THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
thisisunreal
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:20 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by thisisunreal » Wed May 19, 2021 9:35 am

glg wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 5:41 pm
thisisunreal wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 12:21 pm
Dear observers of the grim cyclical Israeli Palestine ethnic cleansing....I wonder what the consensus is?

Are we saying the videos which we examine of the downed towers are real as to me they look entirely fabricated.

Since having been, 'clues forum orientated' I would have suggested that modern warfare is not safe enough to be shown live or even pre-recorded, just in case something escapes the attention of the censor. In addition, I think there is good value in showing entirely CGI. It allows you to test people's feedback through social media. What percentage perceive anything wrong with it?

To my mind, one of the methods used to distract the casual observer has been increasingly to turn the broadcasts into media pieces, with narration and textual overlays on top to give a greater range of mental stimulii and lesser chance of focussing on the main point...the authenticity of the visuals. I tend to watch everything on mute as it allows more mental space.

I'd be curious to know whether people are accepting this / these downings as genuine or another composite or creation.
Dear thisisunreal
I sure hate flip flopping on things, but as I already did, I won't add any further final thought on this issue except to say I found a purported live screening of the event and it is by Al-Jazeera who allegedly occupied some of that building. It seems to me a bit unfortunate on the part of the cameramen that they missed to capture the plane which supposedly issued the airstrike, that's all.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao443imhwIc
Dear glg, thanks for the response.

Good point well made. The absence of the plane essentially 'missses' the true value of the 'action' shot!

I felt the videography looked absurd, but was curious to get a sense from other members!

Before I bumped into September Clues, I would have guessed that the ratio of reality to unreality were about 95:5. Nowadays, I would flip that. One wonders, to what degree is anything we see in any way representative, if at all, real!

The other aspect of this tumble down story that amazes me is the extent of the control that exists in the system. Almost every media 'somebody' has been interviewed on the topic and given their piece to camera about how awful it is to live beside those naughty Palestinians! The scripted, desired propaganda is more or less, practically inescapable. Or, to put another way...., another opinion cannot be expressed within the limits of the system!

Warmest

thisisunreal
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:20 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by thisisunreal » Wed May 19, 2021 9:43 am

simonshack wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 9:14 pm
*

Alright, my dear friends...

So I've been briefly analyzing that Al-Jazeera "Live broadcast" - what with that "11-story building (housing AP and Al-Jazeera offices) being demolished by Israeli strikes"...

I won't waste too much of your time, folks - so here's my preliminary verdict: this is once again total CGI. And some very silly CGI too ! -_-

So, as we see the building being struck (at 15:40 in the above video), we have some camera shake going on... and some sort of window-frame pops out of an adjacent building (rather distant from the 'bomb strike'). Check it out:

Image

As I see it (and in my humble opinion) some idiot CGI-editor added this absurd window-frame-pop-out for 'dramatic effect'.

I may be wrong - but I may be right. Thoughts, anyone? Will anyone argue that this lone window-frame popping out of that adjacent building looks in any way realistic (i.e. something that may well happen in the real world) ?
Dear Simon, thanks for the analysis.

The window is almost a comedic touch, like the addition of birds and small insects from NASA's space genre.

Without any formal analysis, I felt the give away was the unreal textures of the building exterior on one of the shots. I had seen a video where the textures looked clean, smooth and not at all authentic. From somebody who has lived almost a decade in the Middle East, any rendered building, no matter how smart initially, looks worse for wear after just a couple of years. What is more, they are never ever cleaned! The bespeckled render is a collector of desert dust which is always in the air.

Whilst this analysis is lacking, the eyes are pretty good at detecting when something is not quite right, a little bit like the solar arrays on the ISS. Whilst the tumble down rendering is excellent in real time, once slowed down, repeated, turn sound off, then the questions start to amplify and the oddities can be almost felt.

kickstones
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by kickstones » Wed May 19, 2021 10:43 am

Here is another apparent 'live' video that doesn't quite sit right with me, I may be wrong but the smoke and shadow look added....


Journalist reports live from Gaza as neighbouring building hit by Israel airstrike

The targeted building housed businesses in addition to offices for Hamas' Al-Aqsa satellite channel and is located in one of the busiest streets of Gaza's Roman neighbourhood.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBhEZ7gQCpQ

SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer » Wed May 19, 2021 4:07 pm

simonshack wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 10:02 pm
*

And pray tell, just WHY would the top section of that building collapse FIRST - all on its own? (in the matter of ONE second?). What sort of physics are we looking at?

