THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby hoi.polloi on November 30th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Looks to me like the blanket was added, but I don't know. Every detail of every military released picture is probably combed over several times.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4992
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby lux on December 1st, 2014, 1:47 am

Image

Maybe I'm being too skeptical but some of the things that bother me about the men in that photo are …

- Weird looking hand …
Image

- Two guys holding hands? The hand of the man in glasses doesn't look to be in the correct position to be gripping the rail. And, notice how short his arm is. It looks like it was shortened to fit into the photo. Notice also the unnatural dark outline around his face.
Image

- And, the knee on the towel bit just looks pasted in to me.
Image

My conclusion: I think maybe some of the men were really there and some were pasted in.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Lazlo on December 1st, 2014, 6:02 am

Photo above is interesting.


Why so many men of the same rate? The guys holding hands look alot alike. What are they doing a The Sandsa mobbed-up hotel? Parts of the showgirl look like a cardboard cutout. Many shadows aren't right. There is a lot of weird stuff in that pick.
Lazlo
Member
 
Posts: 220
Joined: February 14th, 2012, 5:13 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby lux on December 1st, 2014, 7:08 pm

Why the derailing room? Fake publicity photos featuring nuke themes are not part of the Nuke Hoax topic? :blink:


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
ADMIN NOTICE (simon): Dear Lux, here's my explanation - I wrote it under Flabbergasted's original post. See, I just thought that this particular / rather minor issue of that image was a bit trivial; our Nuke Hoax deserves to remain focused on ...well, on the 'BIg Picture' of the 'nukular' deception - in my honest opinion. The Derailing Room is not quite the right place for it, but for now, it was the only place I could think of.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Richard Branson - and Spaceport America

Postby gwynned on December 9th, 2014, 7:38 pm

Who really IS Richard Branson? Sure looks like David Icke to me! Very irritating to think that I coughed up $75 a few years back to hear a billionaire talk nonsense, but I must admit, Icke is an accomplished orator and actor.

http://ronaldwederfoort.blogspot.com/20 ... on-of.html

Curious coincidence that David Icke's son would get a modeling job at Virgin. http://www.filmextras.co.uk/garethicke

Given the extent of the chicanerey, I am going to assume the entire space exploration story is complete nonsense. What makes anyone believe Beiber or Brand actually bought a ticket??? OR that there even ARE tickets available?

So, is it becoming more and more obvious because (1) they are so powerful they can get away with virtually anything or (2) we are heading toward a revelation and the pieces are starting to come together like a controlled demolition.

By the way, I am learning the hard way that suggesting anyone in the public eye is in fact a named actor or not who they say they are is the surest way to earn a warning from the moderator along with several posts ridiculing you and your idea, or if one persists, get completely banned. I deem that a good sign. B)
gwynned
Member
 
Posts: 238
Joined: February 25th, 2011, 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Branson - and Spaceport America

Postby simonshack on December 9th, 2014, 10:04 pm

gwynned wrote:By the way, I am learning the hard way that suggesting anyone in the public eye is in fact a named actor or not who they say they are is the surest way to earn a warning from the moderator along with several posts ridiculing you and your idea, or if one persists, get completely banned. I deem that a good sign. B)

Gwynned,

I am aware of the fact that you (and someone else) caused 'havoc' over at fakeologist.com, vouching for mega-shill / con artist Dallas Goldbug and his utter tripe. You are hereby warned - obviously and necessarily so I might add - not to bring any of that stuff and antics over here. Thanks.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6519
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Richard Branson - and Spaceport America

Postby hoi.polloi on December 9th, 2014, 11:54 pm

I deem that a good sign.


Yeah, uh, it's actually not a good sign to be banned from here. You are likely to be for a number of reasons; one of them would be if you spewed shit all over the forum. Feel free to call yourself a martyr for that, though.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4992
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Richard Branson - and Spaceport America

Postby gwynned on December 10th, 2014, 4:04 am

My most humble apologies. If I'da known I was steppin outa line, boys, I nevva woulda said nothin' about dat crazayyy ass Voldermort. But come to think of it, I didn't. Now I know y'all know I gots alzheimers, but I reckon clearly that I seen with my own two eyes dat was the Meathead and Rosanne Barr's fatass husband in dat Sandy Hook nonsense. I think that's what got K all bent outa shape and 'hysterical.' My fault. And if my brain is shit my eyes is worse, so I suggest you pay no furtha mind to the ramblings of dis old woman. Why, just the other day I swore I saw a ghost. Fact, I was shore it were Elvis. But da damndest thing is......he was standing next to Celine Dion!!! :wub: :wub: :wub:
gwynned
Member
 
Posts: 238
Joined: February 25th, 2011, 3:12 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby hoi.polloi on December 10th, 2014, 5:36 am

gwynned, is this you on this thread here? http://ronaldwederfoort.blogspot.com/20 ... on-of.html

kaliyuga2758

It's so obvious, isn't it? To think I paid $75 to a billionaire to hear him talk nonsense. Fool me once, and then again and again....but I'm starting to get it. I got my first 'warning' from the DI moderators when I tried to expose Lady Di as David Furnish. Seems they don't like Dallas Goldbug anywhere on the official conspiracy sites. 


