Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

[nonhocapito]

As I said, I tend to believe there is an actor/agent impersonating him. Maybe the same goes for Obama. Then obviously their past would be a fabrication, everything would be a fabrication. My advice would be not to focus your attention in trying to "prove" that he is a "100% simulated character" simply because we don't know enough about the technology in the hands of the military or whoever is behind this shit (although a fair guess is that it's not such a great technology, given the sloppy quality of the 9/11 scam). Virtually all discussions that start with the need to prove that a certain technology is being used, end up prattling about holograms in a matter of two or three posts. All of them. And we don't need that here.

[Anders]

As I said, I tend to believe there is an actor/agent impersonating him. Maybe the same goes for Obama. Then obviously their past would be a fabrication, everything would be a fabrication. My advice would be not to focus your attention in trying to "prove" that he is a "100% simulated character" simply because we don't know enough about the technology in the hands of the military or whoever is behind this shit (although a fair guess is that it's not such a great technology, given the sloppy quality of the 9/11 scam). Virtually all discussions that start with the need to prove that a certain technology is being used, end up prattling about holograms in a matter of two or three posts. All of them. And we don't need that here.

Ordinary computer graphics was good enough back in 2004 to simulate a low res Zuckerberg is my guess. Maybe not in real time, but when rendered beforehand. Here is another early interview with Mark Zuckerberg:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4erAm-cJbg

It looks to me that the person shown in profile is an actor and that the Zuckerberg shown close up may be (to speculate a bit here) a computer simulation. And if so, in this other interview it's a computer simulation of Zuckerberg during the whole interview:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSEaNgvSN4I

[Anders]

Here is a much more recent video of Zuckerberg (29/08/2016 according to the title):


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

Zuckerberg looks real enough and the video quality is pretty good (compared to the previous videos I posted). Is it a complete tinfoil hat theory to suggest that Zuckerberg in this video is a computer simulation? Maybe. But also remember that by now the computer graphics has become really good. Plus, the background looks like a possible green screen projection.

[Anders]

Here is a frame from the video in my previous post. It's a crude example of how it can be done. The actor playing Zuckerberg has a green "ski mask" over his head with dots for facial and head features that are mapped to a CGI simulation of Zuckerberg's head. Also notice the simulated reflection (of the room projected onto the green screen) in the glass of the gift they are holding.

[anonjedi2]

There's no need for a computer simulated Zuckerberg, an actor will do just fine and save a ton of time and money.

[Anders]

Even ordinary YouTube comments indicate that Zuckerberg might be simulated. Here are a few comments:

"What's wrong with his neck?"
"The bit that connects with the t-shirt. Have a look."
"strangeeee. it looks like distortion, but why is the distortion so heavy only there?"
"it almost look like he's either wearing a grey tshirt underneath or his body is metal or something like a real life android lol"
"seems unnatural to me"
"Is that guy real? His eyes make him look alien?"
"He just look soulless, so bland and lifeless."
"looks like a high elf once hes been fully persuaded"
"What's wrong with his eyes?"

The comments are from this video:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajLqgh2DhB8

[Anders]

There's no need for a computer simulated Zuckerberg, an actor will do just fine and save a ton of time and money.

A computer simulation can be needed for legal reasons, like the board members of Facebook saying: "Our chairman Zuckerberg is a legal person. We never claimed that Zuckerberg is a physical person."

And also, with a computer simulation they can make Zuckerberg a proof of concept for other simulations such as Edward Snowden, which definitely needs to be a simulated character because it would be difficult to convince a real person to move out of the U.S., leave family and friends and risk getting convicted as a traitor to his country, just to do a limited hangout.

[Flabbergasted]

But Zuckerberg being a simulation? Surely he has to make presentations within his company? Seems way too improbable that he can be a simulation.
....
[...] why the change of the proportions so that the video becomes stretched out sideways? One possible reason is to mask a green screen projection of the whole scenery
....
[...] it shows that the video has been cropped a lot on the sides. Is the cropping a trick to make a green screen projection look more convincing?
....
It's a crude example of how it can be done. The actor playing Zuckerberg has a green "ski mask" over his head with dots for facial and head features that are mapped to a CGI simulation of Zuckerberg's head.
....
A computer simulation can be needed for legal reasons, like the board members of Facebook saying: "Our chairman Zuckerberg is a legal person. We never claimed that Zuckerberg is a physical person."
....
With a computer simulation they can make Zuckerberg a proof of concept for other simulations such as Edward Snowden [...]

I appreciate you are providing some interesting links here and there (I liked the comparison of the WTC memorial and the JFK memorial), but most of the time your reasoning is completely lost on me.

[anonjedi2]

There's no need for a computer simulated Zuckerberg, an actor will do just fine and save a ton of time and money.

A computer simulation can be needed for legal reasons, like the board members of Facebook saying: "Our chairman Zuckerberg is a legal person. We never claimed that Zuckerberg is a physical person."

And also, with a computer simulation they can make Zuckerberg a proof of concept for other simulations such as Edward Snowden, which definitely needs to be a simulated character because it would be difficult to convince a real person to move out of the U.S., leave family and friends and risk getting convicted as a traitor to his country, just to do a limited hangout.

Occam's Razor says that none of this is needed. I can guarantee you there are thousands of people who work at Facebook who have sat in an auditorium and seen Zuck in the flesh for a speech or company "state of the union" meeting. Snowden is an entirely different story. You're making it much more difficult than it needs to be.

[nonhocapito]

Yes Anders it is a bit difficult for me to follow you as well since with your first post in this thread you seemed determined to ridicule the idea of a simulated Zuck, then you have done a full 180°, and there might be a bit of exaggeration in that too. But I agree, technically it is possible that Zuck is always completely simulated, and that there might not be actual real public venues where he has been seen or can be seen.

To answer anonjedi as well, I don't necessarily buy it that there are thousands of people who work at facebook who have seen him, or rather: we don't know what level of control there is within this company, which, as I suspect, is probably not as much a company as an extension of the Pentagon... (compare with the case of NASA, for example: would the argument that thousands of people worked for NASA stand as a reason not to believe the fake moon landing is possible? What about spacex and the future mission to mars?) And yes many zuck videos have oddities like that of the neck, so there's that.

Personally I'll just sit on the fence a while longer, there's no need to artificially create a split between there being an actor/agent who actually bears that face, and is occasionally used when a simulation will not do -- or there being only simulations... The important achievement to me is knowing at this point that "Zuckerberg" is not real. How this is achieved is obviously very interesting but not as crucial as collecting evidence of the propaganda and utter unreality and artificial nature of the Zuck product.

Latest video: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/videos/vb ... =3&theater
Once again: where's the interaction with the public? Where's the Q&A? Where's that magic moment of blending with the crowd? We are told this is "live", but there is simply no reason for it to be.

In this other video: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/videos/vb ... =3&theater, where a form of interaction is apparently present, the camera always cuts between the words of Sugar Mountain and those of the students. Why would that happen? A lot of re-do? Or rather, the students have been filmed in advance, without Sugar Mountain being present?

And in this other video: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/videos/vb ... =3&theater the whole conversation happens with a person who is blind, so the problem does not even present itself.

[Anders]

There's no need for a computer simulated Zuckerberg, an actor will do just fine and save a ton of time and money.

A computer simulation can be needed for legal reasons, like the board members of Facebook saying: "Our chairman Zuckerberg is a legal person. We never claimed that Zuckerberg is a physical person."

And also, with a computer simulation they can make Zuckerberg a proof of concept for other simulations such as Edward Snowden, which definitely needs to be a simulated character because it would be difficult to convince a real person to move out of the U.S., leave family and friends and risk getting convicted as a traitor to his country, just to do a limited hangout.

Occam's Razor says that none of this is needed. I can guarantee you there are thousands of people who work at Facebook who have sat in an auditorium and seen Zuck in the flesh for a speech or company "state of the union" meeting. Snowden is an entirely different story. You're making it much more difficult than it needs to be.

But can an actor be 100% trusted day after day, year after year? And what about the actor suffering from disease or accidents? And I first thought like you, that Zuckerberg must do presentations within the company, participate in meetings and so on. But big presentations to thousands of employees can be done by a lookalike actor on the stage, and where the employees sitting in the first rows are insiders and those sitting behind are too far away to see exactly how Zuckerberg looks like in the face. Another possibility is that the early employees in the beginning of Facebook are all insiders and the thousands of employees hired later only see Zuckerberg in video presentations within the company.

