“WTF” Ritual Sacrifice Theater at CERN: Perception, Mimesis, & Hazing Rituals

Recently this video appeared online.

The video has been reported in the mainstream media, including The Guardian. The various articles unanimously dismiss the video as a prank or a spoof. None of the dismissals provide an explanation for why the video should not to be taken seriously. It is considered self-evidential, as if the video is proof of its own fakeness. Many people received it exactly this way.

For the record (these things have to be stated plainly otherwise people invariably jump to the wrong conclusions), I don’t believe the video shows a real murder. Yet nor does it strike me as obviously and indisputably fake. And apparently some people have taken the video seriously (even if they don’t admit it in public), because CERN has an official non-denial denial at its site, in the FAQ area. The question cited is “I have seen a video of a strange ritual at CERN, is it real?” CERN’s formula response:

No, this video is a work of fiction showing a contrived scene. CERN and its on-site accommodation fills up with scientists from across the world coming to CERN as part of their work. Work at CERN can take place 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with shift work and data analysis. Persons that are authorised to access the CERN site sometimes let their sense of humour go too far, and that is what has happened on this occasion. The video was filmed from an office building; strict safety systems are in place to prevent any unauthorised access to technical and experimental facilities. CERN does not condone this kind of spoof, which breaches CERN’s professional guidelines, and is currently carrying out an internal investigation.

CERN doesn’t consider it necessary to give its reasons for categorically stating that the video is a work of fiction. Apparently CERN officials have access to information that allows them to determine the fictionality of the video with 100% certainty, information which they have chosen not to share with the public. If they have found the guilty parties and proven to their satisfaction that no one was killed, why aren’t they saying so? The statement “strict safety systems are in place to prevent any unauthorized access” implies that the individuals who participated in the event had authorized access and therefore could not have committed a real murder. Apparently not only are convicted murderers prevented from joining CERN staff but potential murderers are screened out too. Maybe there is a CERN PreCrime department?

Probably the sweeping disbelief around this video–the absolute certainty that it is fake–has to do with the conviction that, if something like this really happened, it would not wind up as an amateur video on YouTube. Then there’s the fact that no one wants to be seen as a sucker and to even suggest this video might be real is to risk a barrage of mocking voices insisting that only a complete moron would believe that, and who wants to be that person?

And yet, it’s hard not to see a correlation between this latest . . . whatever . . . and the continued effort to keep all “rumors” of organized (and sometimes ritual) abuse by the elite (or by anyone) strictly in the realms of delusion, fantasy, fiction, and now, the latest “nothing to see here” category, PRANK! That so many people have assumed, without investigation or analysis­–and apparently without much thought either–that something of this sort must be a prank of one sort or another, signals to anyone who might investigate, analyze, or think about it too much, not to do so. This is mimesis, and applying the principal of mimesis for crowd control, since humans are imitative creatures, comes down to a subtle form of thought control.

What is not being considered is how the “ha-ha-ritual-sacrifice-that’s-so-wacky” narrative might be serving the interests of groups and folk whoaren’t pranking, at all, and never have been.


If we decide that the murder was most probably faked (and even if it wasn’t), and that the aim of the enactment was to create a video that would go viral and cause a scandal around CERN and lots of futile debate and unsubstantiated claims in the “conspiracy” community (like this one), then we are still left with the question, cui bono? The notion of a prank conveniently sidesteps this question, because pranks aren’t about bono, they are about lultz. Yet even if this was just a prank that was done for lultz, we can still look at the outcome and how it dovetails with the possible goals of those who are not pranking.

So how might a “psyop” of this sort have a cumulative effect on us? One way is to normalize bizarre and sinister behaviors and make them easier to get away with without the need for concealment. Next time you pass a ritual sacrifice after midnight, Hey, never mind, it’s just another of those wacky student pranks! The less these activities have to be concealed, the less we are going to want to investigate them, because an attempt to conceal signals a mystery, even a crime, and hence attracts our attention. On the other hand, if we see people committing dodgy acts as if nothing is happening, we tend to assume it’s not what we think it is and look away. Every good shoplifter knows this.