These two frames are separated by ONE second:

Image

Oh well, I guess the CGI collapse of WTC7 shown on TV (back in September 2001) was even sillier...

Image


We live in a very silly world, folks - that much is for sure. -_-
Thank you Simon for posting this for analysis. From a big picture standpoint, it’s difficult to imagine that imagery from such a carefully crafted story would be left to chance.

The familiar shaking affect—the cartoonish top-down collapse—the strange bump upwards of the building on the right—the weird bend at the top left of the collapsing structure—and an overall “eyeball test” tells me we are looking at CGI. The imagery of the buildings remind me of the type of CGI artifacts we saw from the alleged Paris attacks (and other events).
simonshack wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 9:14 pm
*

Alright, my dear friends...

So I've been briefly analyzing that Al-Jazeera "Live broadcast" - what with that "11-story building (housing AP and Al-Jazeera offices) being demolished by Israeli strikes"...

I won't waste too much of your time, folks - so here's my preliminary verdict: this is once again total CGI. And some very silly CGI too ! -_-

So, as we see the building being struck (at 15:40 in the above video), we have some camera shake going on... and some sort of window-frame pops out of an adjacent building (rather distant from the 'bomb strike'). Check it out:

Image

As I see it (and in my humble opinion) some idiot CGI-editor added this absurd window-frame-pop-out for 'dramatic effect'.

I may be wrong - but I may be right. Thoughts, anyone? Will anyone argue that this lone window-frame popping out of that adjacent building looks in any way realistic (i.e. something that may well happen in the real world) ?
Oh yeah—that lone window-frame is a sight to behold. :lol: Seriously, it doesn’t even match up to the spot it’s supposed to be falling from. There’s zero continuity in its size and shape from one frame to the next. That’s a really nice catch.

glg
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by glg » Wed May 19, 2021 6:59 pm

Thank you Simon for putting this one to rest.
I hadn't even bothered to do the forensics, I guess I didn't expect it to be CGI this bad, or rather I just thought of it being controlled demolition and a CGI thumbnail, before I reverted to credulity.
At around 17:17 and one 1/2 sec. there's a terribly curved window sill with a bendy window 3rd window top down in the left white strip part of the building and that, is very much physically impossible.
But they had to pull the building at some point since obviously that structure now must be rubble. So they cleared the site thoroughly with scare tactics as they had a fabricated a story, while actually it was just pulled by demo crews.
Amazing really what all they would do to keep our minds caged in Mythos.
@kickstones footage is just as shameless. What is it... are they fabricating it ALL?
There's some footage I saw from the ground where seemingly ordinary people are going berserk as a mob, I would guess that could be going on, emotions fueled by the media, but then, who knows perhaps that should be studied too?!
What a silly world indeed.

glg
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by glg » Wed May 19, 2021 9:26 pm

Oh and Al Jazeera basically admitted that the footage was a LIE - listen:
https://youtu.be/Ao443imhwIc?t=2261

¨Ok, Harry Foster there joining us on the lie err line from Sheikh Jarrah...¨

:blink: hmm, I wish there where GIF's with sound.

Of course this was no slip of the tongue, give me a break. But it's awkward too how her accented pronunciation constantly refers to the tower as the ¨terror¨ - For instance at min. 17:18 ¨And the terror has come down¨


¨

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7130
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Wed May 19, 2021 10:27 pm

*

And just to beat this dead horse home, dear friends, let us consider this other aspect of this "TV demolition job" (that we've just demolished here at Cluesforum).

Listen closely to what that TV anchorwoman (with the funny "tower-terror" accent) says at 17:01 (i.e. only seconds before the entire 11-srorey building collapses "in front of our eyes"...)

"NOT SURE IF ...IT WILL STAY STANDING :lol: OR NOT - WE'RE GONNA KEEP OUR EYES CLOSELY TRAINED ON THIS..."


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao443imhwIc

So let's see: how did this TV anchorwoman even suspect that the entire building would soon / & possibly collapse - due to some airstrikes?

Ok, so she had apparently been told that the building had been evacuated - and that there were ongoing airstrikes.

But how often (in the history of this planet) have airstrikes downed entire (11-storey) buildings?