[Anders]

Yes Anders it is a bit difficult for me to follow you as well since with your first post in this thread you seemed determined to ridicule the idea of a simulated Zuck, then you have done a full 180°, and there might be a bit of exaggeration in that too. But I agree, technically it is possible that Zuck is always completely simulated, and that there might not be actual real public venues where he has been seen or can be seen.

The only thing I have changed my mind about is that first I thought that it was completely impossible that Zuckerberg can be a simulated character, and then after looking at it a bit more closely I came to the conclusion that maybe it's possible that Zuckerberg is a computer simulation after all. See my latest reply to anonjedi2.

[elmoastro]

I almost started a new thread but for now this post probably belongs here.

Thread title would have been, "Fake News in the Fake News"

Very interesting to me to see which media comes out to decry and promises to rid the world of fake news.
Mark Zuckerburg & Facebook
CNN (see Iraq war 1, CNN Charles Jaco, green screen, satellite backfeed)

The fake news going after the fake news. That's precious right there.

[SacredCowSlayer]

I almost started a new thread but for now this post probably belongs here.

Thread title would have been, "Fake News in the Fake News"

Very interesting to me to see which media comes out to decry and promises to rid the world of fake news.
Mark Zuckerburg & Facebook
CNN (see Iraq war 1, CNN Charles Jaco, green screen, satellite backfeed)

The fake news going after the fake news. That's precious right there.

Yeah I was wondering when somebody else would point this absurd story out. I found myself too annoyed to even go through the motions.

But I'm glad you did so. It really is the power infrastructure trying to define the terms and lay out the terrain so as to further muddy the waters for everyone else.

It's yet another layer of fakery we have to explain. And in a society where people have almost Zero attention span. . . well, that little Extra bit can end up amounting to a lot.

I can see people waving off information or insight into "fake news" with a quick "oh yeah I read all about how Facebook is going to crack down on all that stuff."

It's an effective (if unimaginative) trick to bolster a person's pre-existing and underlying belief/trust/faith in the "real news". So we have to adapt (in some ways), and be all the more careful not to adopt their use of language.

Rest assured their disinformation and propaganda campaigns will NOT let up. They simply can't afford to lose the (mind) control they've had over the vast majority for SO Many decades. Their ILLUSIONS are what keep them in power.

I agree that your post might have warranted a new topic. But this Is good for now in my opinion. If a new MO develops (and morphs) then I'm sure it will get addressed separately.

[elmoastro]

I almost started a new thread but for now this post probably belongs here.

Thread title would have been, "Fake News in the Fake News"

Very interesting to me to see which media comes out to decry and promises to rid the world of fake news.
Mark Zuckerburg & Facebook
CNN (see Iraq war 1, CNN Charles Jaco, green screen, satellite backfeed)

The fake news going after the fake news. That's precious right there.

"... I found myself too annoyed to even go through the motions.
"...It really is the power infrastructure trying to define the terms and lay out the terrain so as to further muddy the waters for everyone else.

When the stories first came out and the phrase "fake news" was in the headlines, I took notice, actually felt a little sick. Like you being annoyed by it. I had just returned from overseas and recognizing the propaganda from the moment I stepped on a foreign (read: 10x better than any US) airline to the time I had to go back, seeing that phrase in the newspaper and tv snapped my neck a bit.

I really think the elite's problem right now is not so much "how to keep them fooled and in the dark" but "how to manage them now that they' will believe literally anything we tell them."

The few of the current population who have caught on to the game at the level of this forum have few choices to deal with it all: 1-fight it/write about it, 2-see ya, I'm gone/checked out/off-grid/move to where you can't understand the language, 3-conform to the level that allows you to live ok and stay sane.

Past that, the rest are too busy working, trying to live, to be able to deal with the mental challenge of questioning beliefs and applying the critical eye to every one of them in order to root out the false and fantasy. And a big component is the way people identify with their culture, society and education. One saving factor might be the tendency for offspring to see hypcrisy in their parents and also the errors in their ways. Yet offspring also tend to gravitate to those traits if they haven't developed the ability to look in the mirror and set themselves on a path of personal growth. So the entire range of this allows for the very introspective to move beyond their society, to those who have adapted, conformed and wired their own mental programming to it. At this end of the spectrum, the programming is so deep and so engrained into their beliefs, habits and patterns of life that it could take multiple lifetimes to be able disentangle the programming stack and wipe out all belief-level programs.

Without going to far into it, this belief-level scrutiny is necessary for an individual to break from their base-level conditioning and thinking. If their drives and desires lead them far enough to be able to start to question their thinking, they have a chance of moving to a new plateau in their own understanding of their self.

If people couldn't see the charade played out in this recent US election farce, we're fucked for a longer time than need be. It's sad, really. The population was so consumed by the idiocy presented to them via the TV-MindHackUploadMachine and ate it up entirely. Sports for everyone. Pick a team, invest your energy into to it to the point of passion, watch the rest of the show, fight with your neighbors and family, bond together in solidarity and protest, get them out in droves to cast their final vote for Idicracy meets Survivor, and watch them scream in agony at their loss, and sighs of relief and snobbery by the winners. Truly a blockbuster for EVERYONE!

And all it costs you is your mind and your money and any chance of (r)evolutionary & personal/mental development. As long as the chickens are running around yelling that the sky is falling and fighting over everything from pipelines to polititions to cops to the medical establishment (see the pattern? all corp/gov), the chances are high that the members of the society and group/hive-think remain in the programmed state and State indefinitely.

It's becoming clear to me how the programming works. And maybe self-de/re/programming isn't for everyone. It's just that there are people, groups and systems in place that are exploiting the human wiring to their advantage in so many ways. That the movie Top Gun resulted in thousands signing up for an Air Force or other military experience shows how easy it is to plant virus and trojan horses into the human thinking process and cause it to sign up for a war machine. Hey, something to do.

We're all actors and choose a script from which to follow. It's just that there are myriad scripts to choose from, written by others, for you to experience. Why mess up the drama? Shhhhhh. They like being fooled! It's their choice. On and on. It only takes about 1 1/2 -3 generations of people to be able to re-write everything or change up the belief structure of a population. History repeats itself because people repeat themselves. It takes heroic courage to step out of society's game and face the bullets of criticism and mockery for pointing out countless naked emporers.

I guess what struck me about this Fake News house of mirrors is this. A lot of us have reasoned that the TV presents Programs designed to create reality and upload data to their human viewers. So for me, it's all fake, suspect and looked at with complete distrust. It's too real. It's too powerful as it can throw a nation into fucking war. All it takes is someone (the programmer) to insert the content. Run the stream. Let it fly. Watch...them...go!!! Hell, we might be some ant farm experiment for all I know. I sure feel like an ant in this goofy reality show sometimes. So seeing the Fake declaring war on the Fake just blew a circuit in my own wiring. I didn't want to have to write another personal essay in order to make sense of it all. I'd rather just live and explore things in my own life--free from the hive mind.

If too many wise up, they'll just start blowing shit up again. They know you can't question dead children and slobbering robotic physics phenoms. You can't question the 3000 (or zero) dead. It's too much of a mind-blow. They would have to rip their own heart and belief programming open to inspection. Not a pretty thing for most to have to do. Too much to deal with on levels that we've been trained over the years to firewall against. They would have to point the mirror at themselves and have it show them the truth about the fake life they have invested everything in.

Well, I've skipped around maybe too much in this, but wanted to share some thoughts. Those of you not in the US or have the perspective of distance and culture, I have utmost respect for your patience and restraint. The contrast of here vs. places that have had to endure US is stark. In some ways US is a 3rd world country that thinks it's #1 like a ex-ex-beauty queen smeared and caked with makeup. It's sick and sad. Carry on. I've put a lot of my digging tools away because it doesn't stop and there's a better way to live than this. Nature seems to do it, travel for sure.

One last thing on propaganda. I came back to work and shared my travels with an older woman. I mentioned that the quality, efficiency and service level of the Asian airline was miles away from the US airlines. Her response was to say, "Oh, yeah, the US airlines are better." I said, "No. The Asian airlines were 100x better in all ways. In fact, the Japanese should just be given all of the airlines to run and everything would be on time and there would be no lost baggage." She was taken aback. Never in her imagination had she considered it was different than what she had been programmed to believe. The only real culture shock for me was returning and I felt it the second I stepped on the US airline. Back in the matrix.