in the dataset at what stage during the attack these injuries were sustained, nor any details of them. But given the RITTENHOUSE photographic evidence of one wounding by a similar weapon at close range, one is left amazed at the thought a man would survive 9 of them. https://www.npr.org/2022/03/15/1086599199/shot-9-times-at-new-zealand-mosque-survivor-walks-for-peace

Of the two actions taking place in the street, on Deans Avenue, that could possibly be corroborated - or at least be independently assessed by the public in the immediate aftermath - neither were satisfied. Infact, quite the opposite. Of these two instances - the firing of 27 highly powered rounds south down Deans Avenue, and the murder of Ms Alibava, lying on the footpath at very close range - ‘site inspection’ produced no empirical evidence of them. What was produced instead, were media photographs and productions supposed to confirm those two specific parts of the narrative, but which clearly, do not. The witnesses Jamieson and Smith have made public statements that confuse both the Summary of Facts and the video representations of them. Unless and until all these matters are resolved by evidential contest, we have a truth/lie dichotomy of the greatest potency, held in place by an authority system unwilling to unravel it.

……………………END………………………………………………

Drawing on the work of others (Karl ROVE: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do”)……and supposing motives and agenda expressed by this ‘event’ in Christchurch, other than those presented, the writer begs another question. The consequence of this massacre in and on the collective of the people of AotearoaNZ, was cataclysmic. Was profound ! It’s effect was to shift the balances in the great centrifuge. A ‘process, sunk deep in the mind (the writer argues both individual and collective), was activated and released by this event . We changed, that day. Became ‘someone’ else. Were awakened. So that an ultimate purpose of Deans Avenue and Linwood, could arguably be, beyond that of arms control and internet censorship and identifying the [Australian] white male terrorist and warning the Muslim community their safety was no longer assured; the aim may well have been the initiation of that profound shock itself as an ‘transformative moment; in the CIA sense of the word. The ‘transformation’ of the collective sub/conscious into a wider, deeper, more sinister clandestine world so evident in every western country since 911; but not, until The Ides of March 15th; New Zealand.

Until that date, we had been exempt. Isolated. Blessed.

If Christchurch proves to be a ‘strategy-of-tension’ event as the evidence from Linwood argues strongly it was; then we perhaps might observe it’s ‘messaging’ relative to this quote by James Shelby Downard, concerning the JFK murder:

“But the ultimate purpose of that assassination was not political or economic, but sorcerous: this was for the control of the dreaming mind and the marshalling of its forces as the omnipotent force in this entire scenario of lies, cruelty and degradation. Something died in the American people on November 22nd, 1963 - . Call it idealism, innocence or the quest for moral excellence. It is the transformation of human beings which is the authentic reason and motive for the Kennedy murder and until so-called conspiracy theorists can accept this very real element, they will be reduced to so many eccentrics amusing a tiny remnant of dilettantes and hobbyists.” By James Shelby Downard with Michael A. Hoffman II This excerpt Copyright©1998. All Rights Reserved.Context: social engineering: False Flag attacks: Psyops: p2og

and Joseph Goebbels himself :  “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” JG.

‘by way of deception, thou shalt wage war.’ Mossad motto.

 “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do” Karl ROVE

“The lie that was destined to cover the truth of the assassination, was the lie that the assassination is a mystery, that we are not sure what happened, but being free citizens of a great democracy we can discuss and debate what has occurred. We can petition our government and join with it in seeking the solution to this mystery. This is the essence of the cover-up. The lie is, that there is a mystery to debate. And so we have pseudo-debates. Debates about meaningless disputes, based on assumptions which are obviously false. This is the form that Orwell’s crimestop has taken in the matter of the President’s murder. I am talking about the pseudo-debate over whether the Warren Report is true when it is obviously and un-debatably false. . . . Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo-debate is a benign activity. That it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant.

This is not the case.”

Dr. Martin Schotz, author of ‘History Will Not Absolve Us’, said in a talk twenty-five years ago. 

