Kevin Boyle — No One To Vote For Dec 3, 2014
Image from Chris Spivey’s own webpage. Click to enlarge
His article on the matter presents a long and rambling 30,000 word ‘analysis’ of just about all aspects of the case. It is hard work piling through the masses of material covered and one is bound to wonder why visceral and important material is presented in such an indigestible manner. One also wonders how Mr Spivey managed to glean so much information about so many different characters in so many diverse locations and put it all together into a coherent and superficially convincing narrative.
Last night Chris Spivey made a presentation to the ‘911keeptalking’ group in Victoria, central London. He arrived ten minutes late carrying a dusty laptop and spent 15 minutes trying to set up slides on the computer for his show. He obviously failed because the laptop, though working, was barely used during the following two hours.
This in itself was quite puzzling. How could a man who had researched the Woolwich murder and every character connected to it in such depth, constructed such a complex narrative relating to networks of inter-relationships of the individuals involved and exposed so many subtle lies and deceptions manufactured by the intelligence services…….how could such an individual be so chaotically disorganised.
Preparing for a talk is not rocket science (although to be fair, he said it was his first one……………Nonetheless)
As for the talk itself, Mr. Spivey basically retold the story that appears on his site exactly as it appears on the site. The most striking thing about Spivey’s Woolwich narrative is that most of the assertions made which do not directly relate to photographic evidence are unsourced.
Many of us were wondering, ‘How on earth did he find out these things?’ I was expecting that Mr Spivey would give us some insights into his amazing research skills.
He should have much to boast about.
Would he make clear how he uncovered this massive quantity of information relating to Rigby’s family, the personnel connected to his army background, the pallbearers at Rigby’s funeral etc..?
No, unfortunately, he would not.
The only time he went to the trouble of discussing a source of information was when he was talking about Rigby’s alleged work on the day of the killing. Drummer Rigby put in (or didn’t) a 4-hour shift at a “Wedding Exhibition” at the Tower of London. This was work he apparently took on in order to research his own upcoming wedding to the ‘fiance’ he had quite recently met.
Spivey said he had been able find no trace of this event but received a message out of the blue from a company in Bristol informing him that they had, in fact, been running such a Wedding Exhibition in the Tower on that very day. Well, Spivey said, “This has got to be bollocks!” …..his only stated reason being that… “Bristol is a hotspot of Satanists. It’s crawling with them.” (or very similar words to that effect).
There must be a little Chris Spivey lurking somewhere in my own psyche because at that point something inside me screamed:
“FOR F***’S SAKE!!!!”
This was as close as we got to discussing sources of evidence supporting Spivey’s astonishing narrative before I left the room (an hour early as the experience was, how can I put it?….. ‘doing my head in’).
I have been told by others in attendance that later on Spivey himself seemed “confused” as to whether Rigby was a real person (as evidenced by lots of his identified ‘friends’) or a fictional character (as all the photoshopping of images would appear to indicate).
I am not the only one left with the strong sense that Chris Spivey is not presenting his own work.
He has learnt a narrative but has no information to back up or explain from whence his astounding ‘knowledge’ relating to the Woolwich event has come.
It is impossible not to strongly suspect that his story was put together by a creative writing team working within the bowels of MI5.
It is MI5’s policy to ‘own’ the leadership of the opposition when it comes to all their pranks. They need an ‘alternative’ figurehead or organisation to (mis)represent any false-flag event to the masses should doubts seep into the public mind and go viral (the mainstream media must appear to be ‘fair’ and ‘even-handed’ after all).
It is obvious that MI5 will behave in this way.
It’s their job.
In the same way that J7 failed to usefully challenge massive anomalies and provable establishment lies relating to the 7/7 murders we now have a (manufactured) leading voice “exposing” the Woolwich terror event. A voice that discredits itself by the relentless obscenities that punctuate Spivey’s website narrative (he did little swearing during his presentation in Victoria, which demonstrated to my satisfaction that the chosen mode of expression he uses in his articles is gratuitous).
Why, we must ask, would he present such serious accusations in a manner that is so damaging and discrediting to the content of the material itself? Like much else, this makes little sense.
A word of warning to those who might swallow the Spivey guff wholesale.