This raises the even more interesting question of how our perceptual faculties seem to be designed to filter out serious anomalies, to the extent we may have no conscious awareness of seeing them, such as in the man in the gorilla suit on the playing court example:

I recently spoke to a ritual abuse survivor who claimed that, when she was young, she was part of child abuse “parties” that occurred in broad daylight in public places (generally parks). I expressed disbelief and asked for an explanation. She didn’t really have one and only stressed that this was her recollection. I don’t personally feel like I can completely rule out the possibility that things might be occurring on this scale right under our eyes, things we simply don’t cognize. If so, a staged event of this sort might be playing into human perceptual mechanics in some hard-to-understand way, tweaking our assumptions this way or that way, to make us more amenable to consenting to whatever programs, goals, and desires are being pursued.

One of the things I have recently examined about ritual abuse is how, from a secular, late modern perspective, it is impossible for us, not only to believe in the supernatural but in supposedly “atavistic” beliefs and behaviors that we associate with the supernatural, such as ritual sacrifice. Ifthe only way we can think about these things is in terms of fictional narratives, when we encounter them, our brains automatically file them in the fiction category; either that or blot them out entirely.


We associate knife murders with black ghetto kids dealing drugs or white trash smoking crystal meth on housing estates, not with the ruling class or the intellectual elite. But most of us are at a major disadvantage when it comes to interpreting the motions of the ruling class. Since we don’t belong to it, we have to take their word regarding what goes on there. Is it rash to suppose that many of the scientists who get to work at CERN come from aristocratic  stock, or that they go through some sort of initiation ritual, a laSkull & Bones, to work there? We don’t routinely associate the intelligentsia with crime. Even those of us who are parapolitically savvy may not automatically make the link between high status and criminal behavior in the way we do between low status and crime. Nor do we generally associate the intelligentsia  with occult rituals; we assume they are secular-minded folk who routinely scoff at all things “woo-woo.” Maybe they do, but on the other hand, you would think that scientists exploring the hidden dimensions of quantum phenomena would be more, not less, open to “irrational,” even metaphysical, interpretations of reality.

And then there’s the amount of time, effort, and personal risk that went into the alleged “prank.” At the very least, those involved risked losing their positions at CERN. Considering how hard such positions must be to achieve, isn’t it reasonable to deduce a corresponding payoff? The video, while it’s being dismissed as a spoof, is at the very least a piece of well-orchestrated theater under adverse conditions (a high-security area late at night). Taken in its proper context, it’s a piece of Agitprop worthy of Anonymous, and Anonymous have generally been pretty serious about their play. So where’s the payoff for these CERN-authorized pranksters? Is it all meant as a joke on those daft “conspiratards” taking it seriously as evidence of Satanism at CERN? But how exactly is that a commensurate payoff?

If the aim was to draw negative public attention to CERN, then the enactment was effective. There’s no reason to presume it was meant to suggest that CERN is actually involved in ritual sacrifice (there is no reason to rule it out, either); a stunt of this sort could have been intended simply to embarrass and discredit the organization by showing up the inadequacy of its security, or by making its staff look like a bunch of bored frat boys. At the very least, we can suppose that CERN administrators  got a serious dressing down from their superodinates for this “scandal.”

Governments (and taxpayers) have invested billions of dollars into CERN research. The eyes of the world are on the mysterious Hadron collider, expecting great and terrible things. A prank of this sort is not supposed to happen. Is it logical for periodicals such as The Guardian to dismiss it so glibly? Isn’t it fair to expect something of this sort to have some serious repercussions, both internally to CERN and externally? Never mind the highly charged content of the enactment (ritual murder has been legitimately connected to government organizations, and occultism is historically linked to high-level government figures such as Michael Aquino and Jack Parsons). CERN and its scientists are entrusted with some of the most groundbreaking and sensitive research in the history of science. Suppose this sort of “prank” happened at a nuclear weapons facility?



I’m not alone in wondering this, but it sometimes feels like it. The only journalist I’ve found who is asking similar questions is Tom Siebert at CityBeat:

The video was quickly removed from YouTube, but people mirrored the video and the British tabloids started writing about it (though the American press has been dutifully silent, even though it would surely drive page views), so YouTube began permitting people to post it again. The video caused such a stir that a spokesperson (never named in any account I’ve been able to find) has been forced to confirm the event actually did take place and was filmed on the CERN campus, but was done as a joke by scientists and researchers at the facility without official knowledge or permission. It was just a group of super-intelligent people “taking their sense of humour too far,” CERN stated. So taking the “joke” at face value and accepting CERN’s story, I still think it’s fair to ask…What the fuck? Why are scientists replicating a human sacrifice on the grounds of one of science’s most controversial and mysterious ongoing projects, in front of the Hindu god of destruction to boot? Who filmed this? Who are the participants? Who was the “victim?” What does this say about security at such a revolutionary scientific site? Even if the most benign explanation of what happened at CERN is accepted, it still raises a slew of unsettling questions that deserve answering. Let’s see who, if anybody, chases them down.


