Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby anonjedi2 on December 27th, 2015, 3:27 am

I don't see it. There are enough people that probably work at Facebook and interact with Zuckerberg or have seen him in real life at some point, giving a speech or at some function. This idea of holograms is nice to explore but complicates the issue when it really doesn't need any complicating at all. Why should the perps spend so much time, effort and money on creating an endless hologram program that they will constantly have to write code for, upgrade, maintain, etc? Surely it's much easier to get some kid to do your bidding, no?

In the case of Snowden, he's out of the public eye completely, so the CGI angle there is more reasonable, since nobody has ever seen Snowden in real life.

In any case, it almost seems like you're pushing this hologram theory a little too much for my liking...as if we should start believing in holograms to discredit the rest of our research. If you have any actual evidence of a hologram being used in the case of Zuckerberg, please present it. Otherwise, at least acknowledge that your efforts are nothing but wild speculation, not supported by any proof.

One of my favorite things about Cluesforum is that most of the research and ideas here are GROUNDED. As in, rooted in reality. We don't need to speculate about magical weapons, invisible holograms or cloaking devices. Much in the same way that Judy Wood's "Invisible Magical Directed Energy Weapons fired from space" distracts from the real evidence of fakery, I feel this idea of holograms is also rooted in that same type of distraction.

Just in the same factual sense that there are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of real people doing real work at NASA every single day, it makes sense that Zuckerberg is a real person. The entire organization of NASA is still real, even though their endeavors are clearly not... so they don't need to complicate matters by creating CGI astronauts. They're real people, just like Zuckerberg. Their realness makes the entire thing more legitimate because people think they know them in real life. It's the logical conclusion.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 698
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby sublimity on December 27th, 2015, 5:00 am

I agree completely with Anonjedi. In the interview clip that was posted by Tokyojoe, I don't think there's any hologram hush-hush happening there. Infact, It seems pretty clear that Fallon hastily asks wether Borgnine is still alive, and Seinfeld just looks annoyed that he didn't remember the announcement of his death in 2012. Fallon then changes the subject to holograms, as to not look ignorant.
sublimity
Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: February 27th, 2012, 10:33 am

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby nonhocapito on June 16th, 2016, 8:26 pm

anonjedi2 wrote:There are enough people that probably work at Facebook and interact with Zuckerberg or have seen him in real life at some point, giving a speech or at some function.


I agree that the idea of holograms is a waste of time; speculating about science we don't even know exist is the wrong approach. And yes, it seems impossible to think that there aren't uninvolved people out there who have seen him. Although there are a lot of involved people who know how to keep their mouths shut.
In any case there is really something wrong about this character and his appearance. To say the least, there must be a lot photoshopping going on; most of the events he shows at might be completely fake; that Russian series above is an exemplary case; we are but left to wonder why this is.

And you read something like this:

‘I am not a lizard’: Mark Zuckerberg is latest celebrity asked about reptilian conspiracy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... onspiracy/

On Amazon's Washington Post... And it really seems a good strategy to push away the idea that there is anything unauthentic about this character, whom many people, aware that fairy tales and reality are two different things, might feel instinctively is just a front. An usual strategy, after all, like with the splat earth.

I might be wrong but pictures like these:
Image
Image
Image
...scream photoshopped a mile away.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2496
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby Ataraxia on June 21st, 2016, 5:38 am

tokyojoe1 wrote:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQaCv52DSnY

Something I noticed happening throughout this video, is how the stage backdrop behind Zuckerberg becomes distorted by the movement of his head in front. I’m not sure how to phrase it, but it’s as if the ‘digital Zuckerberg layer’ causes the lines in the background to distort and warp as the layer itself moves. As an example, go to 5:00 in the video, view in full screen, and watch this area (although the effect does occur all around his head at various times):
Image

There’s a significant distortion at 5:08, which occurs no matter how many times I refresh the buffer or the page, etc. There’s also another significant one at 23:40. These are two examples I found to hopefully best demonstrate the effect, from hundreds that occur throughout the entire interview.

I guess it’s possible that what's happening is a completely natural digital effect, but it does seem bizarre, especially when watching in the highest quality possible. Yet, to me, this doesn’t affirm the existence of a hologram, as that implies the setting is real and the hologram is beamed into place to be viewed by an actual audience in attendance. To me, it’s more likely that the whole situation is digitally created.

