More Hoaxers steal Opperman’s videos

/ 27/12/2015

By now you’ll be aware of the slap-fest between Guidance/Code 2222 and Ed Opperman, whose recent interview with Abraham Christie and Ella Gareeva Draper became a bone of contention on YouTube.

In his most recent video, Ed takes a look at exactly what happened:

The real fun starts at 11:51, where he explains that the Hoaxtead hawkers let him into their Sooper Seekrit Clubhouse, shared their secret handshake with him, and then betrayed him horribly by stealing his hard-won blockbuster interview with Abrella.

Horrors!

Guidance 2222 comes in for a good old-fashioned slagging at about 23:30; then at 44:10 Ed admits that Abrella aren’t exactly pure as the driven snow:

The mother and the boyfriend are not 100% innocent either, because the guy admits…that he was hitting a 9-year-old little kid in the head with a metal spoon….It seems like they burn every bridge that they have and they ostracize every supporter they have. Maybe this guy [Abe]’s inserted into her [Ella’s] life to screw everything up….I wash my hands of it. I’m done.

And just in the nick of time, too, because we’re pretty sure Ed’s head would explode if he found out that Guidance 2222 wasn’t the only Hoaxstead pusher who’d ripped off his work:

Opperman report-Biddy Baboon channel

Yes, Biddy Baboon, aka Bridget Yorke, has taken the liberty of posting Ed’s video (the uncut version, which Ed says he suspects was recorded by Abrella and distributed like party favours to their friends).

And Butlincat2, aka John Graham, has followed suit.

Opperman report-Butlincat2

Of course, their paltry views won’t come close to the massive publicity hit that Ed originally predicted, so we’re wondering how long it’ll be before Abrella scratch Bridget and John off their ‘approved hoax pushers’ list.

 

Butlincat aka John Graham

John Graham, aka Butlincat

Bridget Yorke Biddy Baboon

Bridget Yorke, ca. 1993

 

 

Related posts

43 thoughts on “More Hoaxers steal Opperman’s videos”

  1. Is that a pic of Guidance on the right? Ed’s a bit late to all this stuff. I see he’s only just latched onto Tim Tate and his Satanic claims.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It is simple strategy that an individual who wishes to retain authority over their copyright should keep it off the internet until the moment they want to publish it. Ed is the idiot for allowing his work to fall into the hands of third parties before it was supposed to be published. Also, sometimes controversy might be a deliberate ruse to generate publicity for a cause.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Good point. Perhaps whipping up some publicity. Anyone who uses the net must know how impossible it is to retain your lawful copyright. As we have seen with the kid’s videos that keep popping up while Youtube shareholders sip champagne and celebrate their rising share price, oblivious to the harm caused.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Yes, Ed’s annoyance stems from the fact that he can tell that the videos that were, ahem, ‘borrowed’ by Guidance (and now Biddy and Butlincat) were obviously the version that’s heard only by the interviewees. The ads are blocked out, whereas on the ‘official’ version they’re meant to be audible.

        Like

  4. Fact is that in the Opperman interviews Abrella more or less prove that what Kellie Cottam said was true. Kellie said (more or less) if she’d concentrated on getting her kids back when they were removed, and hadn’t gone down the rabbit hole into conspiracy theory she might have had a more successful outcome. Here you’ve got Abe and Ella totally down the rabbit hole and not focusing on the real issue at hand.

    Ed Opperman shows them up totally – that they don’t have a proper legal team working on the case and that they’re more concerned with conspiracy theory than they are with sorting the problem out and getting the children back.

    Abe seems to think they’ll get the children back via ‘the people’ so he’s waiting for a revolution. I hope he doesn’t hold his breath. (Maybe he should.) They’ve dug themselves so far down the rabbit hole they’ve reached Australia. When you’re this divorced from reality there’s really no going back.

