Success/Failure of Fake Imagery (the paradoxes of forgery)

Questions, speculations & updates on the techniques and nature of media fakery
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Success/Failure of Fake Imagery (the paradoxes of forgery)

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Why are some of the fakes so bad? Why do some the fakes have imagery consistent with reality? Why is some of the fakery just a hair short of being accurate or believable when it could have been easily prevented? Why do so many conspiracies share imagery information?

I want to postulate a reason the fake images we discover are the way they are:

Assumption 1. The forgery teams that invented the Nuclear Bomb Scare, the Apollo Moon Landings, 9/11 and 7/7 are scattered and compartmentalized to protect their information. (Military strategy)

Assumption 2. The lack of communication between the groups results in necessary inconsistencies amongst the fake images. The fake images do not resemble Reality - but nor do they resemble each other. They resemble a creative effort to deceive the public with convincing illusions.

Assumption 3. In the supervising ranks of the forgery teams, the importance of Reality is underplayed and the importance of consistent fakery is stressed. This is because Reality does not conform to their illusions. Instead, they invent a false "reality".

Image

Assumption 4. The general public faces any amount of fake images with resistance to the idea of image fakery. Therefore, the more images that are fake the greater their inoculation against questioning those images.

Image

Assumption 5. Contrary and in tandem with assumption 4, they cannot produce too many images or else the inconsistencies shine through upon examination (such as through forums and publications like ours).

Assumption 6. The number of fake images works hopelessly against them because they have no exit strategy. This develops in the perps a problematic and paradoxical strategy that is consistent with the acts of desperate men:

A. Production of a great number of fakes from a stratified and high number of sources decreases unbelievability for most people (though it increases error rates).

B. Contrary to their goal of faking a high number of sources, the inherent flaws in that strategy results in a planned reduction in the amount of sources to prevent inconsistencies (though it increases our ability to find and collect all the sources).

C. If they attach the worst and least consistent imagery to the most dubious fake sources (e.g.; Judy Wood) doubts about the imagery can be cut off and the rest may be believed by comparison.


and - most important to the question of fakery we are frequently asked:

D. The occasional slip-up might be genuinely stupid or it might be part of a mild strategy of inconsistency to increase public tolerance for all the broken illusions.



---

In answer to the F.A.Q. earlier:

1. Why are some of the fakes so bad?
Answer: A, C and D

2. Why do some the fakes have imagery consistent with reality?
Answer: B and C

3. Why is some of the fakery just a hair short of being accurate or believable when it could have been easily prevented?
Answer: A and D

4. Why do so many conspiracies share imagery information?
Answer: C
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Success/Failure of Fake Imagery (the paradoxes of forger

Unread post by lux »

I think your views are valid and I don't mean to invalidate anything you're written however I look at it a little differently.

The media doesn't really need to absolutely adhere to reality because the media determines reality for the vast majority of viewers.

For example, if they see (on the television news) an airplane melt into a building then that becomes a reality for them: "airplanes melt into buildings."

Thereafter if you challenge that idea with them they will insist that airplanes do melt into buildings and may even invent reasons or experience that supports this "reality." They'll tell you they've seen it before or they saw something that proved it could happen or whatever -- all invented -- but they will insist it is real and will believe it themselves.

Once upon a time I dabbled in hypnotism and did successfully hypnotize a few people. Via hypnosis and "post-hypnotic suggestion" you can make people do illogical things like take off their socks when you snap you fingers or stick their head up a chimney and whistle a tune, etc. ,etc. No matter how silly the actions are that you have them perform, when you question them as to why they did that they will come up with "logical" reasons for doing them without any hesitation or uncertainty whatever. They won't even have to think about it. It's the craziest thing you ever saw.

I think it's virtually the same thing with most people as regards the media as it puts them in a type of hypnotic state. What they see and hear becomes their reality. Even many people who have an inkling about the phoniness of the media can fall prey to this.

There are limits though. There are some things they wouldn't believe. If the airplane melted into the building and then turned into a fudge sundae, they wouldn't believe it. But you only need to approach reality for them to buy it in most cases. If you are sloppy with the details it will go unnoticed by all but the most astute observers (like us, hopefully). In fact, the sloppiness of the details will become part of their new reality and you won't have to worry so much about those particular details in the future because the viewers will become accustomed to them. So, in a way, being sloppy with the details only makes their work easier in the future.

Anyway, that's my experience and viewpoint on it.
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:56 pm

Re: Success/Failure of Fake Imagery (the paradoxes of forger

Unread post by whatsgoingon »

a
Last edited by whatsgoingon on Fri May 24, 2013 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Terence.drew
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Success/Failure of Fake Imagery (the paradoxes of forger

Unread post by Terence.drew »

hoi.polloi wrote:Why are some of the fakes so bad?
Good question. You have posed some good questions here and tried to answer them. But there is another possibility which I hope is not a kind of taboo here and to which you have not alluded to. It does not demean the research into fakery which has been done, it just puts it in a different light.

There is much talk on this forum recently about 'The Matrix'. This film is core to the 911 event. The question is not one of this film possessing foreknowledge ,that is a given, but on what level to take this mindf&*k film.
One level is programming. How many people felt like the 'one' when they discovered the false hood of the 911 event?

Further, our man Neo sees a digital pattern behind the representation of the physical world by the end of the film which represents his enlightenment. This epiphany is not analogous to '911 truth' in the general sense, it actually forms an exact mirror image of the feeling of enlightenment which surrounds the unmasking of 911 TV fakery. But where are we? We are just at the end of the first film...there are another 2 after that - and fuck knows what they are about lol!

Fakery has been proved brilliantly here, and esp. by Simon's seminal Clues work and yours HP. But how clever are the truth manipulators? Why is the moon footage more believable than the 911 footage. I have asked these questions before here but am still perplexed truthfully.

It is just possible that a further layer of deceptive-onion has been added.

Another possibility out there is the matter of sabotage.

Old school Masonics (e.g. NASA) versus the new kids on the block - Media.
Sometimes looking at the crapness of the MSM footage of 911, with NY enfolded in a Dickensian fog, and the disappearance of any other landmark of the great city, I wonder at the tone of the voice of some of the talking heads because they too sound astounded and shocked by the crapness of it all. As if they expected something else to appear. Something believable. A switch has happened? :o
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Success/Failure of Fake Imagery (the paradoxes of forger

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Cool answers. Thanks all.
Hugo
Banned
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:04 pm

Re: Success/Failure of Fake Imagery (the paradoxes of forger

Unread post by Hugo »

Any grand-scale psy-op is a game of numbers. There will always be people who won't nibble the bait. I can remember my father telling me during 1969 Apollo XI that he didn't believe it. Unfortunately, he never explained why he didn't believe it, so I continued to believe. As long as the incredulous are sufficiently small, that's all that matters. I would guess if they got 90%, that would be plenty enough.

If your talking about the credulous who later figured out it was a hoax, that's something different. Even if everybody eventually discovers the truth, I'm not sure that makes much difference. Each psy-op is designed to immediately manipulate the public to do something specific. Once enough people believe the lie and the puppet-masters get their way, I not sure what happens afterward makes much difference.

Finally, I have to believe there is also an element of bravado to these operations. I believe somebody took bragging rights for getting a black man, who does not meet contitutional requirements, elected president. Someone will take further bragging rights for getting the same man re-elected during the worst of all economies. I remember reading that there were members of the Rothschild family who had Manhattan penthouse box seats to the 911 twin tower destruction. The fact that an operation was sloppy (whether intentional or accidental) merely raises the bragging rights. Can you imagine someone saying: "Look how completely sloppy the OKC Federal Building psy-op was and those stupid twit Americans still bought the lie good enough to pass the legislation!" I can very easily imagine it.
Post Reply