Quote: “The purpose of Inform and Influence Operations is not to provide a perspective, opinion, or lay out a policy. It is defined as the ability to make audiences think and act in a manner favourableto the mission objectives. This is done through applying perception management techniques which target the audiences emotions, motives and reasoning.” George Eliason. 2015.

John F. Kennedy: "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/natos-secret-armies-operation-gladio-and-the-strategy-of tension/5500132 

 https://www.newsbud.com/2019/07/26/sibel-edmonds-presents-operation-gladio-b-from-russia-to-china/

1. Vincenzo Vinciguerra//gladio operative testimony. In sworn testimony on NATO Operation Gladio in Europe: "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security." Vinciguerra, a member of the extreme right-wing, neo-fascist Italian ‘Ordine Nuovo’ ; when found responsible for a car bombing in the northern Italian Village, Peteano, killing 3 Police Officers, is quoted by Daniele GANSER saying: “Yes, its true, but I’m being protected by a network of secret services. Furthermore, there’s a secret network all over Europe coordinated by NATO.”

2 John PODESTA enters the country days before the attack and says: “What’s new is this weaponization – the use of social media to spread discord, lies, dissatisfaction – that’s I think what you’ve got to look out for.”

3. Margaret O’Brien - comment/crowdsourcethetruth 

“The other odd thing about the ChCh event was that thousands of NZ’ers found the video playing on their devices as it happened. None of them had subscribed to any of the channels involved, so how did this happen? My computer suddenly started beeping at me even tho I was listening to another video as I worked. Eventually I looked at what it was beeping about and saw the event. ODD.” “I also have a friend who was on holiday in Spain who got woken up at night in the same way by his phone, and he can't understand how this happened. This alone makes me think it was an organized event, how else could this have happened? Podesta also talked about NZ being a Juicy target for terrorists when he was here. I found a news item about his visit dated 10/03/2019 but I don't know when he left the country.” 

3. 13.2 Activity by entities or organizations outside the state sector such as media platforms; will not be inquired into by NZ Royal Commission into Terror attacks.

4.  John Pilger: “In the 1970s, I met Leni Reifenstahl, close friend of Adolf Hitler, whose films helped cast the Nazi spell over Germany. She told me that the message in her films, the propaganda, was dependent not on "orders from above" but on what she called the "submissive void" of the public.
 "Did this submissive void include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?" I asked her.
 "Of course," she said, "especially the intelligentsia.... When people no longer ask serious questions, they are submissive and malleable. Anything can happen.” 

5.    Karl ROVE: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do” and in terms of social programing events 

6.CrisisCast “Award winning role play actors and film makers specially trained in disaster and crisis management.” ‘We dramatise events for emerging security needs in the UK, Middle East and worldwide. Our specialist role play actors – many with security clearance – are trained by behavioral psychologists and rigorously rehearsed in criminal and victim behavior to help police, the army and the emergency services, hospitals, schools, local authorities, government, private security firms, shopping centers, airports, big business, criminal justice departments, media and the military to simulate incident environments for life saving procedures. We use state of the art British film industry techniques, props and special effects to help trainers deliver essential, hands-on, high octane crisis response and disaster management training. We also work with trainee doctors, psychologists and care professionals.’

7. coincidental and major armed Offender police / sniper drills in progress in ChCh  at the time of the Mosque attack

” Thanks to a police training course the same day as the Christchurch terrorist attack, specialist staff from overseas, as well as New Zealand's Defense Force, were on hand to help. Personnel taking part in the course in the city center were already wearing their gear when the first 111 call was received at 1.41pm on Friday, March 15. Fifty people were killed and dozens more injured in the massacre, which had been timed to coincide     with Jumu'ah, a congregational prayer that has Muslims shoulder-to-shoulder in mosques not long after noon each Friday. Fortunately, it also happened to coincide with a gathering of some of the world's best sharpshooters. Individuals from the police special tactics group (STG), NZDF, Australian and Hong Kong police, were involved in the response, a New Zealand Police spokesperson said. They had "advanced specialist medical first aid training" and were sent to the two scenes — the first, Masjid Al Noor on Dean's Avenue, and the second, Linwood Masjid — to provide immediate medical assistance. They carried firearms, given it was thought armed offenders were at large at that time, and provided first aid to a number of victims "in the most difficult of circumstances”. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111404324/global-expert-sharpshooters-were-training-in-the-city-just-as-the-christchurch-mosque-shooting-unfolded  

8. 2005 Clip from ITV illustrating London bombing exercise turns live correlation. News in the UK on the 7th of July 2005, the day the London Bombings occurred. Peter Power, who works for Visor Consultants, was involved in running a drill for an ANONYMOUS contractor. The drill involved terrorist attacks on the exact same bus and train stations, at the exact same time the attacks of 7/7 occurred: “Today we were running an exercise for a company…bearing in mind I am now in the Private Sector…and we sat everybody down in the city - a thousand people all involved in the organization…but the Crisis team…..but the most peculiar thing was that we had based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on the London Main line and Underground Stations, so we suddenly had to Switch an exercise from fictional to real, and one of the first things is, get that bureau number - when you have a list of people missing, and it took a long time…..” interrupted by the Anchor: “Just to get this right! You were actually working, today, on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?” “Almost precisely! I was up to two O’clock this morning because it’s our job. My own company VISOR Consultants …. we specialize in helping people get their crisis management response….how do you jump from Slow Time thinking to Quick Time doing…And we chose a scenario, with their assistance, which is based on a terrorist attack because they are very close to, ah property occupied by Jewish Businessmen in the city, and there are more American banks in the city than there are in the whole of New York...a Logical thing to do, and , I still have the hair..on my neck…” “How extraordinary today must feel for you as it unfolds” ….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJUVqcNDZlk 

Joseph Goebbels: “ If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such tie as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important or the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The NEOCON or STRAUSSIAN influence and infiltration of western democracy. WEF. Bilderberg. WHO. TAVISTOCK. RAND etal

Strauss was accused of advocating forms of fascism and authoritarianism: Drury argues that Strauss teaches that "perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them". Nicholas Xenos similarly argues that Strauss was "an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense, a true reactionary". Xenos says: "Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism."

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/how-the-ussrs-fall-unleashed-a-neocon?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

BRENTON TARRANT //QUENTON TARRANTINO,

in THE END. “Under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, we are required to assess whether a publication "describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with" matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty or violence, and if its unrestricted availability would be harmful to society. We also consider whether or not it promotes and supports the infliction of extreme violence and extreme cruelty. These are the criteria we applied in order to reach our decision to classify the livestream video as objectionable. The issue of whether or not the video shows real events is not something that we are required to establish in order to reach a decision.’

Maggie TAIT replying under OIA request for David SHANKS.

However, if, by forensic discovery the events portrayed WER’NT ‘real’, it makes obvious the entire ChCh event was at yet another level of madness. The fact that this question has not been raised in the overall, points toward one of two conclusions. Both very dire.

So. The author is not arguing he knows what took place in Christchurch that day. In fact, far from it.

He also is not pretending this writing will advance one jot towards answering the obvious questions arising; so profound are their implications. But.

Something is terribly - empirically - wrong in the Christchurch dataset. Whether you like it or not. And we are not allowed to look at it to try figure it out. The anomalies stand as the cat in the MATRIX - walking twice. I don’t know or understand how it could be; so great are the complications and implications required to swing it. But then, 911 offers the same gigantic conundrum. USS LIBERTY attack, another. John and Bobby Kennedy, others. I don’t understand how, because I have never been a spook, operating at that - or any other - level of mendacity. Planning murders or pretence of murder designed to fool a population into an engineered result. In a very real way, it is impossible to conceive the world through that lense, if the crack in the universe hasn’t allowed you to see it.

Yet it happens every day, all day and every day. At the moment of writing, the manufactured war in Ukraine by deepstate NATO/Nazis, the war and sex propaganda engineered by Israel to ‘allow’ them genocide of Palestine; a systems wide obsfucation of the DARPA constructed ‘virus’ with resulting global plandemic and injection of a toxic mRNA component, being best examples.

It is because of an inbuilt ‘impossibility’ that these events could be anything other than the official accounts, that empower them; so serving the unwitting population to defend that official account, rather than thinking them through and analysing the data….so becoming KAPOS to the deception. Defenders of the lie.