Moreover, if they had a camera trained on that scene, WHY ON EARTH is there NO audio from that camera? Are we supposed to believe that its microphone was - for some reason - turned off? Or that the camera had a monster zoom lens and was positioned sooo far away that the airstrikes and collapse were inaudible? Or do TV-producers really choose to turn down the volume of their live cameras' audiofeeds - in order not to shock their pop-corn-chewing TV audience with loud explosions?

Oh dear, I almost feel silly myself - as I raise these obvious (and probably unnecessary / redundant) questions ! ^_^

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7130
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Thu May 20, 2021 9:59 am

*

Keep your barf bags ready, ladies & gents. :puke:
Also, if you're prone to choke over hysterical fits of laughter, consider ventilating your lungs before watching. :lol:
You've been warned...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S9bI46ohsU

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1066
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Jun 04, 2021 1:41 pm

This is a very short clip from an interview Milo Yiannopoulos gave to Michael Voris. It´s behind a paywall so I filmed it with a cell phone instead of linking to the source.

https://rumble.com/vi10ft-milo-yiannopoulos.html

Why am I posting this? Well, Milo speaks about how the globalists handle their adversaries, although at this point the victims he is referring to are politically conservative thinkers (and orthodox Catholics) who one might dismiss as dupes in the vaster geopolitical divide-and-conquer game ... though perhaps not entirely.

Milo's following was growing exponentially when the establishment decided to pull the rug from under his feet by accusing him of pedophilia (of which he was actually a victim). According to him, it doesn´t matter what you believe or say or post on the internet, but only how effective you are at converting others.

This brings up the question of how the Nutwork deals with those who discover their psyops and expose them. It seems that by and large they leave them pretty much alone, covering them with a mantle of silence and using Google algorithms to prevent too many people from learning about them. There are not many credible examples of media fakery researchers who were whacked in dark alleys or dragged to court and sent to prison like another Zündel. Does that mean the damage wreaked is not extensive enough to make the red lights flash? Are not enough people "converted"? Is it even psychologically possible to "convert" a sufficient number of people?

thisisunreal
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:20 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by thisisunreal » Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:45 am

Flabbergasted wrote:
Fri Jun 04, 2021 1:41 pm
This is a very short clip from an interview Milo Yiannopoulos gave to Michael Voris. It´s behind a paywall so I filmed it with a cell phone instead of linking to the source.

https://rumble.com/vi10ft-milo-yiannopoulos.html

Why am I posting this? Well, Milo speaks about how the globalists handle their adversaries, although at this point the victims he is referring to are politically conservative thinkers (and orthodox Catholics) who one might dismiss as dupes in the vaster geopolitical divide-and-conquer game ... though perhaps not entirely.

Milo's following was growing exponentially when the establishment decided to pull the rug from under his feet by accusing him of pedophilia (of which he was actually a victim). According to him, it doesn´t matter what you believe or say or post on the internet, but only how effective you are at converting others.

This brings up the question of how the Nutwork deals with those who discover their psyops and expose them. It seems that by and large they leave them pretty much alone, covering them with a mantle of silence and using Google algorithms to prevent too many people from learning about them. There are not many credible examples of media fakery researchers who were whacked in dark alleys or dragged to court and sent to prison like another Zündel. Does that mean the damage wreaked is not extensive enough to make the red lights flash? Are not enough people "converted"? Is it even psychologically possible to "convert" a sufficient number of people?
Dear Flabbergasted, interesting video and post. I watched with no prior knowledge of who this is and became immediately suspicious because of his terrific emphasis on the left right divide and a mention of FOX news.

I don't really think there is any practical difference between left or right or between Republican or Democratic. This much must be clear from the most recent British election that was decided by the media on the basis of claims that dogged Jeremy Corbyn for perhaps 3 years and had absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. Those claims were the timeless classic of 'antisemitism'. To understand that no basis in fact exists in this case you have to look at a few aspects:

1.) Jeremy Corbyn's personal and political record (exemplary and unchanging over decades).
2.) Jeremy Corbyn as a person was a modern Jesus and politically unable to be awarded an Nobel Peace Prize (because he deserved it)!
3.) His stance on prickly proftable problematic issues (vehemently pro Palestine and anti-war).
4.) The medias stance across platforms on Jeremy Corbyn was totally unified, which should alert one to a problem!
5.) Those who spoke up for him and said it was a joke (Chomsky and Finklestein) were completely ignored by the media!
6.) The volume of claims and accusations started as a trickle and developed into a torrent just before the election took place.

I think Corbyn and his 'brother' on the other side of the Atlantic (Sanders) are part of an old guard who actually believe in issues, have an ideological position and do care about the improvement of those they are elected to serve. Modern politicians are quite a different breed and know early on how to play the game, survive, ascend, please, get sponsored, make coin and then exit the political scene through the revolving door into private practice and make more coin. Then, once bored, ignored and lonely, they enter back into the political scene and make more coin being paid to push positions encouraged from their prior employee and so it goes on.

Maintaining the facade of party politics is desperately important to maintain the notion of democracy! This idea of 'one man one vote' has been running for over a hundred years and is one of the key methods that citizens are able to bolster their sense of worth and involvement in the system with which they have significantly less understanding, power and control. This facade is key to people's ego and sense of identify in the West. If you remove it, you start to pull away at an important core belief in a sense of self. Look at Israel's rhetoric when scarifying Palestine. They always state, "We are the only democracy in the Middle East", an ultimate platitude that conveys great power as a rhetorical device! It translates as, 'we are better than these fetid barbaric states and we are one of you'. Democracy is identity.

I draw attention to Corbyn in a sense because his reality collides with your Milo character. It does not matter who you bat for, if your message is undesirable then the message you convey must stop or your audience must be made to stop paying attention. Had Corbyn delivered the same message, but batting for the other team, the outcome would have been the same. I agree 100% with the core idea, that the threat is about how many people you are able to reach, persuade, enliven and not what you say! Having a few dissenters is good as it gives a semblance of freedom and plurality of views, which in reality does not exist.

In terms of converting people, it is possible, but as this forum has acknowledged time after time...conversations take massive amounts of energy to achieve and can often be only temporary! You must have a willing interlocutor and they must be 'ready'. The best one can hope for is to start a tiny little fire and hope it takes light. In terms of converting on a large scale, this is a power reserved for the belief system of modern media apparatus!

kickstones
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by kickstones » Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:33 pm

Which one the biggest bellend?


Image

Image


June 7 (UPI) -- Amazon founder Jeff Bezos announced on Monday that he plans to go on the first passenger spaceflight of his company Blue Origin this summer.

"Ever since I was 5 years old, I've dreamed of traveling to space," Bezos wrote Monday in an Instagram post.

Bidding for the seat on the New Shepard was at nearly $3 million on Monday with nearly 6,000 participants from 143 countries, according to Blue Origin.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/06 ... 930/?ur3=1

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1066
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:01 pm

A 40-minute Italian documentary titled "The Message in the Bottle" has just been released. The film makers question the canonical validity of Benedict XVI's resignation on 11 February 2013 and, consequently, Bergoglio´s subsequent installation as pope. The central argument is that Ratzinger used the word "ministerium" in his announcement, and not the word "munus". The former refers to the outward ministry of a cleric, not the papal mandate per se. Ratzinger knew this more than anyone else because it was he and John Paul II who introduced the concept of "munus" and made its use obligatory in the formula of papal resignation. Also, the message Ratzinger read before the camera was apparently poorly written, which is strange considering that Ratzinger was a renowned Latinist. In any case, it´s hilarious to see cardinal Sodano get up immediately and feign surprise while himself reading from a script!

Image

However, the largest part of the documentary actually deals with Masonry and the globalist-friendly St. Gallen Group (called "the Mafia" by their own grand master, Godfried Danneels) to which Bergoglio is said to have gained membership some 20 years ago after moving 70 million euro out of archdiocesan funds to the Vatican bank. The city of St. Gallen used to be a center for Soviet intelligence, recruitment and training, and the now defrocked cardinal Theodore McCarrick was definitely recruited by the Soviets there in the 1950s. In fact, it was this same McCarrick who negotiated the still-confidential Vatican-China deal which insiders claim is padding Vatican coffers with 2 billion euro a year.

It´s a thick stew and the documentary doesn´t dig very deep into anything. I'm posting it merely for the sake of information.

(if the link above doesn´t work: https://rumble.com/vic0t3-the-message-i ... ottle.html)

kickstones
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by kickstones » Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:36 am

A seat to fly with Jeff Bezos to space sells at auction for $28 million

By Christian Davenport
The Washington Post

How much would you pay to go to space with Jeff Bezos?

For at least one person, the answer is $28 million, an astounding sum that won a live auction Saturday for a seat on the first human spaceflight for Bezos’s Blue Origin space company. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

The identity of the winner won’t be made public for a couple of weeks, the company said, leading to speculation over who the mysterious bidder could be. A tech entrepreneur? A wealthy foreigner? Or maybe a want-to-be-astronaut backed by a country’s government who would be the first from his or her homeland to go to space?

