Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Discussing the most relevant "sequels" or "reminders" of 9/11. The so-called "War On Terror" is a global scam finalized to manipulate this world's population with crass fear-mongering tactics designed to scare you shitless.
Post Reply
HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by HonestlyNow » Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:49 pm

Maat wrote:
HonestlyNow wrote:Re: Giffords' "recovery photo" posted above:
What "reflection" is this supposed to be?

That reflection is the optical effect of wearing prescription eyeglasses.

I wear contacts. As a quick test, I took my eyeglasses and looked into the mirror. When you turn your head ever so slightly to the side, you get exactly what you see in that photo.
Actually, HonestlyNow, the "reflection" (or whatever it's supposed to be) as depicted in that fabricated picture of 'Giffords' cannot be reproduced in reality.
I wear tri-phase glasses and checked in the mirror at exactly the same angle to see a slight magnifying effect that appears to stretch a small section at the edge of my face a little outwards, not inwards as that picture shows. :)
Take another look: Giffords' 'Recovery photo' http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4829/ggrecovery.jpg
When you have lenses that correct for myopia, that is exactly the effect you get (as shown in the picture).

I don't know what tri-phase glasses are, and so far haven't found information on them. Do you mean trifocals? It sounds like we are not talking about the same type of lens, and so will not get the same effects.

Interesting how when the picture isn't blown up it looks more fake.

Unleashed
Member
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:27 am

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by Unleashed » Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:38 pm

RoyBean wrote:
Maat wrote:
As part of the double-blinds and baffles, any looking too closely with suspicion (i.e. us) were probably supposed to think 'different people / actresses' but the paradigm is that the different 'artists' are not in front of the 'camera' but behind it; i.e. different shoopers behind a computer screen, hence the variations in appearance (quality & style). ;)
seems to also be the case with all the 'live' appearances though
By the way, have you seen any moving/talking video of the 'before 1-8 Giffords' in any footage with other people?
Unless I missed it, I can only recall video showing 'Giffords' always alone: at a 'podium' or standing alone talking into a camera — everything else has been stills.
There are several as you probably know now, but here's another one at her 'victory celebration'


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWSYKs2Bxwc

oh and check out feisty Gabby debating :P

Debate Erupts at the Merlot Club
http://www.youtube.com./watch?v=6W-Yb7Ti0eI#t=4m36s
There seems a height discrepancy between the Gabby shown in these, who seems statuesque, as compared to the waif-like one on the most recent faked House floor video. In these, she is taller than the general group she is with, in the other shorter in a similar number of random people surrounding her. Just an observation.

I like the compilation of different Gabbys that Nonhocapito did. It sort of reminds me of the buffet selection of Osamas to choose from. Having photos with a range of looks would make it easier to pass off someone at a live appearance (if those ever happen).

I also was intrigued when someone posted the candid camera footage of her at the Shuttle launch with no wig on. They made a point of showing her getting on the plane "wearing one".
I guess her do got flattened wearing the motorcycle helmet that was best talked about, but never actually seen that was needed for air travel until after the back of her head got replaced. ;)

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by Maat » Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:54 pm

HonestlyNow wrote:
Maat wrote: Actually, HonestlyNow, the "reflection" (or whatever it's supposed to be) as depicted in that fabricated picture of 'Giffords' cannot be reproduced in reality.
I wear tri-phase glasses and checked in the mirror at exactly the same angle to see a slight magnifying effect that appears to stretch a small section at the edge of my face a little outwards, not inwards as that picture shows. :)
Take another look: Giffords' 'Recovery photo' http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4829/ggrecovery.jpg
When you have lenses that correct for myopia, that is exactly the effect you get (as shown in the picture).

I don't know what tri-phase glasses are, and so far haven't found information on them. Do you mean trifocals? It sounds like we are not talking about the same type of lens, and so will not get the same effects.