I just wonder if you plan on telling anyone who will listen to your nonsense that we are an "official conspiracy site" because the mods disagree with the shit of Dallas Goldbug.

Richard Branson doesn't even look like David Icke. The chin is totally different, for one. The eye placement is also very different. You are probably banned from sites for being uselessly gullible — or is it usefully? Just hoping to trump people's own perceptions with sheer peer pressure and insistence?

And when you don't get your (assigned?) target site of people to be fooled by this pathetic attempt to discredit the forensics research, you act as though you are right simply because people disagree with you? You are right because you have a snotty attitude that makes people groan? Wow. You do not understand what constitutes the truth. It isn't people marginalizing you. It is something that really takes time and patience and good communication, which as a consequence of its conflict with social norms, ends up marginalizing you.

People don't dislike Dallas Goldbug because he supposedly tells unpopular truths. People dislike Dallas Goldbug because he truly doesn't have a firm grasp of the truth. He mixes up things — seemingly on purpose — in order to cause anger and outrage and gain followers that do not require logic or critical thinking or a deep inherent drive to do their own research.

You said:

By the way, I am learning the hard way that suggesting anyone in the public eye is in fact a named actor or not who they say they are is the surest way to earn a warning from the moderator along with several posts ridiculing you and your idea, or if one persists, get completely banned.


Whereas this is a forum to suggest exactly those things, it is not a forum to post the most idiotic and visually wrong ideas that similar people are necessarily the same person. While not diminishing the fact that we are dealing with actors, make up and digitally altered people along with totally digitally invented people-like imagery, Dallas Goldbug's evidence is very very weak and does not hit on all the true layers of the fakery; it does not discuss the concept that Icke might just be a liar without a need to be another liar or famous face. It doesn't discuss augmented reality or make up. It doesn't even seek to prove which is being used in a particular instance, whereas that should be what we should be trying to do. And seemingly this is deliberate omission on Goldbug's part, whomever or whatever they are.

If you really cared about these things, you would stop posting Goldbug's shoddy work and produce your own, superior work that actually makes the points Goldbug claims to be making, but actually fails to make over and over. For example, Simon has made a good guess about Rudy Giuliani being the fake female body guard from a video. But he did not go onto other forums and say, "this is definitely the case, and if you disagree with me, ban me and that makes me right!"

Do you see the difference between that behavior and your own? I certainly do.

The fact that you come on here thinking that it's "truth" because you are obstinately failing to do your own original research with clear ability to answer questions about it, because your text acts as a parody of what the truly painful experience of being ousted from society for asking questions is really like tells me you not only don't care that Dallas Goldbug's arguments are full of holes and deceptions; you actually actively work to destroy, hide or minimize the authenticity of those people who really seek truth. You undermine truths that have been usefully found out about modern methods of deception. You are acting like an enemy of truth, deliberate or not.

Why do you do this? Please show some sign of reflection or intelligent response. Are you going to try to make some sense, or are you just going to post more angry, sarcastic gibberish?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4992
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby gwynned on December 10th, 2014, 6:06 am

I don't truly understand this. I posted ONE photo from Dallas Goldbug's blog. However, the truth is that I was tipped off to the Icke/Branson lookalike by Pete Shea who messaged me an RT video purportedly of Sir Richard Branson, but clearly David Icke. When I posted the above, I googled the two and thought Goldbug's photo the more convincing.

Further, since the 'havoc' at the Fakeologist was mentioned, I have to further point out that AT NO TIME AND IN NO WAY did I mention Dallas Goldbug, or post links to his site. In my conversation with K, I mentioned only that I personally identified both Goodman and Reiner in the Sandy Hook Hoax. When that absurd video was posted with my voice, I posted links to several videos by Dave J.

If you were to look at the sites I have visited over the last several years you will see that, until this recent episode, I had not stopped by the Goldbug site in probably 3 years and then only briefly. That I am a more frequent visitor there is, oddly, due to my friends at the Fakeologist who called my attention to it.
gwynned
Member
 
Posts: 238
Joined: February 25th, 2011, 3:12 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby hoi.polloi on December 10th, 2014, 6:20 am

Okay, well that's fair. Thank you for the civil evidence that you are not, in fact, a shill.

Please, though, let me warn you about Pete Shea and his bad hunches. He is also the character that initiated with pysopticon the "Pshea vs. Evil Edna" debacle that seemed like an attempt to (quite successfully) cause confusion and anger within the Fakeologist community. Even if psyopticon/Evil Edna was the fall guy for that little act, Pshea was no squeaky clean character himself.