In all, nearly 7,600 bidders from 159 countries participated in the auction, driving the price to a level well beyond what some company officials had anticipated. Blue Origin flies its New Shepard capsule to an altitude of about 65 miles, where passengers can then unbuckle from their seats and experience about four minutes of weightlessness. The $28 million is about half the cost of what some private citizens are paying for a trip to the International Space Station, where they’ll live and work for about a week before flying home on SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft.


https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... 8-million/

My guess is its Bill Gates the rocket explodes on take-off and we never see the idiots again.

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1066
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:12 pm

Conformity and survival vs. truth-telling and moral integrity

Why would somebody of normal intelligence abet and enact narratives that a 5-year old can see make no sense, whether it be morona science, climate control or gender engineering? The plight of living a double life, of speaking "two languages", one in public and one in private, which became the rule in the Soviet Union can tell us a lot about why both corporate and academic players are collaborating wholesale with the new global sanitary dictatorship.
Most well-educated people in the Soviet Union faced a dilemma: how to handle the disparity between what the Soviet regime claimed about itself and reality as it was actually experienced. Towards the end of its existence, the Soviet regime no longer demanded that people believed the official ideology; it was important simply that they were seen to believe or accept it. Publicly, people were required to express themselves in the ‘correct’ ideological terms. They were forced to participate in a range of rituals or procedures: for example, to go to and complete university usually meant belonging to the Komsomol or passing an exam on the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Not to use the right language and participate in the rituals—not to accept the ‘rules of the game’—meant to risk one’s career and, in some cases, the prospects for one’s family. The language and ritual had an integrative function: they gave the Soviet Union a common identity around which society could unite.

Among Soviet intellectuals, there were increasingly few ‘true believers’ in Soviet communism in the last decades of Soviet power. In order to survive, most intellectuals divided their lives into public and private spheres. As Vladimir Shlapentokh notes, “conformity in public deeds, opposition in private views” was a norm. Yuri Glazov has described the differences in public and private utterances as ‘behavioural bilingualism’. The problem for Soviet intellectuals was how to preserve their moral dignity in the face of this system. The whole apparatus of Soviet power seemed to compel them to live a double life. Yet there was something reprehensible about telling lies or being silent in the face of them, even when people privately admitted that it was all just a game. So what to do? According to political dissident Vladimir Bukovskii, the struggle to answer this question led to a constant interior debate within each individual: Whether he wants to or not, a Soviet citizen is in a state of permanent inner dialogue with the official propaganda.

Philip Boobbyer: “Truth-telling, Conscience and Dissent in Late Soviet Russia: Evidence from Oral Histories”. https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/ ... 798013.pdf
A similar perspective is given by Brazilian philosopher Luiz Felipe Pondé. He refers specifically to “the Left”, but the analysis is psychological and sociological, not political.
https://rumble.com/vivx9v-leftist-professors.html

Mansur
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Mansur » Fri Jun 25, 2021 9:45 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:12 pm
In order to survive, most intellectuals divided their lives into public and private spheres. As Vladimir Shlapentokh notes, “conformity in public deeds, opposition in private views” was a norm. Yuri Glazov has described the differences in public and private utterances as ‘behavioural bilingualism’.
I think there is no such thing in real life! No matter how much they philosophize and write smart books about it.

Incidentally, this case, or state or situation, is true for virtually the entire intelligentsia, and for a very long time, and, I suppose, not just in the ‘former eastern bloc,’ and not just in the last years of the Soviet era.

Now, do we believe, really, that such a case exists, or has existed, or may exist at all? Is it possible for anybody to preach the official lies full job-time as it were (and with full intellectual readiness), more or less explicitly, and then go home and think the truth at home alone, or maybe tell it to one another with ‘his own kind?’ In my humble opinion, this is complete nonsense.

If someone is, say, some kind of journalist, they may lie 8-10 hours a day in the most varied ways, as none of the topics oblige them to do anything. That would be the ideal case, am I right? But people, in far the vast majority of cases, or maybe even more, must lie in a fairly directed manner.

And what can ordinary people do if the integrity of the intelligentsia has long since given up?


It would have been a much more interesting topic, say, to write about how, for example, the 'system' directed private beliefs and thoughts and to what extent it managed to keep it under control - and how this system, created with great and long effort and expertise, has saved itself into the ‘new era’.

Post Reply