Afterall, the central concept of the interview is "Now You See It: Virtual Reality" and I don't doubt that at all. This is the virtual reality.
Ataraxia
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: April 17th, 2015, 2:15 am

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby nonhocapito on June 21st, 2016, 10:49 am

You are right. There seems to be like a halo of pixel deformation around his head...
Bottom line, the most likely possibility I think is that there is an actor/agent who impersonates Sugar Mountain (the same might go for many of the other "magical" companies such as Tesla, Twitter etc), for the simple reason that these companies are really a Pentagon creation and can't be allowed to be run by independent, free-thinking individuals; these agents/actors might not be trusted or be capable to perform in all public situations their position requires to keep the illusion alive: hence the need for a lot of their fake public life to be integrated with artificial material.

Here's a perfectly credible, quite old video with Obama (speaking without teleprompters? Is that possible for him?) and Sugarman asking insightful questions. Notice how the public seem to manage to never actually look at the person who's speaking as he's speaking. Might have they just been filmed listening to the conversation, before the two actors were superimposed...?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ypVArkbsn8

At the beginning we are given the impression that the president will take questions from this crowd. He doesn't though.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2496
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby nonhocapito on June 21st, 2016, 11:31 pm

Still on this, an article I frankly find quite idiotic on Infowars:

Photo: Does Mark Zuckerberg Cover His Webcam with Tape?

http://www.infowars.com/photo-does-mark ... with-tape/

featuring this photo:
Image

(how can anyone assume that this nondescript shared desk in the middle of the chaos of an open-space office is the desk of the CEO? Or that "Zuck" goes around his company carrying his laptop like an intern?)

Much more interesting seems to me to be, once again, the look of utter unreality the picture has.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2496
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby nonhocapito on June 25th, 2016, 1:09 pm

So here is another fresh event with Obama and Sugarmountain, dated june 24. It seems that Sugar is the man WH goes to when they need the president to look young and unbeaten.


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

Now I ask, is it reasonable that two of the most powerful people in the world participate in a public discussion where there is only one camera and no direction at all? Where all we see is this shot?

2016-06-25 18_01_43-News and info.jpg


... and where questions from the public are not featured?

Obama to crowd: "That's a good-looking group!"
Is it really. How about showing them to us?

sugar-2.gif


who you smiling at, zuck?
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2496
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby brianv on June 25th, 2016, 2:19 pm

Ghod! Where does that Obama clown get his clothes? Oxfam?

And Fuckerberg has got only one grey-brown t-shirt.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3862
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby SacredCowSlayer on June 25th, 2016, 5:05 pm

Ataraxia wrote:
tokyojoe1 wrote:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQaCv52DSnY

Something I noticed happening throughout this video, is how the stage backdrop behind Zuckerberg becomes distorted by the movement of his head in front. I’m not sure how to phrase it, but it’s as if the ‘digital Zuckerberg layer’ causes the lines in the background to distort and warp as the layer itself moves. As an example, go to 5:00 in the video, view in full screen, and watch this area (although the effect does occur all around his head at various times):
Image

There’s a significant distortion at 5:08, which occurs no matter how many times I refresh the buffer or the page, etc. There’s also another significant one at 23:40. These are two examples I found to hopefully best demonstrate the effect, from hundreds that occur throughout the entire interview.

I guess it’s possible that what's happening is a completely natural digital effect, but it does seem bizarre, especially when watching in the highest quality possible. Yet, to me, this doesn’t affirm the existence of a hologram, as that implies the setting is real and the hologram is beamed into place to be viewed by an actual audience in attendance. To me, it’s more likely that the whole situation is digitally created.

Afterall, the central concept of the interview is "Now You See It: Virtual Reality" and I don't doubt that at all. This is the virtual reality.


There are a number of visual anomalies in this "video", but the content is fairly interesting as well.

I will specifically note the Suckerbook's reference to the laws regarding satellites (at around the 24:45 mark) as well as this very interesting quote from "him" below (at the 29:44 mark).

"Importantly, that doesn't mean that we will have computers that are smarter than people, . . . what it does mean, is that we will have computers that can do the basic human sensory work better than people."
:angry:

Yikes! One doesn't have to look far to see the purpose of this type of nonsense being spread far and wide. :o

That's right people. "Don't trust your senses! Let the robots break it down for you!" :puke:

I can see it already. If the forum doesn't mind indulging me for a moment.

In the not too distant future:

Mr. Rowe:"Hey buddy what's up?"

Mr. Baught:"Not much, did you see that shooting last week where all those alternative Baptist transvestites were massacred by a group of home schoolers? And they used machine guns with 40 round magazines, all made in their garage with 3D printers!" :o

Mr. Rowe:"I'm not so sure about that. There are a number of indications of fakery in this story. Perhaps take a close look at the images, and listen carefully to and consider the stories to see if they make sense to you."

Mr. Baught:"Dude, you seriously need to get the new app "lEYEdetector" that's on Facebook- its sensory perception is way better than a human's."

Mr. Rowe: :rolleyes:

I'm posting this as humor/plausible prediction.


[Minor edits were to add bold and correct typos]
Last edited by SacredCowSlayer on June 25th, 2016, 6:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 240
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby simonshack on June 25th, 2016, 5:28 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Love your humor (and / or plausible predictions), dear SCS !
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby CluedIn on June 26th, 2016, 11:59 am

I actually watched a little bit of that June 24 Sugarmountain talk while it was happening "live" (per Fox). I kept my eye on Zuck the whole time. The thing I noticed about him was that his head was nodding almost constantly. It was a head nod like you were in agreement with what the person speaking was saying, except he was doing it too much.

I really don't think he is a hologram either, but we also know they do have the capability of taking a video and changing what somebody has said into a completely different rant. I think this may have more to do with layering and "inserting" Mark when its beneficial and making him say what they want. Maybe that's the point of the same clothes all the time.
CluedIn
Member
 
Posts: 244
Joined: December 1st, 2015, 1:15 pm

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby brianv on June 26th, 2016, 12:14 pm

CluedIn wrote:I actually watched a little bit of that June 24 Sugarmountain talk while it was happening "live" (per Fox). I kept my eye on Zuck the whole time. The thing I noticed about him was that his head was nodding almost constantly. It was a head nod like you were in agreement with what the person speaking was saying, except he was doing it too much.

I really don't think he is a hologram either, but we also know they do have the capability of taking a video and changing what somebody has said into a completely different rant. I think this may have more to do with layering and "inserting" Mark when its beneficial and making him say what they want. Maybe that's the point of the same clothes all the time.


Who said "he" was a hologram? I'm not being confrontational, I'd just to know. Like the "fairyplanes" on "9/11" were "holograms" and all that!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3862
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby CluedIn on June 26th, 2016, 12:24 pm

brianv wrote:
CluedIn wrote:I actually watched a little bit of that June 24 Sugarmountain talk while it was happening "live" (per Fox). I kept my eye on Zuck the whole time. The thing I noticed about him was that his head was nodding almost constantly. It was a head nod like you were in agreement with what the person speaking was saying, except he was doing it too much.

I really don't think he is a hologram either, but we also know they do have the capability of taking a video and changing what somebody has said into a completely different rant. I think this may have more to do with layering and "inserting" Mark when its beneficial and making him say what they want. Maybe that's the point of the same clothes all the time.


Who said "he" was a hologram? I'm not being confrontational, I'd just to know. Like the "fairyplanes" on "9/11" were "holograms" and all that!


Isn't that what this thread is about, brianv? Discussing the reality of Zuck. Geez, sometimes I don't get responses like yours to a simple sentence I posted in relation to the topic. Why am I the only one you "confronted" about using the word hologram? Many posters in this thread have used it as well.
CluedIn
Member
 
Posts: 244
Joined: December 1st, 2015, 1:15 pm

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby brianv on June 26th, 2016, 12:38 pm

CluedIn wrote:
brianv wrote:
CluedIn wrote:I actually watched a little bit of that June 24 Sugarmountain talk while it was happening "live" (per Fox). I kept my eye on Zuck the whole time. The thing I noticed about him was that his head was nodding almost constantly. It was a head nod like you were in agreement with what the person speaking was saying, except he was doing it too much.

I really don't think he is a hologram either, but we also know they do have the capability of taking a video and changing what somebody has said into a completely different rant. I think this may have more to do with layering and "inserting" Mark when its beneficial and making him say what they want. Maybe that's the point of the same clothes all the time.


Who said "he" was a hologram? I'm not being confrontational, I'd just to know. Like the "fairyplanes" on "9/11" were "holograms" and all that!


Isn't that what this thread is about, brianv? Discussing the reality of Zuck. Geez, sometimes I don't get responses like yours to a simple sentence I posted in relation to the topic. Why am I the only one you "confronted" about using the word hologram? Many posters in this thread have used it as well.


Image

Ok, I edited to be clearer. Why isn't "Obama" "a hologram"? I have always had doubts about this clown.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3862
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Postby nonhocapito on June 26th, 2016, 2:51 pm

The discussion about holograms is a waste of time. We discuss technology we don't even know exists.
More logical would be to argue the existence of the crowd, who is not seen or when it is seen might not look like it's interacting with the main characters that much.
So if the crowds are fake, what would be the need for a hologram?
Let's not forget, like with NASA's fakery, that it is easier to compose everything with special effects than to actually create some new technology. Control of the media is the key. A cheap key, I want to add.

I think here we are in the presence of actors whose job is mostly spent in studios, and/or agents who are supported by digital scenery just because they cannot afford to step in the real world too much.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2496
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

PreviousNext

Return to Worldwide media deceptions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests