THE DERAILING ROOM

[fbenario]

Are we to believe that NASA went to the moon

We have proved conclusively that no credible evidence exists proving anyone ever went to the moon.

I think your membership here on the forum has now come to an end. Goodbye.



***********************
ADMIN NOTICE (simon): Wtf, Fbenario??? You have completely misunderstood smj's point.
Please sharpen up - and do not lash out any goodbyes to forum members in the future - that is not your job.

[anonjedi2]

Trigger-finger a little sensitive today?

I think his point was that NASA claims that we need modern satellites to navigate the middle of the ocean while at the same time they want us to believe that they went to the moon and back with much older, less sophisticated navigation technology.

My perception is not that smj believes NASA went to the moon. I think he was just using their own words against them to prove a very simple point.

[hoi.polloi]

Her [Naomi Klein's] books, the ones like Shock Doctrine, are legitimate investigations into Ford Foundation funding and the surface-level politics of the super class in power. But she only goes as far as pointing to the financial corruption and contradictions in the official democratic system.

9/11 cuts too deeply through that benevolent looking front, to the very core of the true hierarchy. It is a cross-section of the powers leaving their signature and traces even as they casually distract people from those signatures and traces with extremely convenient red herrings and baits for those unwilling to peer as deeply, or for those content with a general conspiracy theory movement to be plugged back into the existing surface system (the official democratic system).

The true level of so-called "corruption" in our State belies a different structure to our society than is described to us in public education facilities. Naomi supports the myth that the powers given by the State to its citizens is presently in a position to expose its own corruption. It is an optimism that I actually appreciate, even if she ultimately is — as you (and others, like Simon) have suggested — a kind of shill or "whipping boy" that we don't understand.

She truly does a public service by drawing the connections she does. I would like to meet her and ask her about September Clues, since Simon and I have both postulated that she might be just dense enough not to understand the evidence that 9/11 terrorism was entirely fabricated for military purposes, rather than merely pretending to be as dense. It's a tricky thing; is she waking up now? Claiming what she has is certainly giving some voice to our position. It's just that she doesn't seem to credit any of us or point to those of us who have done the most public research. Why is that? Is she just worried that we are pied pipers or unworthy of trust for "normal" semi-paranoid reasons? Or is she told to avoid drawing attention to our site?

I don't even think it's all that bad that she is half-praised and half-condemned by the mainstream "alternative" track and totally condemned by the obviously and thoroughly corrupted mainstream media "services". Better that than forbidden from writing what she does or handed some kind of anti-American label to wear. However, we must face the sad fact that she joins a cadre of people unwilling to confront people with the most difficult facts about the State system that supports the official democratic system (toys) given us: it is based on a kind of greed for power at levels we do not care to imagine. And until she writes about the forensic and scientific evidence we have presented as proof of the media's fabrication technology, she stalls the curious in a limited hangout.

I want to believe she is more legit, and more committed; after all, we basically just do this on our free time so why can't she? But her laziness on the facts we have presented indicates something else. Maybe she just wants personal power in the existing system or perhaps she is used as a mole to draw public support from politicians and pundits, so more powerful controllers know who to target first. That would be a sad strike against public good. But a plausible reason for her prominence.

[This post has been moved from the Naomi Wolf thread for being an obvious confusion of the real subject: Naomi Wolf. Woopsie. Sorry about that. -HP]

[fbenario]

Much like in a clothes catalogue, the servicemen are looking in many different directions, except where a man would normally look.

They aren't looking at her because "she" wasn't there when the image was taken/fabricated!



http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?i ... 2&show=ela

[lux]

^ Good catch!

[Sophia Perennis]

They aren't looking at her because "she" wasn't there when the image was taken/fabricated!

Forgive me if my question is obtuse, but how would one determine whether it was the lady that was Photoshopped into the photo or the other way around? Obviously the silhouette of the woman in the ELA photo proves the photo is fake, I'm simply asking for my own personal know-how.

Cheers,

S.P.

[lux]

I think the point is that the ELA shows the image is a composite made from multiple images.

Personally, I think the lady is not the only thing added. The men may have been added too. They look unnatural to me.

[Sophia Perennis]

I think the point is that the ELA shows the image is a composite made from multiple images.

That's reasonable.

The men may have been added too. They look unnatural to me.

If they were, the stairway they are standing on must have also been added with them, no? A couple of them seem to have a rather firm grip on the railing.

[hoi.polloi]

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.

[lux]

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

- Weird looking hand …


- 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.


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


My conclusion: I think maybe some of the men were really there and some were pasted in.

[Lazlo]

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.

[lux]

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


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
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.

[gwynned]

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.

[simonshack]

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.

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.

[hoi.polloi]

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.