So, the tiger thing: everyone knows it's fake, right?

"The tiger thing", for those who have somehow managed to insulate themselves from the ubiquitous coverage of this event (please teach me your ways...) concerns a supposedly fatal tiger attack at Yorkshire Wildlife Park, in Doncaster, England, after a man named William Chapman, who is usually 23 but sometimes 24, climbed into its enclosure. Initially said to have learning disabilities, it later turned out that Mr Chapman was, in fact, an actor.

He attended the Jackie Palmer Stage School in High Wycombe, which has a glittering list of star alumni, before going on to star in ITV's May Contain Nuts - alongside Harry Potter star Shirley Henderson - and in the BBC's True Stories series. In this series, Chapman played none other than Edward Jenner, the so-called father of immunology who created the world's first vaccine, and therefore, began one of the largest and most enduring psyops of all time.

Despite this accomplished CV, at the time of his "death", William Chapman was said to be working as an "online trader". The surname Chapman derives from the Latin caupo, literally meaning 'tradesman'.

So, if this incident is a scripted fake, and 'William Chapman' is a fictional character, then his character's occupation has been embedded into his name, a form of giveaway gameplay we often see in these hoaxes, where little jokes or clues are contained within psyop stars' names (e.g., Henry Nowak, Jihad Al Shamie).

The conspiraverse leapt on the tiger attack immediately, soon dubbing it a hoax, as it's one of those stories that is so obviously, laughably, ludicrously fake that even those people who usually become enraged when we "vile ghouls" label news events fake, are on board with the clear fabrication of this one.

A quick glance at the social media commentary on the subject gives us the following:

"The main problem is that it’s AI. Tiger gives him a haircut and deletes his face. Thumb attached in wrong place. Fence wire goes through his shirt. Fake." Declares one X user.

"Another fake and ghey Psyop. This guy clearly knows this tiger, owns it or trains it, and this can clearly be determined through the fact that the tiger stops playing rough as soon as the guy says something and put his finger up. Stop believing this bullshit." States Jonny Patriot.

And finally, Harry the Soul Coach sums it up:

"The Tiger incidence was a big hoax Just like all the hoaxes fake news shows us

The Headline News is Fake

They make it so obvious and people still choose to be emotionally reactive and very angry because they are in denial

The Tiger Video was Ai Donald Trump then showed us Ai

The Tigers Name was altAi 🐅 It has Ai in its name 🤣

It took place shortly after 13:30 (33)

William Chapman was a childhood actor

There was not one video of him being killed by the Tiger

They could not make it any clearer."

As alluded to by Harry, the fictional AI nature of the "tiger attack" footage was seemingly confirmed by Donald Trump, who, shortly after the "attack", posted this AI video of himself wrestling with a tiger.

He is seen to scold the animal with a wag of his finger, just as "William Chapman" is seen to do in the original clip.

Trump's caption on the video reads:

"Don't ever mess with nature! President DJT."

This statement can be read two ways: the surface reading is that Trump is instructing people not to "mess with nature" by climbing into tigers' enclosures and attempting to wrestle with them.

The second is as a veiled instruction to the news agencies who have fabricated this story to not "mess with nature" by using AI fantasy footage and pretending it's real.

I think we can safely say which interpretation internet rabbit hole conspiracists - who make up a primary part of Donald Trump's base - are supposed to respond to.

We can conclude this is the message Donald Trump means to send because there is otherwise absolutely no purpose to the op. I've written before about psyop analysis and that spending a lot of time painstakingly examining every little piece of evidence and dissecting every apparent anomaly in these incidents doesn't interest me nearly as much as ascertaining why the event has been staged. Proving an event is fake is one thing, but doesn't necessarily give us any meaningful insight into the purpose of the fabrication, which is the far more important aspect to understand.

To stage a psyop consumes an enormous amount of resources in terms of scripting it, hiring the actors, signing the NDAs, and coordinating the event across multiple intelligence agencies and security services personnel. So there's got to be a highly compelling purpose to the event's staging, to justify the expenditure and outlay of resources.

It's easy to see what the purpose is in the event of, for example, the Lindsay Clancy psyop. It was easy to see at Southport.

But this?

What message are we supposed to take away from this?

Tigers are dangerous?

People are stupid?

There's just no major agenda item being pushed, or evidence of serious social sculpting taking place.

That's why I can only conclude that recognising the fakery of the op is the purpose of the op.

This seems the only cogent reading of Donald Trump's supposedly "veiled" message, and what would otherwise be a highly insensitive, wildly inappropriate move for a sitting US President.

After all, Trump is usually only too quick to validate various psyops as real, even going so far as endorsing the farcical Lucy Connolly operation - as well as famously staging his own.

This one, however, he's not endorsing, but rather, appears to be telling us quite clearly that it's fake.

Trump also has form for calling out some mainstream media vehicles as 'fake news'.

This is courting the conspiracist demographic - from where Trump derives a lot of his support - both here and in the USA, and anyone remotely "Q"-minded is inevitably going to read into it.

Needless to say, this is all intentional. Sitting US Presidents with access to top political strategy advice and hundreds of people employed to sculpt their image on the world stage don't post things on social media by accident.

So why did Trump do this?

It appears he is validating his own credentials as a "truth teller" who's "playing 5D chess" and fighting the "deep state" by revealing their fake operations, but doing so in a veiled way so they don't kill him - that is what I believe we're supposed to think.

Of course, Trump (another actor) is just as establishment as every other prominent player on the world stage, but he's playing the role of dissident hero anti-establishment leader (rather like Nigel Farage is in this country), so this is the latest stunt that is meant to authenticate him in this role - just like the "assassination attempt" was (he's so dangerous to the deep state, they try to take him out - yet so protected by divine forces, they miraculously failed: that was the message. And to enhance his electability, of course, which obviously it did).

Trump has never called out any meaningful psyop. When it comes to an operation that's pushing an important part of the agenda, he vigorously endorses it as much as any other establishment asset.

But when the event has no wider purpose - when it's not scripted to powerfully socially engineer the public - he can call it out, to bolster his own image.

The tiger story lacks the usual highly emotive credentials that would be used if this were being staged to psychologically manipulate the public, such as a highly sympathetic victim. William Chapman is a white adult man, the single least sympathetic demographic in modern PR terms (how often is such a demographic ever positively represented on television?). He's not a cute child or vulnerable woman or from a minority group.

Although it's been alleged he had "mental health issues", he was also reported to be highly functional and not a cause of immediate concern to local mental health services. So there's very little being promoted that is designed to elicit a sympathetic response, and overwhelmingly, he hasn't got one.

In fact, the near-universal response is, "well, of course that's going to happen if you get into a tiger's enclosure. Hope the tiger's ok."

There has been much jubilance and celebration that "Altai", the five-year-old Amur tiger who supposedly fatally attacked Chapman, remains "safe and well" and will not be euthanised.

So this story clearly lacks the usual emotive heart-string-pulling of the socially engineering psyops, which always have highly sympathetic victims - often children - and which are designed to provoke the public into responding as the overlords desire, by demanding serious social change, such as bringing back the death penalty (in the case of the Southport psyop) and instating much closer monitoring of mothers (in the case of Lindsay Clancy).

None of that features in the tiger story: no sympathetic victim, no emotional outpouring from the public, no calls that "something must be done" to stop this ever happening again - which means we can only conclude that this event has been faked in order to be seen as faked. That's the point, and Donald Trump calling it out (when he has failed to call out multiple other much more important ops) appears the clear confirmation of that.

This infers that Trump is attempting to accrue more credibility amongst people inclined to see certain news events as fake, in the build up to a far more serious news event that will also be fake, but that the Trump administration will be highly invested in promoting as real.

It's clever manoeuvring, because it enables Trump and his handlers and strategists to declare, "nobody knows more than us that some of the news is fake. We call it out when we see it, even at huge personal risk. But this latest event [whatever it is], we can assure you, is all too real."

It's the same strategy of shillery used by a lot of infiltrating alternative voices post-covid - "I told the truth about covid and called it out as fake. So you can trust me when I tell you this new virus/war/assassination is very real."

They all do it.

"Not everything's a psyop, you know."

"Calling everything a psyop is a psyop."

This intentional strawmannirg and mischaracterisation of the arguments being made by those who suspect major news items of being fake shows these characters are not operating in good faith, since obviously, and as they know very well, nobody has ever said "everything" is a psyop. Indeed, 99.99% of things that happen in the world every day are not.

But 99.99% of things that happen in the world aren't reported in sensationalist lockstep across the national and international media, and that's the point - when an alleged event attracts this level of coverage and attention from known, documented liars (such as newspaper editors and high-profile politicians), then we have every reason to be suspicious.

When the event contains major anomalies; when there are known actors involved; and when it's pushing very significant aspects of an agenda that we know to exist, to conclude that it has been faked for the specific purpose of pushing this agenda is simply the logical conclusion.

The tiger op is a slightly different breed of faked op, in that the fakery itself seems to be the purpose - and I suspect we shall see clear confirmation of that very soon, with an upcoming psyop that Trump himself will star in, and be highly invested in us all seeing as very, very real...

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.