Interesting how when the picture isn't blown up it looks more fake.
Sorry, I was using a descriptive term for my tri-focals which are graduated (meaning no line between the long, middle and short sight lenses). So although I have all three phases to test, not even the stronger lower lense for reading (same as for myopia) will produce a reduced image like that. It magnifies in different degrees, so how can it look like a smaller, indented section in yours? :huh: I'm stumped :P
Last edited by Maat on Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unleashed
Member
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:27 am

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by Unleashed » Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:03 pm

For what it's worth.
I wear glasses too. I note that my lenses are bent very concave to correct for astigmatism.
My previous glasses I needed were flat. That might account for the shadowing effect.

But, nonetheless, somewhere along the lines, I have seen a deconstruction of that photo where you could tell the glasses themselves had the left arm clearly photo-shopped in. As well as other "cosmetic photoshoops".

HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by HonestlyNow » Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm

not even the stronger lower lense for reading (same as for myopia)
Myopia is not being able to see distances clearly, or "nearsightedness".
"Presbyopia is a condition where the eye exhibits a progressively diminished ability to focus on near objects with age." (wikipedia)

I also sometimes use reading glasses, and when I checked the mirror using those, I got the magnification you're talking about.

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by Maat » Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:16 pm

HonestlyNow wrote:
not even the stronger lower lense for reading (same as for myopia)
Myopia is not being able to see distances clearly, or "nearsightedness".
"Presbyopia is a condition where the eye exhibits a progressively diminished ability to focus on near objects with age." (wikipedia)

I also sometimes use reading glasses, and when I checked the mirror using those, I got the magnification you're talking about.
Yes you're right, my apologies, I used the wrong term regarding the reading lense. I do know myopia correctly refers to short sight — so my upper lense (for distance) is what corrects that.
I should add that I often get confuzzled on the 'nearsighted can't see far / longsighted can't see close' dichotomy without concentrating (same happens when I'm figuring what time of day ahead or behind I am from West &/or East coast) ImageGuess we all have sumpin' that fazes us, that's mine :lol:

But, I still can't get anything similar in any of my magnifications — which at whatever strength magnify & slightly blur that section when at normal distance from the mirror, and don't show a crisp line. :)

I suppose the real question should be what type of eyeglasses would someone with a supposed bullet wound through their left temple need? If sight in a left eye is destroyed (as would be likely if that occurred), what are the glasses for? :unsure:

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by brianv » Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:01 pm

As a non-glasses wearer I decided to stay out of this exchange, I hope you don't mind if I butt in.

I know the effect you are talking about and so would the person creating the image. Mind you, I think they went a wee bit overboard here! Shouldn't the reflection of her ear and hair match her ear and hair?

Image

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by Maat » Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:31 pm

brianv wrote:As a non-glasses wearer I decided to stay out of this exchange, I hope you don't mind if I butt in.

I know the effect you are talking about and so would the person creating the image. Mind you, I think they went a wee bit overboard here! Shouldn't the reflection of her ear and hair match her ear and hair?
:lol: Good point, Brian!
Although it's presumably meant to represent a parallax distortion through the lense, rather than 'reflect' it, it should at least match that part of course Image
And you're always welcome to "butt in" any time :D

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by Maat » Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:20 pm

RoyBean wrote:
Maat wrote:
As part of the double-blinds and baffles, any looking too closely with suspicion (i.e. us) were probably supposed to think 'different people / actresses' but the paradigm is that the different 'artists' are not in front of the 'camera' but behind it; i.e. different shoopers behind a computer screen, hence the variations in appearance (quality & style). ;)
seems to also be the case with all the 'live' appearances though

There are several as you probably know now, but here's another one at her 'victory celebration'


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWSYKs2Bxwc

oh and check out feisty Gabby debating :P

Debate Erupts at the Merlot Club
http://www.youtube.com./watch?v=6W-Yb7Ti0eI#t=4m36s
Aha! GMTA, Roy :D Looks like we were both studying the same video (I just got too tired to finish last night). Yes, I did find a few others with very short clips of her supposedly walking/talking/interacting with people (mostly slick election campaign productions).