The questions raised here, have not surfaced even to be excoriated, let alone addressed, by media in NZ. So good is the titanium firewall. Questions not recognised, not asked, not addressed by any of the governing bodies held as protectors of truth.

All the writer knows, or has allowed himself to think he does (also part of the defence mechanism) is, this dichotomy is real. It exists - the old fellow getting up and wandering off after playing dead is proof of it. There are precedents in History for the success of SCADs (State Crimes against Democracy) at these extreme levels, to allow this to be questioned, as one. That there exist enablers and planners and groups and systems both governmental and private; in public and in secret; that traffik in social engineering terror events, allows for there to be social engineered terror events. And that they are called ‘deceptions’ for a reason.

I also understand; but without resource or measure to contend them further, that ‘big’ lies and deceptions - State Crimes against Democracy - to the extent of those already identified - are fatal to the soul and unity of that social cohesion.

Frame 313. DALLAS. November 23rd. 1963. The shot from the knoll clearly showing impact ‘aura’…

https://phibetaiota.net/2019/03/breaking-james-fetzer-new-zealand-false-flag-no-one-died-muslim-director-of-crisis-actors-disappearing-bullet-casings-from-special-effects-call-for-international-muslim-investigation-with-full/

Coming out of the rabbit hole.

Royal Commission REMIT 

13. The Inquiry is not to inquire into, determine, or report in an interim or final way, on any of the following matters:

          13.1  Amendments to firearms legislation (as the Government is separately pursuing this issue);

          13.2  Activity by entities or organisations outside the state sector such as media platforms; 

          13.3  How relevant agencies responded to the particular attack, once it had begun.

".... When people no longer ask serious questions, they are submissive and malleable. Anything can happen.” Leni Reifenstahl

John F. Kennedy: "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." 

GLADIO//Covert War.  https://www.globalresearch.ca/natos-secret-armies-operation-gladio-and-the-strategy-of-tension/5500132      https://www.newsbud.com/2019/07/26/sibel-edmonds-presents-operation-gladio-b-from-russia-to-china/

Points to begin to describe a paradigm…the false flag paradigm…. All are to be considered in light of the forensic anomalies in the dataset.

1. Vincenzo Vinciguerra//gladio operative testimony.

In sworn testimony on NATO Operation Gladio in Europe: "You had to attack civilians, the people, women,  children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political  game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."     Vinciguerra, a member of the extreme right-wing, neo-fascist Italian ‘Ordine Nuovo’ ; when found responsible for a car bombing in the northern Italian Village, Peteano, killing 3 Police Officers, is quoted by Daniele GANSER saying: “Yes, its true, but I’m being protected by a network of secret services. Furthermore, there’s a sectret network all over Europe coordinated by NATO.”

2. John (the fish#14) podesta

  https://conspiracy411.info/john-podesta-was-in-new-zealand-5-days-ago-warned-of-major-cyber-attack/

 In which ‘Number 14 “The FISH” John PODESTA enters the country days before the attack and says:
’“What’s new is this weaponisation – the use of social media to spread discord, lies, dissatisfaction – that’s I think what you’ve got to look out for.”
That this key insider of the yankee power set was in this country two days before the attack is a jarring of the senses. His face and name and accomplishments had smashed across the internet deepstate narratives since coming to real attention when Clinton lost the election to Trump. He does not feature favourably. His sinister reputation preceded him. Which we must consider alongside:

3. Margaret O’Brien 

- comment/crowdsourcethetruth) (paraphrased) “The other odd things about the Chch event was that thousands of NZ’ers found the video playing on their devices as it happened. None of them had subscribed to any of the channels involved, so how did this happen? My computer suddenly started beeping at me even tho I was listening to another video as I worked. Eventually I looked at what it was beeping about and saw the event. ODD.” “I also have a friend who was on holiday in Spain who got woken up at night in the same way by his phone, and he can't understand how this happened. This alone makes me think it was an organized event, how else could this have happened? Podesta also talked about NZ being a Juicy target for terrorists when he was here. I found a news item about his visit dated 10/03/2019 but I don't know when he left the country.” 

          13.2  Activity by entities or organisations outside the state sector such as media platforms; will not be inquired into by the Royal Commission)

4.  John Pilger:

 “In the 1970s, I met Leni Reifenstahl, close friend of Adolf Hitler, whose films helped cast the Nazi spell over Germany. She told me that the message in her films, the propaganda, was dependent not on "orders from above" but on what she called the "submissive void" of the public.
"Did this submissive void include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?" I asked her.
"Of course," she said, "especially the intelligentsia.... When people no longer ask serious questions, they are submissive and malleable. Anything can happen.” 

5.    Karl ROVE:

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do” and in terms of social programing events 

6.CrisisCast[]ing“Award winning role play actors and film makers specially trained in disaster and crisis management.”

‘We dramatise events for emerging security needs in the UK, Middle East and worldwide. Our specialist role play actors – many with security clearance – are trained by behavioral psychologists and rigorously rehearsed in criminal and victim behaviour to help police, the army and the emergency services, hospitals, schools, local authorities, government, private security firms, shopping centers, airports, big business, criminal justice departments, media and the military to simulate incident environments for life saving procedures.

We use state of the art British film industry techniques, props and special effects to help trainers deliver essential, hands-on, high octane crisis response and disaster management training. We also work with trainee doctors, psychologists and care professionals.’

We were taught on the farm; if you want to shift the stock, first you open the GATES. Why would anyone believe an avowed eugenicist telling you their product was to ‘save lives’?/

If the reader has never been introduced to the complex histories of ‘the big lie’ ; more recently coined as ‘perception management psychological operations or PSYOPS, Inform and influence operations [IIO] and false flag attacks - as matter-of-fact, ie: has never realised, explored and studied the extensive literature available of deceptive practice in military, intelligence and realpolitik - then they are going to have difficulties with tangible evidence of it in, say, Linwood Community centre attack (above). And with anomalies present in the Deans Avenue ‘Go-Pro’ dataset. Those references, or indicators, won’t be there. So that, when questions of the Christchurch event arise; for instance the older man in the coloured ski jacket in the ‘Linwood” video above, who features throughout the short clip; first lying down, then getting comfortable, then lying still; only to get up and wander about at videos end - when the viewer is confronted with in-congruencies like this, everything in the thinking pattern conspires to deny the possibility it means anything at all. That we didn’t see the cat walk twice (Matrix). That we are wrong to argue it, if we did. Yet it happens in the video twice, with another participant filmed under direction, lying down being dead, only to have disappeared from frame by videos end.

The viewer is tasked to find the other.

We have been taught to think we are clever enough to know whether or not we are being deceived; by people clever enough to deceive us. And further, that deception at these extreme levels, is paranoid thinking anyway. We have been warned against the intuition that perhaps we are, being deceived, by threats of being an ‘conspiracy theorist’. In the case of Christchurch, any unresolved questions are left uncontested by cross-examination in the Court of Law because what is presented, is a ‘Summary of uncontested Facts’ following a guilty plea.

So the fundamental questions; WHY does the above dataset even exist and WHO made it, are left unresolved.

Leni Riefenstahl, Hitlers propagandist and film maker, in response to John Pilger, termed this unknowing and unquestioning mind, ‘the Submissive Void’. The void unaware of the ruthlessness of deceptive practice as applied to real politik and socially engineered outcomes. In the post 911 era, this propaganda has been coined, ‘perception management’. The mind that asks no question because it doesn’t know that there is a question to ask. And by that failure, submits to the resulting void narratives, created by intelligence operatives, affiliate media hacks and Government/authority system insiders around the world working diligently to create terror events, steering the public toward specific outcomes.

Later stamped as 'the official account’.

Otherwise known, as history.

Again. The author isn’t trying to be smart-arsed about it. He is presenting what he can, with a critical eye. He doesn’t KNOW what took place in Christchurch that day. He is simply presenting material evidence presented by the official accounts that have NOT been contested in the courts of law and have not been cross-examined by independent experts.