Just to butt in with a penny's worth on Glen Pettit. There's another pic of him at http://www.legacy.com/gb2/default.aspx?bookid=103984. (I dunno how to add pics to this message). Compare Glen's ears to those he sports in the above image.
Much bigger, surely? He seems to wear his baldness like a hat. The mouth, chin and brow positions are different in the two pics, but the eyes and surrounding skin are static. Fat people don't usually furrow as readily as thin people, but the act of smiling slightly has had an affect on Glen's head that is surely not explained in human biology.
We don’t see up the man’s nostrils in the leg.com pic (left nostril is indistinct), but we don’t see the fuzzy hair on top of his head. (Perhaps it’s under that cover?) The eye-shapes are almost identical? they may be identical but I don’t have the equipment to compare scientifically. Perhaps the dodgy perspective at the top of the head is due to the attempt at changing the viewing angle, as was tried with Tower images. I can't say if he's computer generated but something is badly wrong with these pics.
9/11 MEMORIAL SCAMS
Also seems he's more common than cocaine on dollar bills... http://www.nypdangels.com/cop/cop.php?id=8
idschmyd @ Oct 29 2009, 02:51 PM wrote: Just to butt in with a penny's worth on Glen Pettit. There's another pic of him at http://www.legacy.com/gb2/default.aspx?bookid=103984. (I dunno how to add pics to this message). Compare Glen's ears to those he sports in the above image.
Much bigger, surely? He seems to wear his baldness like a hat. The mouth, chin and brow positions are different in the two pics, but the eyes and surrounding skin are static. Fat people don't usually furrow as readily as thin people, but the act of smiling slightly has had an affect on Glen's head that is surely not explained in human biology.
We don’t see up the man’s nostrils in the leg.com pic (left nostril is indistinct), but we don’t see the fuzzy hair on top of his head. (Perhaps it’s under that cover?) The eye-shapes are almost identical? they may be identical but I don’t have the equipment to compare scientifically. Perhaps the dodgy perspective at the top of the head is due to the attempt at changing the viewing angle, as was tried with Tower images. I can't say if he's computer generated but something is badly wrong with these pics.
Im not sure they are sure which one this is!!
Thanks Brian. How d'you do that? I see the IMG icon but it all goes wrong from there. If I've got it right there should be an identical image here to the one the guys were discussing, but with the official NYPD backdrop.
http://www.nypdangels.com/cop/cop.php?id=8[/IMG]
http://www.nypdangels.com/cop/cop.php?id=8[/IMG]
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
-
stevenwarran
The flaw in your logic hoi is, from your vantage point you apparently can only know that they are fabricating victim photographs---not victims. And to restrain my withering sarcasm for the moment---people wear their double chins on their noses.hoi.polloi @ Oct 29 2009, 04:37 PM wrote:I wonder what program they used to insert the same flag background behind every single head with it? Photoshop? Or the same program used to fabricate victims?stevenwarran 4 Oct 29 2009, 03:35 PM wrote:
Let's take a for instance: what if real planes hit the towers that day, but any film or video of the actual event was suppressed. Then artificially constructed film and video---PURPOSEFULLY BADLY CONSTRUCTED FILM AND VIDEO---was substituted as the evidence of the event itself.
How do you know that planes didn't hit the towers then? The world nearly universally bought the evidence, even though it consisted of planes cutting like a hot knife through exterior steel columns made of butter---or like the outline of a cartoon Wily Coyote blasted through a plaster wall. Do you think this work product was done accidentally or mistakenly or because of substandard technology? Maybe we prefer the magic of the substandard over the messy of the real.
Are real people dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did real women and children get blasted to death in Pakistan today? Are my friendly associates who say they knew Glen Pettit and Vincent Danz and Father Mychal Judge lying, mistaken or confused?
You guys are doing a fine job proving that the victim record from 9/11 is fabricated, tampered with, and fraudulent. So what?
