Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

^Hilarious cut-and-paste on the pink birthday hat; it appears to be floating above the little girls head!

Tammylo3105 - No, I'm not seeing a resemblance in the photos.

ninetynine wrote:^Hilarious cut-and-paste on the pink birthday hat; it appears to be floating above the little girls head!

That is funny! She also appears to be missing pupils and the father only has one.

°


BOSTON PERP-SPECTIVES

I've had some more fun with this "Boston-Bombing" computer imagery. Fascinating stuff!

So here's a 2009 Goo-gle maps view of Boylston street - past the finish line and looking down towards the "bomb area":



Here's an image purportedly snapped on 'bombing day'. I've just drawn an "A<--->B" vector between two given points:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... istan.html

Here's another purported picture of 'bombing day'. Compare "A<--->B" vector with the image above. Just a question of deceptive perspectives / focal distorsion, perhaps? Hmm, I'd say that's highly doubtful - but let's get on. Next, I have a question for Bostoners: What exactly are we seeing down in the distance there, at upper left ? (area marked ^^^?^^^)


See, here's a Goo-gle map photo from 2009. So my simple question is: has this city-view changed this much since then?
I find it rather unlikely - what with that antique building/rooftop (a church?)- but Im quite happy to stand corrected.


Lastly, here's the funniest thing: I tried stacking cars upon each other on this other Goo-gle map view - but I needed only three of them to get up this high (compare with the five police cars in above image). Of course, I copy-pasted cars from within both images - so as to respect all relative proportions:

That's really interesting about the buildings in the background and I know I saw other photos or maybe even a video with those buildings like that. I'm going to try to find them again.

Forgive me for being slow, but what is the significance of the 3 stacked cars? Is it because the photo above appears that you could stack 5 to get to that height? Thanks:).

Here's another image of the building from the other side.

In this long shot you can see that they have eliminated the large plaza between the arched buildings and the old church area.

sunshine05 wrote: Forgive me for being slow, but what is the significance of the 3 stacked cars? Is it because the photo above appears that you could stack 5 to get to that height? Thanks:).

Sunshine,

In the "bombing day" image (in which I stacked the 5 police cars) I copied the white-blue striped police car parked on the marathon finish line. I then enlarged the car to account for perspective (the five stacked cars column is, of course, positioned closer to "the camera"), using the two policemen standing by its side as reference.

As you can see, I needed all of 5 cars to reach the height marked " ----------- " - whereas I needed only 3 car heights (copy-pasted within that Google map image) to reach the height of the library arch.

Whatever perspective issues I might have overlooked / or poorly gauged, I hope you will agree that my margin of error is pretty comfortable (3 versus 5): this goes to confirm our many suspicions that the proportions of the perps' imagery are wrong, i.e. the backdrop (the Boston library buildings)is way out of proportion with respect to the foreground (the general street scenery). And no, this can not be ascribed to any known focal distorsion effect: the library buildings are too close to the general street scenery for this to be the case.

simonshack wrote:

sunshine05 wrote: Forgive me for being slow, but what is the significance of the 3 stacked cars? Is it because the photo above appears that you could stack 5 to get to that height? Thanks:).

Sunshine,

In the "bombing day" image (in which I stacked the 5 police cars) I copied the white-blue striped police car parked on the marathon finish line. I then enlarged the car to account for perspective (the five stacked cars column is, of course, positioned closer to "the camera"), using the two policemen standing by its side as reference.

As you can see, I needed all of 5 cars to reach the height marked " ----------- " - whereas I need only three cars to reach the same height in the Google map photo.

Whatever perspective issues I might have overlooked / or poorly gauged, I hope you will agree that my margin of error is pretty comfortable: this goes to confirm our many suspicions that the proportions of the perps' imagery are wrong, i.e. the backdrop (the Boston library buildings)is way out of proportion with respect to the foreground (the general street scenery).

Okay, thank you. That's what I thought.

simonshack wrote:

sunshine05 wrote: What is going on here?

Sunshine,

That's a view of the main façade of the old Boston Library from Dartmouth street, just round the corner:

https://maps.google.it/maps?saddr=Boyls ... -6.79&z=21

I was just looking and noticed the church across the street. So I guess this is another side of the arched (library) building then. Thank you. I will remove that post so it doesn't cause confusion.

Oh Simon!

BOSTON PERP-SPECTIVES

I've had some more fun with this "Boston-Bombing" computer imagery. Fascinating stuff!

So here's a 2009 Goo-gle maps view of Boylston street - past the finish line and looking down towards the "bomb area":

So if I look at that first pic, it would lead me to believe that if the base of the photographer walkway is supposed to be adjacent to the horizontal lines beneath the base of the square windows, my conclusion should be that the Boston Marathon was a midget race this year. How could there be so much headroom above the runners under the big blue arch structure if the base of that walkway is approximately 7.5-9 feet, which is my conclusion based on the doors of the temporary outbuilding in front of the building in the Google maps pic. Even if I give them 10-11 feet, it still isn't realistic that the walkway would be only 12 feet high when in other pics it appears to be closer to a 20-25 foot clearance.