He also claims that Simon's name and my name can be made into relevant references to the subject of our research — what name cannot be forced into such a position when isolated and targeted with the goal to create such things? He harasses us about this, and I believe this is a distraction. But I am biased because I happen to trust Simon and myself.

He also sent me a parody web site of scientific skepticism in a private message. I believe his "role" in this affair is to act like a spiritual "buddy" and lead people all over the place, while dismissing good research. That is precisely what he does; he even targets people on the fence about Simon's points because they cannot actually understand Simon's points and then he exploits that and herds them to any other limited hang out. Dallas Goldbug much?

You may have 'fallen in' with the 'wrong crowd' in my opinion, and allowed yourself to pre-conclude a singular path toward achieving the truth having to do with people like Pete Shea, but please don't bring that particular exploration here. On our site, it is a waste of time and does not fulfill our purpose. Just go back to what you were doing before here, which is posting good original stuff of your own opinion and explanation. And forgive our site for not being convinced of the Goldbug angle or all the Fakeologist characters. We have been doing this for years now, and we have come to recognize that the shills do not mind finding any sort of convoluted way to just get people to shut off their minds to doing personal forensic research.

They know it's an exhausting personal effort to do it, and so they find every single human resistance to one's own propensity to do research, every single way we as a species save time and effort from having to do something important. They find these things and exploit them. There are hundreds, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years of advertising and religious psychological study to thank for that kind of research into debilitating healthy minds, bodies and spirits — forcing them back into servitude to the "someone else" who will "solve it all" for you.

It doesn't mean there are no actors playing other actors. It just means Dallas Goldbug's "evidence" is very poorly constructed and he leaves far too much to the imagination to serve as a specific, documented evidence of his claims. He acts more "Alex Jones" than scientist. It saddens me that people of good intent and character can so easily jump on board this Dallas Goldbug bandwagon and then cry out "fraud" at we who ask for better, or even just more specific and well-documented evidence than he is willing to provide. It doesn't help that his followers do occasionally act like martyrs for such worthless points.

If you are going to yell at people about something, at least try to make a slam dunk case for it. Don't leave all the dangly bits and holes hanging all over your theory and then declare that you just don't care that it's unconvincing. That makes it seem like you want to just cause a stir rather than actually give people self-defense tools for the mind.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4992
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: CHEMTRAILS and HAARP - mystery solved?

Postby OpticalIllusion on January 5th, 2015, 2:56 am

I have noticed "chem trails" being added to older movies where they were not noticeable say from an original hard copy. i.e VHS from the late 80's. These movies are now being enhanced or being brought out in digital formats like blu ray where normal cloud formations are now showing trails all over the sky. I have noticed this on different types of recently re released films including children's movies.

One scene was in a early 90's version of the Little Rascals where on the blu ray version there are noticeable trails when it goes to a sky shot. Now if you look at the VHS copy that was released when the movie originally was released the trails were added sometime during the "conversion".

I think the reason for this is to get all current and future generations to never think back to when these trails didn't exist. I don't have many older physical copies or the time to really look into this farther but maybe some of the members here can start looking at movies especially the "new to blu ray" and compare them to original releases before the re touches.
Last edited by brianv on January 5th, 2015, 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: typical chemmie claptrap not pertinent to the discussion - brianv
OpticalIllusion
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 11:19 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby lux on January 5th, 2015, 6:47 pm

I've also noticed this "chemmie claptrap" (as brianv put it). Whether it was added to the films later or not I couldn't say. I've even seen it in old westerns such as the 1972 Clint Eastwood movie "Joe Kidd" and one can see crisscross trails in the sky during the opening credits of "The Philadelphia Experiment" of 1984. I've seen it in films made as far back as the 1960s or even earlier.

But, that would imply that the movie industry is involved with mass social engineering and we all know that couldn't possibly be true because too many people would have to be involved and, Shirley, somebody would have squealed by now.
Last edited by lux on January 6th, 2015, 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby brianv on January 5th, 2015, 8:54 pm

Why not start a blog about it and you can share your stories with the chemmie truther crowd!

This is exactly the type of discussion that Simon's Grand Theory of Everything does NOT need!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3958
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby hoi.polloi on January 5th, 2015, 10:00 pm

brianv wrote:Why not start a blog about it and you can share your stories with the chemmie truther crowd!

This is exactly the type of discussion that Simon's Grand Theory of Everything does NOT need!


Although I agree the chemtrail discussion can easily be diluted, I want to point out (here in the Derailing Room where it belongs) that I have also noticed an obnoxious amount of trail-like clouds in popular media where they stand out as crude incongruities. The presences of the trails in children's movies and TV shows, particularly from the 'connected' spheres like Disney and network sponsored productions, seem to almost have a desperate quality to their frequency and ugliness. It makes me wonder if we aren't missing other even dumber "product placements" having to do with the world we are all meant to accept.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4992
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests