Chelsea Manning, agent; Collateral Murder, faked

A priori, only the naive would not anticipate infiltration of Wikileaks by US intelligence

Question: On the assumption that US intelligence would successfully infiltrate Wikileaks, how would they do it?

In 2019, the glamour photo above headlining an article about Chelsea Manning struck me as having a lot of money behind it which seemed incongruous with her status as a treasonous leaker of important information and it occurred to me that she might be an agent assigned to infiltrate Wikileaks. I read her bio on Wikipedia and noted that it lacked credibility, particularly the claim that she downloaded 500,000 documents onto rewritable CDs labelled Lady Gaga to smuggle them through security. It then occurred to me that if she were an agent, the film, Collateral Murder, would be faked and sure enough when I watched it through the lens of likely fakery it became obvious that the audio track consists of snippets of genuine audio stitched together over staged footage.

There are 13 call signs in the transcript which makes little sense considering there were only two Apache helicopters which most incongruously weren't in communication with their ground crew (Ethan McCord).

The analysis of a minute or so of the video shows clear discrepancy between audio and footage.

Seeming anomalies in the first minute, notably where what is said does not match what we see on the ground
2:48 - There's more that keep walking by and one of them has a weapon [cannot see people or weapon] 
2:53 - Arab-sounding voice says "two-oh-eight" [not in transcript - where does this come from?]
2:55 - See all those people standing down there [can't see anyone]
3:19 - That's a weapon. [seemingly directed at "Namir" with camera. This is supposed to make us believe that in very unprofessional lack of recognition of camera, the soldier is looking for an excuse to kill, however, obviously if it's stitched-together audio snippets the soldier saying "That's a weapon" could easily be referring to a person genuinely carrying a weapon. I have to say that the soldier sounds to me as if he's perfectly serious and is not misidentifying a camera as a weapon as an excuse to kill.]
3:30 - Fucking prick [from both an audio and semantic point of view this sounds very much inserted]
3:35 - Have individuals with weapons [I cannot see any weapons at this point]
3:39 - He's got a weapon too [who is being referred to?]
3:42 - Have five to six individuals with AK-47s [5-6 with weapons? - looks like only 2 with weapons]

The only other item I can find on the internet saying that the film is fake is shown below. Like the person on the survivalist board, I too noticed things sounding out of place from which, along with the anomalous number of call signs and ill-matched footage, I was able to deduce that the audio track was, in fact, snippets of genuine audio stitched together.

https://www.survivalistboards.com/threads/wikileaks-collateral-murder-video-a-fake.225339/

"I just stumbled across the Wikileaks video "Collateral Murder" and I have to say that I think it is a fake. The US soldiers are supposed to be firing a 30mm "cannon" at these people which in itself is creates a sense of sensationalism. Second I would think that there would be more devastation to the bodies were they to be really hit with a 30mm round. Considering that it is an anti-armor/anti-aircraft/anti-material/anti-bunker round it is going to do major damage when it hits someone. For those who don't know the size difference between something like a 9mm to a 50 cal -> 20mm -> 30mm there is a MASSIVE difference. I would think it would take off limbs or even worse were it to hit someone. JMO. Can anyone chime in?

Oh, a lot of the background talk like the rude comments, laughs etc sounded out of place as well."

But truth doesn’t always correlate with the number of people recognising it and anyone can verify for themself that the film is a fakery, I certainly don't expect anyone to believe me or survivalist guy. It's all hidden in plain sight as are all their psyops.

On this webpage is an analysis of the Collateral Murder Reuters/Wikileaks case (which we can only infer was also staged) and while the author doesn’t outright question the authenticity of the film, he questions its content. A quote:

… I haven’t seen the attack sequences shown even though gun camera footage from other conflicts has been willingly and widely shown many times before. There isn’t even any observable blood in the footage—any episode of ‘24’ is more ‘graphic’ than this video, so why so shy?

The answer to “Why so shy?” is that the film is faked and they decided to dispense with the blood aspect. It’s sanitised “war” Hollywood-style. If you’re going to push out faked incriminating documents you don’t want it too graphic. This kind of propaganda is purely for button-pushing purposes, not to depict the grim reality, of course.

In contrast to Collateral Murder, this video taken from an Apache helicopter firing 30mm cannon on seeming Iraqi insurgents clearly shows the fire hitting the targets while there are very few voices in the audio and what is said perfectly matches the footage. This is another video showing an Apache firing on seeming Iraqi insurgents - quite a few more voices in this one but unlike Collateral Murder, the audio and footage match perfectly and the firing on the people seems authentic.

The first interview (11m) Chelsea did after her alleged jail sentence was with Juju Chang, anchor of ABC's Nightline (also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations). It has an air of being scripted and is unusually sympathetic in a mainstream setting. Chelsea certainly looks much chirpier after seven years in prison than Julian looked after the same amount of time locked up. Chelsea makes remarkably neutral statements for a whistleblower, eg, “Counterinsurgency is not a simple thing. … It’s not as simple as good guys versus bad guys. It’s a mess.”

Collateral Murder’s fakery immediately calls into question the authenticity in general of the Afghan and Iraq War logs.

I have been trying to get the facts of the real nature of Chelsea and Collateral Murder through to those trying to help Julian but am simply ignored.

For more detailed analyses of Chelsea’s Wikipedia bio and her interview with Juju Chang, the film transcript versus footage, Adrian Lamo, other information on the Crazy Horse pilots and Ethan McCord see article, Wikileaks and Controlled Opposition.

Other

• WikiLeaks’ Collateral Murder: U.S. Soldier Ethan McCord - Ethan’s speech contains anomalies, eg, the mention of hearing things “on the net” but no mention of communication with the Apache helicopters nor reason for this lack

• For infiltration related to Julian Assange's legal counsel see article by prize-winning finance investigative journalist, Judy Komisar, Assange lawyers’ links to US govt & Bill Browder raises questions

• Who is/was Seth Rich really? What’s interesting is that while many comments on this ABC interview with Seth’s family set in a rather unusual tableau indicate incredulity, the same does not apply to Chelsea’s interview with Juju. When the propaganda is really over the top some, at least, will baulk at the serious anomalies but if it’s just at the right level of credibility despite clear anomalies, it will pass, especially when its reality fits a paradigm that is alien, eg, fabrication of self-incriminating documents. While fakery of death is alien to many people’s paradigms in the case of the interview with Seth’s parents people baulk nevertheless because it is just too at odds with what is expected of reality.