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
I don't agree with everything you said but the jist of it - I suppose - is that we cannot prove what happened behind the cartoon. This is true.stevenwarran 4 Oct 29 2009, 05:01 PM wrote:The flaw in your logic hoi is, from your vantage point you apparently can only know that they are fabricating victim photographs---not victims. And to restrain my withering sarcasm for the moment---people wear their double chins on their noses.hoi.polloi 4 Oct 29 2009, 04:37 PM wrote:I wonder what program they used to insert the same flag background behind every single head with it? Photoshop? Or the same program used to fabricate victims?stevenwarran 4 Oct 29 2009, 03:35 PM wrote:
Let's take a for instance: what if real planes hit the towers that day, but any film or video of the actual event was suppressed. Then artificially constructed film and video---PURPOSEFULLY BADLY CONSTRUCTED FILM AND VIDEO---was substituted as the evidence of the event itself.
How do you know that planes didn't hit the towers then? The world nearly universally bought the evidence, even though it consisted of planes cutting like a hot knife through exterior steel columns made of butter---or like the outline of a cartoon Wily Coyote blasted through a plaster wall. Do you think this work product was done accidentally or mistakenly or because of substandard technology? Maybe we prefer the magic of the substandard over the messy of the real.
Are real people dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did real women and children get blasted to death in Pakistan today? Are my friendly associates who say they knew Glen Pettit and Vincent Danz and Father Mychal Judge lying, mistaken or confused?
You guys are doing a fine job proving that the victim record from 9/11 is fabricated, tampered with, and fraudulent. So what?
I don't think we've ever shown much of an interest in doing so, but that doesn't make us weak. It makes our arguments very strong for the idea of their ultimate and most important weapon - the propaganda system.
As for what actually happened, I am not sure if we will ever know. This board is also, for the time being, not the best place for such discussions. But maybe we will bump into some real help one of these days.
Thus far, we've encountered a great deal of support for our theory and a great deal of people acting angry at us for not replacing the old 9/11 story with a new drama. I don't think Simon is - and I know I am not - interested in bombarding people with a new drama to buy into. Especially since we know so little about what may have actually happened.
You seem very confident about what you believe happened, at times. Other times, you seem to doubt your own story. This is why I don't believe we will ever know what truly happened. You live in New York. You have invested time in this. You still don't know what the crap happened. Nobody does.
This is also why the propaganda system they have installed is so dangerous. Our research is critical to helping people understand how deeply they can be mindf*cked by something as simple as a 3-second clip of animated lies on a news program.
-
stevenwarran
Well, we are in accord that all we can do is debate the merits of a narrative story. That is why I was never interested in what the CIT guys laud so highly about themselves---that they do primary research by tracking down and interviewing the principles in the stories. What they don't realize is they become irretrievably polluted in the process.
What I find distressing hoi, is you guys all seem like such lightweights in collecting the written narrative's bits and pieces of the NY story, which you then wholesale propose to demolish. Your overall knowledge of Father Judge is sadly lacking. So you treat him like a Bobos Aliegha Schwertzerknocker from Marsh or Cantor. Your theory tends to a nihilism in the extreme.
Does not the photographic record and narrative of Father Judge place him in a category apart? It is the discrepancies of his story---as presented---that interest me. For you people to say his images are photoshopped is to stop dead in your tracks.
I'm also trying to figure out who and what level you might be protecting---that is, if you were a limited hangout---by utilizing this carte blanche approach.
LOL!
Isn't that what honesty sounds like?
What I am becoming very disturbed about is that you and Simon are not sounding like the unaffiliated researchers you posed as during my visit to Rome. You seem to know an awful lot that you're not letting on to. When dduck says, "don't insult my friends," who is he talking about? Minnie!? Mickey?! Daffy!? I'm sorry, but d and I haven't been introduced. Care to?