    Liked by 2 people

    • The question is that did Ella ever truly cared about her children at all? Looking at her actions… allowing Abe to abuse the children, attempting to alienate RD from his children, not really seeming to be concerned about her kids’ welfare… well. It really does seem that she never cared.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, that’s a very good point. She seems to have had trouble with being a mother from the outset–talking about how ‘difficult’ her children were, etc. This case only confirms it: a mother who is truly bonded to her children would stick around and fight for them, not ‘decide not to participate’ in the legal fight to get them back.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t think we should wish them on the poor Australians, though. 🙂

      But yes, I completely take your point. Ed may have his deficiencies as an interviewer, but he did force Abrella to disclose their true motives here: not to be reunited with her children, but to ‘prove’ the veracity of their conspiracy beliefs.

      Like

  5. It was the first interview to challenge Abraham’s violence and other questions they were not expecting. I found the question about their strategy to be the most interesting. It suggests that Ed understands that they are making up a narrative. Otherwise, it would be obvious why they were not negotiating with the father (alleged rapist and mass murderer). It echoed a question many of us have asked of Abraham and Ella. What is their end game?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, exactly. While I thought Ed tossed them many softball questions during the interview, I was actually impressed that he kept hammering at them about their end game.

      He asks at one point what will happen if they are proven 100% right about the ‘Satanic ritual abuse’ or ‘trauma-based mind control’ or ‘aliens from Mars’ or whatever loopy theory they come up with next, and they seem completely nonplussed. They start rambling on about world revolution and how publicity will make the people rise up against their lizard masters and so on, but it’s exceedingly clear that they really have not got the faintest clue.

      There is no plan. They are doing this for the sake of doing it, for the sake of gaining notoriety, and possibly even for the sake of selling more ganja. (I noted that at one point Abe veered from his standard “hemp is the only substance that can cure the effects of ‘Satanic ritual abuse'” to “hemp is the only thing that can fight the effects of trauma-based mind control”. Nice bait and switch there, Abe.)

      Like

  6. What is apparent from the Ed Opperman videos is that Ella found being a mother very stressful. She says she had to prepare herself emotionally, psychologically, before picking the children up each day, as they had fights in the car. She says they were abusive towards her. That they were aggressive. She seems to have had little capacity to deal with the normal hustle and bustle and demands of parenthood. She put down a crying spell of her one year old child to sexual abuse, FFS.

    Don’t look in the mirror, will you, Ella.

    Abraham says the level of aggression and ‘dysfunction’ in the children was apparent to him, having raised ten children himself. The fact that none of those children want to know him does not come into it, of course. He is probably oblivious to the fact that one or more of them have and would still like to get him charged with various offences. Abraham is, in his own mind, suddenly, magically, a child psychology specialist. Because he and Ella have read a book about it. The reality is that he exhibits violent, authoritarian disciplinary styles picked up from his extended experiences in children’s homes and approved school and the like in the 60’s and 70’s. His personality was then further formed during his many spells in prison. He thinks his spoon-licks way is the right way. Away from the book, in practice. Unfortunately children do not respond well to this. We all know firm boundaries create a feeling of safety, but abuse (and emotional neglect) create resentment.

    I think many people were very taken with the children when they saw them. They were affected not just by what they saw them saying, but who they were: Bright, intelligent, sociable beings. Behaviour will depend on past, and present circumstances. For me, it is clear that the children would be angry, feel that they had been short-changed, when they compared their mother to those of their friends. There are indicators of this within the material available to us. But the slam dunk proof is the comparison of Ella to other mothers behaviour, had they been in the same situation: Other mothers would not run away. Other mothers have stayed, and even ended up in prison, misguided in their actions, yet still attached to their children. Ella has shown she is not attached in this way. Her priorities are different from those of other mothers.

    Ella is freed from the burdens of motherhood now. She has not *really*wanted to continue being one. The reality is that she left and did not take part in any action that could have brought her back together with her children. She can dress it up anyway she likes, but that is the end result (the unconscious intention) of her actions: The permanent split from her children.

    While she points the finger, and expends her energy on blaming others, it takes her away from the stark reality which is at risk of seeping into her awareness. The bare bones truth: That she was not up to, and did not do, that which is demanded of a mother. We all instinctively know what ‘the right way’ is for a mother to behave towards her children: To be kind, loving, nurturing, protective, staying around. It can be difficult to manage the demands of motherhood.

    By doing the interviews, running a blog, Ella is distracting herself from her own sense of failure. By pointing the finger at *anyone* (the whole world) but herself, she tries to avoid this.

    While she continues in her ‘campaign’, she can (try to) keep these feelings at bay, although they will always be lurking, underneath, making her unhappy.

    In this, there is some solace for some of us.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes indeed. Very insightful, thanks.

      I think there’s even more solace to be gleaned from the fact that Ella will never have free access to those children again. If indeed they ever wish to see her again, it will be once they’re old enough to decide for themselves–i.e., when they’re in their late teens or even adulthood.

      Like

  7. I wonder if those who identify the children by posting their names and videos etc realise that in a few years time, when the children become adults, they may decide themselves to take legal proceedings or sue. This isn’t a Hollie Greig situation. The Hampstead children are highly intelligent and will grow up one day. If you’re one of the people who thinks the children should be identified, don’t assume they’ll thank you. It may go entirely the other way.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. First question lawyers ask when a damages claim is considered is what assets are available to pay the claim: anyone with a house or pension plan or savings might expect a writ.

    Like

  9. Pingback: David Shurter doesn’t like Hoaxtead Research | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  10. Pingback: Kevin Annett,Vinny Eastwood & Ed Opperman-Co-Intelpro,Internet Scammers & Satanic Panic Hoax Promoters | kevinannettexposed

  11. I’m having doubts about Ed, to be honest. He’s said some odd things on some threads. Firstly, I vehemently dispute his claim about people on our team trolling his videos; secondly, he rants about trolls but somewhat hypocritically has been very abusive himself on some threads; and thirdly, he’s been implying that anyone who disagrees with his views on copyright are child abusers!

    Liked by 1 person

  13. 27:18 “There’s a website out there that’s against the Hampstead case. It’s called Hoaxtead and I go there a lot. I read what they have to say and what I’ve realised is that they’re trying to do the same thing in Hampstead that they did with McMartin. They’re trying to hold the mother and her boyfriend accountable. Ella and Abe – they’re trying to hide her [sic] accountable…

    …However, I have come to the conclusion, as far as Hampstead goes, that nothing is what it seems. The thing that bothered me…if you watch those videos and you listen to what’s being said, Abe, who is the boyfriend who’s only involved with this family for about 3 months at the very beginning, when these tapes got made, he’s leading them and asking them questions. How would he be so keyed in?…How would someone who has no conception of what’s going on know what to ask? Because he leads those kids. They’re answering his questions…I don’t trust Abe. I don’t. He screws anybody that could help them…You’ve just experienced that, Ed. You just experienced it. Anyone who comes forward that could help them, he isolates and drives away.

    And this case right now, as it stands, is not about the children; it’s about the mother and her boyfriend…Abe, by his own admission, has been in and out of prison all of his life, so he thinks he’s an expert on this. He’s been involved for a year and a half and he thinks he’s an expert…They’re changing course mid-stream. Now it’s not about Luciferianism…now it’s not about Satanism; now it’s about MK Ultra…It’s gonna ruing their credibility…[They’re very difficult to deal with in] every possible way. It’s not about the kids for them. What they wanna talk about is it’s ok to feed kids cannabis and they’re on this whole cannabis thing about how it’s ok.And before I got it [sic] my first interview with them, we had an hour and 20 minute argument, because I told them I am not going on the air and you [sic] telling everyone it’s ok to feed kids cannabis…and it became a huge argument.”

    Like

  14. Frankly, I wouldn’t trust Ed as far as I could throw him. Check out these links on his YT channel:

    —————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.