Having discussed this over the past few days at a forum, what I found is that, while many people are arguing that the video is obviously fake, there are others (including myself) insisting: a) that it’s not so obvious as all that; and b) that even if it is fake that doesn’t automatically make it a trivial matter. So far, the arguments I’ve heard for and against the video being real have been reminiscent of people discussing a movie: i.e., entirely subjective. Yet aesthetic criteria are largely learned; we are trained to apply them, and the same is true of our criteria for discerning actual from fake. We may have something built in us for telling the difference (animals seem to), but if so, we don’t rely on it–or even have access to it–when it comes to responding to media (if we did, movies would be a bust). When we argue that a movie is good, we trust our ability to discern art from trash, and anyone who disagrees with us is simply wrong. But deep down, we know we are just going with our preferences. In the case of a movie, it’s a lot more obviously subjective, so there’s at least some room for two points of view to co-exist. In the case of the video, either it is a real murder or it’s not, but who actually knows for sure? This perceptual rift is central to the artifact’s interest.

In fact, there is an area of nuance here too, because if we’re honest about what know and don’t know, it could have been a real murder surrounded by fake or anomalous elements, even including an overacting cameraman, say (which many “critics” have complained about). Part of the challenge presented by this sort of media event is recognizing the many moving parts in the interface between our perception and the media that is “presenting” to us. Learning to separate the parts and examine them as parts, not taking them as the whole because the whole has been constructed to trick us, via a subtle manipulation of our perception. Hitchcock knew all about this, most famously demonstrated by the shower scene in Psycho in which no actual physical violence occurs. From this understanding, the very thing we are trusting to tell us what’s happening is preventing us from seeing what happened.

Personally, I think this video is not a fake, but (paradoxically) only in the sense that it is a fake–just not the kind of fake people are taking it for. I don’t think it’s a prank or an amateur bang-up job. The whole thing seems quite artfully done to me and I think part of that art, maybe the main part, was to disguise itself so we would be unaware of being manipulated by what we were seeing. We then end up talking about it as if we are discussing either found footage or an amateur hoax, rather than a professional hoax done for as yet unknown purposes. If so, it is a hoax which only really got started once the mainstream media got a hold of the video.

Some people have suggested that what’s being shown in the video is a hazing ritual, one that, for unknown reasons, wound up transposed from the traditional secrecy, into the public arena. This seems valid, though not so much as an explanation for what’s in the video but as context for it. Let’s not forget that this same context includes a British prime minster having sex with a severed pig’s head, and countless other examples of high level debaucheries. We know that the elite get up to some extreme behaviors, but where the limits lie to these behaviors (assuming there are any) is something we can only guess. In this context, it doesn’t seem entirely logical to dismiss the CERN ritual as merely a prank. After all, if you are going to work your way up to human sacrifice, why not start with a bit of playacting?

Fraternity hazing/initiation rituals have to do with breaking social taboos in a group environment in which the taboo is no longer taboo but de rigueur. The pressure is on the novice to perform the forbidden actions and go against his or her social conditioning in order to bind with the group. It’s easy to imagine how this could create a kind of heightened consciousness in all involved (starting with the sheer adrenalin rush of it), and how it might be intoxicating enough to be mistaken for liberation. Even a theatrical enactment (which apparently many secret society rituals are) might have this temporary effect. But then what? Once you have performed a fake sacrifice or two and it no longer gets you high, or binds you any more deeply to the group, then what comes next? Presumably it’s time to move to the next stage and find a higher kind of kick. The path of ritualistic taboo breaking, once embarked on, has to lead to more and more extreme acts of transgression because, what other direction can it go in? The only alternative I can think of is personal meltdown and/or horrified withdrawal from the whole thing. But after a certain point, withdrawal may not even be possible, at least not without risking one’s own life.

For whatever it’s worth, my best guess so far, pending further evidence, is that the participants in the video were trying to draw attention to something real by faking it. Whether this might have been done to blow the whistle on something, to break the spell for themselves, or as a kind of power play within the CERN hierarchy, I wouldn’t even try to guess. This is just a hypothesis, and a purely speculative one. But at least it has the potential to dissolve the false dichotomy of prank vs. murder, by introducing a third option.