Wouldn't it be better if we all came out of the closet? Why again are you and Simon protecting your real identities? Because you are afraid of being stereotyped? Doesn't this lack of reality candor just empower your [potential] opponents?
What I find distressing hoi, is you guys all seem like such lightweights in collecting the written narrative's bits and pieces of the NY story, which you then wholesale propose to demolish. Your overall knowledge of Father Judge is sadly lacking. So you treat him like a Bobos Aliegha Schwertzerknocker from Marsh or Cantor. Your theory tends to a nihilism in the extreme.
Does not the photographic record and narrative of Father Judge place him in a category apart? It is the discrepancies of his story---as presented---that interest me. For you people to say his images are photoshopped is to stop dead in your tracks.
I'm also trying to figure out who and what level you might be protecting---that is, if you were a limited hangout---by utilizing this carte blanche approach.
"You seem very confident about what you believe happened, at times. Other times, you seem to doubt your own story."
LOL!
Isn't that what honesty sounds like?
What I am becoming very disturbed about is that you and Simon are not sounding like the unaffiliated researchers you posed as during my visit to Rome. You seem to know an awful lot that you're not letting on to. When dduck says, "don't insult my friends," who is he talking about? Minnie!? Mickey?! Daffy!? I'm sorry, but d and I haven't been introduced. Care to?
Wouldn't it be better if we all came out of the closet? Why again are you and Simon protecting your real identities? Because you are afraid of being stereotyped? Doesn't this lack of reality candor just empower your [potential] opponents?
-
Miranda-Priestly
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:34 pm
- Contact:
-
so was the point of MS Freelay just to show fake public records? but I know that the facebook people are/can be fake. And one of her addresses was hotel and other maybe no building there couldn't tell, that used to be a street where "some people" would buy dime bags, at least when it wasn't baby powder. Was that a randomly selected location?
and I know that the truth movement is fake and the infiltrators are the real people (the idiots, as you sayLOL) and that "Nico Haupt" wasn't really sitting being the keyboard typing cuz his "accent" got worse rather than better. It wasn't really that clever.
and there is something likeable about everybody.
OK, but what about Berry Berenson? and Marisa Berenson, "like", she was in the great movie Berry Lyndon (I thought it was great anyway), and Schiaperelli and Anthony Perkins and all that stuff. If they were made up it was a long time ago. Why would Berinthia end up running a slightly shady beach bar in Jamaica? R the kids fake? and what about Gogo?
I get the morph thing, I really do.
And what about my fave "Danny"? ...Now Arundale (or Arondale)is definitely fake. But Danny was a public figure to some degree prior to 2001. That mullet! maybe the "dotcoms" weren't real either. So who lives in that house in Brookline? That's kind of a lot of trouble to go to to make that historical site and everything anad the newsletters which said they were remodeling their house, but they would never be allowed to remodel one of those houses, unless those houses aren't there? The thing about his earlier pictures are that one of them "kind of" looks like the new "Alfred E Newman" Danny but the other one , doesn't at all.
and one of the Casazzas houses had a different address before they lived there and same with Breitweisers...and there is no house where the "van Aukens" house was supposed to be. who was the other one? Oh yeah Mindy Kleinberg, can't remember that one.
and what about "Shawn Monk" real or fake? Now that I recall was that house in the middle of an intersection or something?
and some people you just want to be real, like they make you feel....
True story: when "lynne" sent me those pictures and I pulled them up a long time ago , my 12 year old said "those look fake". LOL :wub: what a sweetheart.
and of course "Cressy" wouldn't make it look like she was her if she was really her. and KSA wouldn't make those tag things that said cressy and KSA to advertise themselves. but i don't really get how that kind of stuff works.
and the "octs" are the same? I wasn't so sure about that. Is Harvey Eisenberg a real person?