Anyway, not only is that 'Victory Celebration' fascinating for the staged 'supporters', representing every possible age group arranged around her, with strange effects (again) in 'camera flash', doesn't play smoothly (yet others do), but the full photo of it on Wiki, has some very interesting metadata regarding dates <_<

Image
@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gabri ... erence.jpg
Description Gabrielle Giffords during a press conference held after her 2010 election victory
Date 5 November 2010 (Note: 5 November 2010 article at azpm.org covering the same event is dated 2010-11-05; source Flickr site has it as as 2009-11-04 06:42:06. Congressional elections are on even years.)
Source Flickr: Gabby!-4
Author Andrew Brown
Per my XnView program info:
Exif: Date taken/digitized: 2009:11:4 06:42:06
Date modified: 2010:11:07 13:37:53
XMP: "Adobe XMP Core 4.2-c020 1.124078, Tue Sep 11 2007 23:21:40 " :huh:

I guess 'recycling' really is their thing, eh :rolleyes:

N B 2007 was the first & only time since 2001 that September 11 fell on a Tuesday.
The next time is 2012


Now, check out the glum dude in the dark behind her right, impervious to a 'flash' that even brightens up the back wall! :lol: (Maybe GG is supposed to be the Moon & he just got 'eclipsed', but she ain't big enough :P)

Image

And the shaded line running vertically through the guy at back second from left.

Unleashed wrote:I also was intrigued when someone posted the candid camera footage of her at the Shuttle launch with no wig on. They made a point of showing her getting on the plane "wearing one".
I guess her do got flattened wearing the motorcycle helmet that was best talked about, but never actually seen that was needed for air travel until after the back of her head got replaced. ;)
Yep that was my post, glad you noticed the 'missing' wig too! :D
Ref http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p2359816
Last edited by Maat on Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dallasgoldbug
Banned
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:59 am

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by Dallasgoldbug » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:31 pm

Eat it.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDltoe9wZyQ

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2580
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by nonhocapito » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:13 pm

Dallasgoldbug wrote:Eat it.
The comparison seems to be significant in this video (which doesn't mention the source of Joy's part, but just as well). And yet, although it may sound not entirely rational at this stage, my negative gut feeling remains the same (possibly getting even stronger).

@DGB: You seem to have a clear desire to make the confrontation with cluesforum a troubled one. Yet I don't think anyone on this forum is getting in the way of your research. It wasn't us who came to you, but the other way around. So what is the deal? Why you need us to be either cowed or demeaned? Why are we invited to "eat" your findings, I don't understand. Are you a child? Are you a poser?

I see that we are now defined "conspiracy retards" in one of your videos (I suppose all of us with the exception of fred). In the video you seem pissed, something about your homework. We have to be intimidated by your algorithms. But maybe we didn't like all the homework, what can I tell you. Fred says we want to be teachers, maybe that's why.

So maybe the logo isn't masonic. But it looks masonic enough as you obviously know. All you had to do was to point the face-measuring-tool some other way maybe. You didn't so what you expect? I submit to you that the logo was deliberately made masonic-like. I am sure everyone who sees it the first time thinks the same: that you use such logo because you have discovered truths about freemasons being involved. But apparently this is not the case! which makes your choice of logo really really strange. But maybe you just like the attention around your choices, which is why you are coming back here so often now.

So you are making your research. You have plugged it and defended it. Fine. You certainly have your merits and you made us look at you. Now let us digest it our own way. I will not chew your shit (or your tasty food either) when you tell me to.

Dallasgoldbug
Banned
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:59 am

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by Dallasgoldbug » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:25 pm

1. UH no it was your people that came to me.

2. I don't like when people bad mouth others and don't have the balls enough to say it to the persons face. Instead they go about insulting people who would never have known unless some of your Intelligent visitors let me know.

3. This is why I don't do these types of sites to many people that are afraid to stick their necks out and put their sig and face on what they believe in and stand for. How many other do know that are doing that?

4. I have no beef with this site and actually mentioned it in my last video.

5. I just have beef with a few of your, oh how should I say...COINTELPRO minded users

If they have problems with my work they should say something. Because YES I make mistakes and sometimes don't include things that I think people are already aware of. That type of thing happens from time to time when you are so close to an investigation ON TOP OF running a one man show. Not to mention time to sleep, eat, and fight with criminals that live in my neighborhood. Criminals are every where and its about time people started standing up even if it is uncomfortable. Thats what I do, and thats who I am! This mission I'm on will not stop until I start seeing results. So the more they throw their energy at me in the form of insults and attacks, the stronger, efficient, and focused I become on identifying and neutralizing their acts.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2580
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by nonhocapito » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:39 pm

Dallasgoldbug wrote:1. UH no it was your people that came to me.

2. I don't like when people bad mouth others and don't have the balls enough to say it to the persons face. Instead they go about insulting people who would never have known unless some of your Intelligent visitors let me know.

3. This is why I don't do these types of sites to many people that are afraid to stick their necks out and put their sig and face on what they believe in and stand for. How many other do know that are doing that?

4. I have no beef with this site and actually mentioned it in my last video.

5. I just have beef with a few of your, oh how should I say...COINTELPRO minded users

If they have problems with my work they should say something. Because YES I make mistakes and sometimes don't include things that I think people are already aware of. That type of thing happens from time to time when you are so close to an investigation ON TOP OF running a one man show. Not to mention time to sleep, eat, and fight with criminals that live in my neighborhood. Criminals are every where and its about time people started standing up even if it is uncomfortable. Thats what I do, and thats who I am! This mission I'm on will not stop until I start seeing results. So the more they throw their energy at me in the form of insults and attacks, the stronger, efficient, and focused I become on identifying and neutralizing their acts.
Maybe someone from the cluesforum contacted you via email. That's nothing. You don't have a forum, so nobody can DISRUPT your activity nor your research out in the open. In fact obviously there is no trace on your website of "us coming to you", since you control all the content. It is different when you expect attention on this forum, and we are compelled to respond, and on top of it we have an issue because we are not applauding you quick enough. Who needs that?

Nobody insulted you on this forum. But talking about bad mouthing, I suppose you didn't come here telling us to take our heads out of our asses or something? Didn't call people "conspiracy retards"?
People expressed opinions on your findings that you didn't like, that's what happened.

"If they have problems they should say something". Once again: this is exactly what is happening here, some of the members of this forum are expressing reserves on your research. You don't always seem to be taking it very well. But, heck, it's a forum, man.

As to your "one man show", I read elsewhere on your website that you have a team working with you. So what is it? "Lone ranger" or "A-Team"?

fred
Banned
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by fred » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:51 pm

In my opinion, AIG appears right at the heart of a bunch of financial chicanery related to massive government bailouts and insurance scams, and with Mr Greenburg's illustrious official resume (ignoring for a moment the issue of any family Nazi connections) I would expect him to be deeply involved in various psychological warfare operations. I believe Dick Cheney was another CFR president, for those who keep track of that sort of thing.

So, if you tell me he's got family involved with the Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP, I wouldn't find that implausible. I would want to look into that.

I kind of feel like I walked in and said "Hey, there's a guy on the street corner handing out free Rolex watches. Some of them look real to me," and everybody is calling me an idiot. I don't see how anybody can have done the necessary homework to be pooh-poohing findings on Rebbecca Joy / Jennifer Sexton just yet.

This swift and loud condemnation is a little weird. I read pretty fast and I haven't gone through all the videos and websites yet.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2580
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP

Unread post by nonhocapito » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:32 pm

fred wrote:I read pretty fast and I haven't gone through all the videos and websites yet.
And yet you endorsed his work and started to defend it very strongly.

I think many on the forum weren't ready to applaud yet and I am glad of this caution that we can have. Personally I would have no problem if he was proved right all the way. Who cares? It's not about back-stopping his work, it is about not offering an open side to a sneak attack.

You talk about infiltration, so it must have crossed your mind the thought that a guy with a lot of made-up evidence, largely based on social networks to boot, could make a lot of damage if he was to drive us into a bottomless pit of false leads and contradictory clues.

I am open to the idea that maybe that's not the case. But the way I see it, your enthusiastic endorsement has been half of the problem because we don't need that kind of enthusiasm, on a bulky research like that one, and kind of piled up and hard to read through, too.

Post Reply