26 thoughts on ““WTF” Ritual Sacrifice Theater at CERN: Perception, Mimesis, & Hazing Rituals

  1. Ask and ye shall receive – I was wishing you would post something new and not ten minutes later here it is.

    The reaction to this reminds me of the Amber Heard video of Johnny Depp drunkenly acting abusive and creepy. Even with visual evidence the overwhelming public opinion was that she faked it for money. After a judge awarded her $7 million and she donated every penny to charity that was still the consensus. I’ve noticed that that is simply how most humans react to any abuse allegation – it didn’t happen, you’re lying. The denial is that strong.

    With regard to the CERN video if nothing else it’s a symbolic enacted ritual and what else is modern religion than that? It has power even when ‘only’ a symbol is used. If a prank, why that particular form? A human sacrifice? Really? Like w your satan article that doesn’t jibe w the supposed rationalism of science.

  2. Seems like a Paranoia Fest to me.Surprised to receive this Aticulture notice now,but saw the same(And the Video) via Disinformation a couple of hours ago.Personally.I find myself Annoyed,Amused,Perplexed by what seems to be a trend (Among some Hipsters and Millennials?): a general skepticism/cynicism about mainstream media/mainstream culture,openness to alternative information sources,Both Positives in my view,BUT combined with credulity in conspiracy worthy of the Nuttiest of Right-Wing Nuts,Love of the Occult,Tribalist yearnings,and frequently suspicion of,even Censorship of opposing Opinions. All in all }A bizarre mixture of Rational Skepticism and Trogodyte Shamanism !!

  3. ” if we see people committing dodgy acts as if nothing is happening, we tend to assume it’s not what we think it is and look away.”



    It’s not in this clip , but the Hollywood reference is in the interview excerpted:

    “We’ve seen these images in movies, we know it’s all artificial. Hollywood makes it. It’s hard to put together that it is real this time” – Evan Fairbanks, alleged amateur photog. with Peter Jennings/ 9/11/2001

    The people who are pulling the hoax[es] are the ones getting the charge out of it. It’s not meant for the public to laugh. The public are the ones getting duped. Of course it’s not an LOL moment for the public! It’s not meant to be.

    The pranksters love it. Not sure all the reasons why. That doesn’t mean they don’t also kill people. Even in everyone’s face. What do you think the war is abroad ? And the various eugenics programs against the population?

    For people who don’t care about such things it’s hard to comprehend “Duper’s Delight”

    They love especially to scare people.. Hitchcock was like that. It is said he would get an orgasm when he would frighten / startle young pretty woman . It’s probably a sexual thing – the whole hoaxing business.. W. Bush has that, by repute. And many judges are said to “come” “have an orgasm” “ejaculation” beneath their robes when they give a death sentence. And they do laugh about it among themselves.

    Very True what you just said: for example.. They say it right in your face. They love to do that. It makes it more hilarious to them.. LIke the fictional “joker” in the movies , who always get the best lines.

    Comments on the clip allegedly taken by Even Fairbanks, by Fairbanks and Peter Jennings:

    “In one side and out the other” “It just disappeared, Like a bad special effect”

    “We see these things in Hollywood. It’s hard to imagine, this time it’s real”

    “It’s still incomprehensible what exactly is happening there”

    “You have to take yourself away from it. I’m still not there yet.”

    “Modern Technology enables us to see horror at a variety of different speeds”

    I gave the reasons I didn’t think it was real. If you cut off someone’s head the blood spurts incredibly.. There was no blood in this. And the camera cut away at the crucial moment. Why would the camera – person do that?

    After the cut in the continuity the scene seemed 100% laid out and arranged.. with no blood on the ground! .No gushing blood..I would have to be an idiot to think it was real, wouldn’t I? No blood spurting. Head cut off . Not physically possible .[ Just like the fucking aluminum plane sailing through the wall of the Tower and not crashing – Right In Everyone’s Face ]

    Do you see something I don’t see there – in the CERN clip? And yes, they really do kill people over – seas. .And torture them and destroy their houses.. They are mad dogs, right in our faces. If we care to “comprehend.”