What about this? Maybe they just dance differently there or something...but see if I had posted this people would say "that could be real" or " I knew him" or "What would the grieving family say to that?" or "mirandapriestly is an idiot"
"Submitted by Clancy Powers"
Officer Asswad came to visit me the other day
wow do they really say that in Italy? I get the feeling they might not but I'm not going to bothering going to babelfish.or as we say in Italy : "a cuccia, cucciolino
so was the point of MS Freelay just to show fake public records? but I know that the facebook people are/can be fake. And one of her addresses was hotel and other maybe no building there couldn't tell, that used to be a street where "some people" would buy dime bags, at least when it wasn't baby powder. Was that a randomly selected location?
and I know that the truth movement is fake and the infiltrators are the real people (the idiots, as you sayLOL) and that "Nico Haupt" wasn't really sitting being the keyboard typing cuz his "accent" got worse rather than better. It wasn't really that clever.
and there is something likeable about everybody.
OK, but what about Berry Berenson? and Marisa Berenson, "like", she was in the great movie Berry Lyndon (I thought it was great anyway), and Schiaperelli and Anthony Perkins and all that stuff. If they were made up it was a long time ago. Why would Berinthia end up running a slightly shady beach bar in Jamaica? R the kids fake? and what about Gogo?
I get the morph thing, I really do.
And what about my fave "Danny"? ...Now Arundale (or Arondale)is definitely fake. But Danny was a public figure to some degree prior to 2001. That mullet! maybe the "dotcoms" weren't real either. So who lives in that house in Brookline? That's kind of a lot of trouble to go to to make that historical site and everything anad the newsletters which said they were remodeling their house, but they would never be allowed to remodel one of those houses, unless those houses aren't there? The thing about his earlier pictures are that one of them "kind of" looks like the new "Alfred E Newman" Danny but the other one , doesn't at all.
and one of the Casazzas houses had a different address before they lived there and same with Breitweisers...and there is no house where the "van Aukens" house was supposed to be. who was the other one? Oh yeah Mindy Kleinberg, can't remember that one.
and what about "Shawn Monk" real or fake? Now that I recall was that house in the middle of an intersection or something?
and some people you just want to be real, like they make you feel....
True story: when "lynne" sent me those pictures and I pulled them up a long time ago , my 12 year old said "those look fake". LOL :wub: what a sweetheart.
and of course "Cressy" wouldn't make it look like she was her if she was really her. and KSA wouldn't make those tag things that said cressy and KSA to advertise themselves. but i don't really get how that kind of stuff works.
and the "octs" are the same? I wasn't so sure about that. Is Harvey Eisenberg a real person?
What about this? Maybe they just dance differently there or something...but see if I had posted this people would say "that could be real" or " I knew him" or "What would the grieving family say to that?" or "mirandapriestly is an idiot"
"Submitted by Clancy Powers"
Officer Asswad came to visit me the other day
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Steven,
Sure, being sure or unsure is honest. I was not purposely accusing you of being dishonest.
However, when you make statements like this:
You seem to be posing yourself as an opponent. Why would you do so after the hospitality offered you? Why are you cursing everyone out all of a sudden? Please, cool down! Don't run off in a huff. Just act polite and please just try to "handle" what you find so "disgusting" like the adult you are.
Also, what are you talking about with Simon not being who he is? Who exactly do you think he is? I am not even asking to defend Simon; I am just fascinated that you would make such a weird statement. Do you believe he is a "Reptilian" or something?
As for being unfamiliar with the narratives of Mister Rev 16:17 Judge, I do think it is important. However, if we end up stumbling into the idea that he is completely fabricated in the middle of reading a story about him, it does sort of seem like a waste of effort to get invested in someone who doesn't exist. I think people are trying to determine whether there is good reason to think he is real. I think you should be patient instead of yelling at us while we go through our various processes.
We get enough of that from the media. Then, you insult godzilla, proloft, D.Duck and Simon. What the heck? Stop insulting people or we may have to ban you from this forum for being disruptive. There is no reason to be excessively rude to one another during this research. We will not let you run amock on this forum and disrupt topics by just insulting everyone for having different research processes than you have, then playing victim for your beliefs - even if your beliefs include the belief in people who may exist in reality. It is not an excuse for your recent behavior.
If you take exception when the subjects of our research are met with a little healthy cynicism after how the media has abused us, you aren't welcome here to promote that abuse.
Sure, being sure or unsure is honest. I was not purposely accusing you of being dishonest.
However, when you make statements like this:
Wouldn't it be better if we all came out of the closet? Why again are you and Simon protecting your real identities? Because you are afraid of being stereotyped? Doesn't this lack of reality candor just empower your opponents?
You seem to be posing yourself as an opponent. Why would you do so after the hospitality offered you? Why are you cursing everyone out all of a sudden? Please, cool down! Don't run off in a huff. Just act polite and please just try to "handle" what you find so "disgusting" like the adult you are.
Also, what are you talking about with Simon not being who he is? Who exactly do you think he is? I am not even asking to defend Simon; I am just fascinated that you would make such a weird statement. Do you believe he is a "Reptilian" or something?
As for being unfamiliar with the narratives of Mister Rev 16:17 Judge, I do think it is important. However, if we end up stumbling into the idea that he is completely fabricated in the middle of reading a story about him, it does sort of seem like a waste of effort to get invested in someone who doesn't exist. I think people are trying to determine whether there is good reason to think he is real. I think you should be patient instead of yelling at us while we go through our various processes.
We get enough of that from the media. Then, you insult godzilla, proloft, D.Duck and Simon. What the heck? Stop insulting people or we may have to ban you from this forum for being disruptive. There is no reason to be excessively rude to one another during this research. We will not let you run amock on this forum and disrupt topics by just insulting everyone for having different research processes than you have, then playing victim for your beliefs - even if your beliefs include the belief in people who may exist in reality. It is not an excuse for your recent behavior.
If you take exception when the subjects of our research are met with a little healthy cynicism after how the media has abused us, you aren't welcome here to promote that abuse.
-
stevenwarran
hoi, how did you get to sound so wise and cool in half my number of years?
My statement, you quote
"Wouldn't it be better if we all came out of the closet? Why again are you and Simon protecting your real identities? Because you are afraid of being stereotyped? Doesn't this lack of reality candor just empower your opponents?"
was edited by me shortly afterward to read "empower your [potential] opponents," but in either version it didn't occur to me that you might lump me in with said opponents. I was making a plain, logical statement of fact. Sorry if I am so persona non grata at present as to be suspect. I'll tighten up.
I admit to being a bit tossed about by a "perfect storm" on the board. You ask me to stop "yelling at us while we go through our various processes," while this is clearly my process.
It is difficult enough for me to let go of Father Mychal Judge as a legitimate narrative element without having a board member call him "Father Twink." The childish gleeful exuberance the collective mob has on display here is upsetting in the extreme, and this is for someone like myself who is 98 percent converted. Imagine how upsetting acknowledgment of this new perception will be to those with deeper investments in the narrative. I am talking about your tone now.
And just between us board members, you wouldn't allow Judge to be called Father Nigger if he were black, would you? Please extend the standard operating courtesy that allows only African-Americans to use the N-word, to allowing only self-avowed queers to use the T, F, S, and H words.
Simon is at present angry with me for being painfully frank with him in response to a question he asked me. You would know of what it's about if you don't already do so.
I am under warning by Simon and dduck that my board membership is at risk and I've retaliated in kind. We currently are at a Mexican standoff.
[and I had to go check that term out! Wiki says: "One possibility is that it may relate to the difficult and paradoxical social and economic conditions of 19th and early 20th century Mexico. The term is considered derogatory by some, but its widespread use in a non-derogatory sense indicates that it is generally not meant to be offensive by most contemporary English speakers."]
My statement, you quote
"Wouldn't it be better if we all came out of the closet? Why again are you and Simon protecting your real identities? Because you are afraid of being stereotyped? Doesn't this lack of reality candor just empower your opponents?"
was edited by me shortly afterward to read "empower your [potential] opponents," but in either version it didn't occur to me that you might lump me in with said opponents. I was making a plain, logical statement of fact. Sorry if I am so persona non grata at present as to be suspect. I'll tighten up.
I admit to being a bit tossed about by a "perfect storm" on the board. You ask me to stop "yelling at us while we go through our various processes," while this is clearly my process.
It is difficult enough for me to let go of Father Mychal Judge as a legitimate narrative element without having a board member call him "Father Twink." The childish gleeful exuberance the collective mob has on display here is upsetting in the extreme, and this is for someone like myself who is 98 percent converted. Imagine how upsetting acknowledgment of this new perception will be to those with deeper investments in the narrative. I am talking about your tone now.
And just between us board members, you wouldn't allow Judge to be called Father Nigger if he were black, would you? Please extend the standard operating courtesy that allows only African-Americans to use the N-word, to allowing only self-avowed queers to use the T, F, S, and H words.
Simon is at present angry with me for being painfully frank with him in response to a question he asked me. You would know of what it's about if you don't already do so.
I am under warning by Simon and dduck that my board membership is at risk and I've retaliated in kind. We currently are at a Mexican standoff.
[and I had to go check that term out! Wiki says: "One possibility is that it may relate to the difficult and paradoxical social and economic conditions of 19th and early 20th century Mexico. The term is considered derogatory by some, but its widespread use in a non-derogatory sense indicates that it is generally not meant to be offensive by most contemporary English speakers."]
idschmyd 4 Oct 29 2009, 03:28 PM wrote: Thanks Brian. How d'you do that? I see the IMG icon but it all goes wrong from there. If I've got it right there should be an identical image here to the one the guys were discussing, but with the official NYPD backdrop.
http://www.nypdangels.com/cop/cop.php?id=8[/IMG]
Well, there are a couple of ways!
I prefer to right click on the image and 'save image as' to my desktop and re-upload using imageshack or some other media hosting site! Just in case it gets removed from the site of origin...
or
Right click on an image and 'copy image location' and insert it between the IMG tags []here[/] using CTRL V. There are other ways but that should get you going!!
And speaking of your bald friend above - it looks like he has his Micky Club gear on!!
Meanwhile back in Ireland...
MARY THERESA CAULFIELD
No picture available yet
If you have one please mail it to [email protected] Age:
Occupation:
Worked for: MARSH
Originally from: BRONX,NY
Resided in: EASTCHESTER,NY
School: ,
College:
HAPPY ST. PATRICKS DAY IN HEAVEN MOM. I THINK OF YOU EVERY DAY, BUT I KNOW YOUR UP THERE KEEPING AN EYE ON ME.
Submitted by: MARY CAULFIELD (Son)
http://www.irishtribute.com/tributes/vi ... 14817.html
This at CNN
NO COMMENTS
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/me ... /4297.html
Please visit this one at 'Legacy'
http://www.legacy.com/Sept11/Story.aspx?PersonID=119695
MARY THERESA CAULFIELD
No picture available yet
If you have one please mail it to [email protected] Age:
Occupation:
Worked for: MARSH
Originally from: BRONX,NY
Resided in: EASTCHESTER,NY
School: ,
College:
HAPPY ST. PATRICKS DAY IN HEAVEN MOM. I THINK OF YOU EVERY DAY, BUT I KNOW YOUR UP THERE KEEPING AN EYE ON ME.
Submitted by: MARY CAULFIELD (Son)
http://www.irishtribute.com/tributes/vi ... 14817.html
This at CNN
NO COMMENTS
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/me ... /4297.html
Please visit this one at 'Legacy'
http://www.legacy.com/Sept11/Story.aspx?PersonID=119695