Segway - if Aaron Tang is supposedly a spatial designer, he'd better go take some refresher photoshop courses because his spatial design is way off, in both these zoomed finish line photos and the shots that show parts of his office. And quick note about the "magic" picture taken from inside "his office", um, Aaron, you forgot to resize the buildings that we see above the window frame so they match your resized faked images we see out the "window." Oops, the windows don't match!

Some of these pictures are outrageous, like the two posted in tammylo's post above. Why on earth would anyone take random photos of a dozen onlookers on the side of the street instead of focusing their cameras on the runners themselves? We are asked to believe that they are random pictures of onlookers that just happen to contain photos of all the individuals involved in the story. The idea that anyone would ever take pictures of a crowd of observers is ludicrous. None of this garbage makes any sense.

You’re right, Anonjedi, it makes no sense. Especially with so many too-convenient “coincidences”. The only ones who ever take shots of crowds are “news photographers” — as sports coverage often does by zooming on unusual get-ups or pretty girls among the spectators. But for regular onlookers to take irrelevant and uninteresting shots of spectators on purpose is pretty unlikely.

Dear Maat,

you say:

DISINFO/DIVERSION ALERT!

I must ask all members to please be aware that the PsyOp perpetrators' most effective defense weapon is WORDS, i.e. conceptual meanings and connotations.

It is now abundantly evident that the buzz-bomb word the controlled disinfo clowns are using to confuse & protect the Boston Hoax from exposure now is "staged" — we must avoid it.

Note: The alleged "EMT" quoted previously, not only promoted the "staged" with "actors" story but didn't even clarify the critical time factor for femoral artery bleed out=death. The medical sources and specific military study I cited stated "45 seconds".

This operation was clearly FAKED, not "staged" in the normal sense with pre-filmed "live actors" playing "bomb victims" (as reinforced via "Reality TV" & "training drills"), but entirely pre-fabricated with CGI video techniques (layering, compositing, rendering) from templates & motion capture software. So any "actors" are very few; only appearing/heard afterwards in contrived "interviews" to give credence to the animated movie clips and composite "photos" — which probably also include "Avatar-style" rendering disguise. e.g. the "Gabby Giffords" S1m0ne!

Remember, the first casualty in these attacks on our social/cultural perceptions is language: terms and meanings are hijacked to steer and corral all doubters into easily dismissed "loony" associations; e.g. "conspiracy theorist", "no-planer", "truther", "inside job", "false flag", etc.

It is important to understand why we insist on clear, comprehensible language on this forum — not only for literate credibility, but to comprehend the insidious purpose of parroting propagandised terms.

Let's choose our words with care and remain vigilant to keep our investigations on track

Are you 100% sure? Because I am not.

I can accept (what is more, I am more and more convinced) that these Media Psychological Operations are pre-prepared CGI-events, and on TV we can watch these pre-prepared CGI-imageries.

On the other hand, what I do not believe, is that nothing is happening on the ground. Why?
Are you sure that, during the time-frame of the faked event, the alleged place where it is supposedly happening, is simply sealed off, with nobody on the streets, everybody choking the chicken at home?
What would totally make sense, is to utilise the situation, and to give more credibility to it, as in that, syncronised to the airing of the CGI-movie, for the authorities to hold a realistic practice/drill of the scenario, with crisis actors and the national security agencies etc... involved. And, to take some pictures during the activity to complement the CGI ones, why not? (This could be the reason of some discrepancy of the photographic imagery like the missin screen for example.)

(And I can even imagine (imagine!) 2 Chechen brothers taking part in the excercise with their FBI handlers then going home, turning on the TV, listening horrified to the news of the "bombing", thinking "OMG (Allah, to be precise) bro, we are fucked over, we need to split" and promptly go on an escapade at the end of which the authorities jump for joy because this live action all over the town "proves" to the audience that the previous one (the bombing) was "real" as well! - But on the other hand, they can be CGI characters too, for all I know, a picture on the newspaper page with a made-up name and identity...)

All in all: 100% sure knowledge is in the hands of the perps. What we do is taking educated guesses, not laying down the law.

As per the words...

The problem of the so-called "conspiracy theories" is that, all of them are based on such informations which originally come from the perpetrators/Media!!!
Most people pick some bits and pieces of info which fit into their theory while discarding the rest, not paying attention to the most important factor, namely where the info came from on which they based their theories!
And yes, the perps know this, and yes, they put out their stories bearing this basic human thinking process in mind!

Here's the gofundme page for Jeff's Vicsim friend and Teamstork teammate, Michelle Rose Mahoney. She's got 22k raised so far for her "injuries" ... she is the one wearing the team stork logo, sitting in Jeff's "blood" doing not much of anything.

http://www.gofundme.com/theMRMfund