  4. The only information about CERN we have is what comes directly from CERN. It’s as mysterious as aliens at Roswell. We are told CERN is a scientific organization doing all kinds of super-duper scientific research (found the God particle but then didn’t.) What can we ascertain with our own eyes about CERN? Not much – it’s facility is mainly underground. Does it even truly exist underground? The statue of God Shiva (cosmic dancer) in front of CERN is quite curious and appears in the video.

    When CERN has announcements in the media, they use paid talent. Makes me wonder who really works there.

    The majority of our reality is theatre, so it would be no surprise this video is, too (real death or not.) CERN was organized in 1954, thirty years before 1984 (Reality 2.0 instituted.) Funny thing about the media, you can’t trust a word they say or…. CERN for that matter.

  5. “even if it is fake that doesn’t automatically make it a trivial matter. ”

    That’s very true.!. Just reading Downard. It’s a serious ritual, at the very least. As was the alleged shooting on Live TV of the newscaster in Virginia.. 9/11 was an alchemical ritual. So the JFK “event.”

    The more people who view it the more power it gets. Theatre magic. Perhaps as test of the population / Internet.?. As a vicious dog will feign to bite, press his teeth on the skin, to see the reaction. No reaction. The predator can move forward to the next step..

    “the hoodwinked population unfortunately, will sink lower and lower when they realize the extent to which they have been duped and may, reactively, search for a ruler or drug to put them to sleep, to make them less aware.” – “James Shelby Downard

  6. Jasun wrote: ” the participants in the video were trying to draw attention to something real by faking it.”

    “I fake it so real I am beyond fake”. Courney Love, Doll Parts. Beyond, is the key.

    You are one of the few who get that. The faking of the ritual is intentional for the sheeple’s experience.
    This way the actual sympathetic magic of the human sacrifice occurs away from the actual scene of the crime, and yet, with the fake ritual, the emotional trauma experienced by the viewing sheeple, and all its ‘magic energy’, becomes magnified by the millions.

    This way a horrific crime can be committed by the occultists but they will remain above the secular law. This way the masses are forced to experience the trauma but are prevented from retribution. Since the masses cannot retaliate, they, in a perverse sense, consent to the ritual.

    I had to immerse myself in Downard’s writings before I could grasp it.
    Ambush inflates the the occultists appearance of god-like authority. The sheeple’s inability to obtain justice after terror, creates the emotional state of helplessness.

    Ambush combined with helplessness. We are all MK’D.

  7. the “is it real or fake” mechanism that my dog has : “… we don’t rely on it–or even have access to it–…” – bingo
    losing whatever Lethemesque non-superpowers we have left !

    this comes back to Kubrickon.. wannabe time lords or something

    and I feel like.. the WTC was used by people for “real” and “sketchy” purposes while it stood, but it’s purpose was always to be brought down.. same with CERN

  8. That VT page sums it up:

    “On the European end of the FBI investigation, the trail, all of which is easily followed by the “breadcrumbs” Sterling David Allen has left, leads to the highest and most powerful of the scientific communities where blackmail, kidnapping and torture, threats against families and in particular, threats against children, have placed members of secret societies in positions of power at universities, think tanks, police and counter-terrorism agencies and even the European Space

  9. Here’s a story about how a database on the recent pedo crimes in the recent bust was erased by some fluke.

    People believe anything. Just trying to add a data point. Seems relatively obvious; if they got away with it for so long they likely can work with impunity in a variety of situations which would not be possible for others not in their “clan”

  10. After reading the RI thread on this topic, the following occurs to me: nihilist worshipers of Science take it on faith that the products of Science (both material and intellectual) will, on the balance, lead to greater good for at least humankind, if not all the biosphere. This is not an evidence-based position, by any means. On the other hand, those who have earnestly committed themselves to a spiritual path (of at least the RHP kind) often collect individual evidence of great personal benefit: the practice of spirituality does lead to empirical (if individual) evidence of benefit.

    [I would add that, if viewed from a certain perspective, religion also offers some social benefit. Granted, from the inside, most Abrahamic sects can feel restrictive, and I am not so ignorant of history that I am unaware of the horrors justified (at least superficially) by religious causes. But looked at from an evolutionary perspective, I would argue that societies bound by religion are often stronger, more fit, more able to weather external challenges, than societies that have no strong collective narrative uniting its peoples. This may be a controversial statement, but I think it can be supported by evidence.]

    Thus, I find the knee-jerk appeal to Rationalism and faith in the hierophants of Science rather … interesting. Especially in that particular venue.

    • That is well said, Yevaud. I don’t trust people who want a theocracy, but I equally don’t trust rationalist fundamentalists who want to jettison all religion and spirituality. Western civilization needed the correction of the Enlightenment to dispel some of the fog of the medieval period, but I personally think the pendulum swung too far the other way. The shadow side of the same rationalism that fueled science and democracy also allowed for imperialist colonialism and other depredations. Tempering the logic of the left brain with the imaginal properties of the right is the way to go, as I see it.

    • Meh, pipe dreams. I’m actually in a position to know something about the conventional science, and I think it would be very difficult to extend life using someone else’s blood. The problem is that aging is mostly an epigenetic stabilization issue involving hematopoietic stem cells, which pretty much need to be your own. I dunno, maybe with enough money someone could make it work. Of course if you appeal to more metaphysical models (i.e. models involving an “etheric” layer to reality, by which entropy is countered by shifting quantum probabilities to support unlikely stable configurations) then there may perhaps be a way to use another’s blood. But again, this falls outside the realm of conventional (i.e. NIH-fundable) science. I don’t think Thiel is going to get any traction here.

      • at least 50 years ahead of plebs and #fakenews tho ?
        (no offense since you are in a position to know something about conventional science and I am waiter)
        The Shining says otherwise about blood – or at least – the power THEY think blood has

    • This thread is making me think about discredited blood tech company Theranos and its seemingly sociopathic founder Elizabeth Holmes who demanded absolute secrecy even from her own investors. Wonder if something spookier than fraud was occurring.

      • I forgot about Theranos!! Still, I don’t think anything truly spooky was happening. I know enough about the biological and technological issues involved to infer that they were simply falsifying their results and methodology. They claimed they could obtain functionally equivalent test results cheaper, faster, and with *less* material. The latter is actually a huge issue in medical diagnostics, because you really don’t want to have to collect vials and vials of blood if you don’t have to. The fact that they were using smaller amounts of blood (or claiming the ability to do so) suggests that it was *not* a front for burnt offerings to the Dark Gods. But who knows???

  11. Oh, there’s a HUGE literature on the value of blood in metaphysical and occult literature. I’m sure there are secret groups (including especially elites) who use these methods. However, none of that has any bearing on academic medical an scientific research, where I think Thiel operates (mostly if not exclusively). Of course, there are always black ops. Also, there may be an epigenetic hack that could eventually be devised, but it’s probably decades away and therefore of no use to Thiel. Certainly, the development of such a hack would require epigenetic comparisons of younger and older human subjects, so in that sense, yes, *moar young blood!!”

  12. I was just laughing at how the blood-transfusing Soros-types are so numerous
    and at how this is all normal – like After School Satan

  13. Motivated by a tangential topic Jasun and I were discussing via email, today I perused some of the more recent developments in theoretical physics pertaining to the interpretations of quantum mechanics (i.e., the last 30 years of research, since I minored in physics as an undergraduate). Admittedly, my perusal was extremely superficial (to say the least), but I developed an interesting and distinct impression: a large contingent of physicists seem absolutely committed to determinism. One quote: “for if [one particularly common interpretation were true] it would mean nature was fundamentally stochastic, i.e. nondeterministic, an undesirable property for a theory”. Or, as more famously stated in a well-known quote by Albert Einstein: “God does not play dice”. [Note: in the biomedical sciences, where I operate professionally, I do not believe such a commitment to radical determinism exists, except among the most theoretical neuroscientists, who share some common traits of hubris with physicists.]

    Where this ties into the current topic is a comparison with Abrahamic religions, wherein the most common theological position is entirely the opposite: God has gifted humankind with freewill, i.e. radical nondeterminism. If my impression of physics as a discipline is correct, it would mean that physics is a blatantly satanic endeavor, in the sense that it directly contradicts the Will of God.

  14. There may be limitless assumptions on this human sacrifice issue…. But I believe both agreeing and disagreeing requires a stronger evidence…. And in the case of this video, it lacks both… My opinion is that not to be judgemental too early… When blogs reveal unknown things are publishes our own expressions it is really a productive usage… It is definitely a platform for criticism too… But my purely personal opinion is that let a blog not be a way to affect any reputation till their is an obvious evidence or conformation…. Because in today’s modern world it is very easy to create a morphed video…. So I guess lets just slow down and wait….:)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s