Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

Channel 4 News reports today that air accident investigators have started the sombre task of lifting the helicopter debris from the apparent crash site in Glasgow Scotland.

It maybe nothing, but the footage seems to have a subliminal message to it. One in which the Central Mosque in Glasgow is conspicuously (and artificially) placed in the midst of it all. Symbolic perhaps that the mosque's landmark Dome is so carefully framed in the footage below?

From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alxzSm_ObCE


ITV News served up another dollop of oddness today. The "time-lapsed" GIF below was created from every 5th frame and speeded up 20x.

As the ITV windbag does her stuff, the dark crane in the background appears to shuffle back and forth
Is that normal for cranes?

simonshack wrote:Sorry EE - I was in a bit of a crabby mood last night.

No worries! Considering the volume of rubbish thrown at your forum to try and undermine your amazing work, most of us would be far less tolerant than you are! So no biggie if my mindless posts need covering quickly with tarps and hoisted and then hurled into the Derailing Room

brianv wrote:Not nearly as simmy as the clown allegedly whacked by the "RA"

Is that Battenberg?! He would look splendid on a rave flyer.

Evil Edna wrote:
It maybe nothing, but the footage seems to have a subliminal message to it. One in which the Central Mosque in Glasgow is conspicuously (and artificially) placed in the midst of it all. Symbolic perhaps that the mosque's landmark Dome is so carefully framed in the footage below?

Yes, it seems like nothing to me. I don't get the point of mentioning it.

As the ITV windbag does her stuff, the dark crane in the background appears to shuffle back and forth
Is that normal for cranes?

Yes, it is normal. Cranes move. That's how they get them to work sites. It's also how they adjust their position on site.

anonjedi2 wrote: And finally, a 'leaked' video of the crash. Upon first glance, it looks like there might be some inconsistencies with the trees between the photo version above and this video version but I can't tell for sure. You be the judge.


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

Strange how, with most US-spec cars fitted with portable fire extinguishers in the passenger footwell that no one had even bother to jump out and try to put the fire out.

Is that Battenberg?! He would look splendid on a rave flyer.

Christopher Ewart Biggs, British Ambassador to Ireland allegedly blown to smithereens twelve days after taking up his new appointment.

lux wrote:

Evil Edna wrote:
It maybe nothing, but the footage seems to have a subliminal message to it. One in which the Central Mosque in Glasgow is conspicuously (and artificially) placed in the midst of it all. Symbolic perhaps that the mosque's landmark Dome is so carefully framed in the footage below?

Yes, it seems like nothing to me. I don't get the point of mentioning it.

EE is right IMHO. Muslims and flying machines ramming buildings were put together again. Subliminal reminder of 9/11.

bostonterrierowner wrote: EE is right IMHO. Muslims and flying machines ramming buildings were put together again. Subliminal reminder of 9/11.

_

Dear Lux, the fabricated skyline is the interest! And since it IS being fabricated, the framing of that mosque dome so dominantly on the foto-faked skyline was clearly a conscious decision of the hoaxers!


Everything in focus! The smashed chopper, the road signs, the police van, AND the crescent moon atop the mosque dome! All in focus! And yet the mosque is ~200 metres away, on the far side of the River Clyde! Amazing Depth-of-Field!

We agreed that either or both of the following images is fabricated, too? On this skyline, the sandstone tower (of the City Union Railway Bridge, built c.1870) appears and disappears in the images!

From:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/ ... 34x402.jpg
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article ... 867580.jpg



So, at the very least, the skyline above is fake and the imagery is composite. (the tower is not even visible from the supposed camera site!)

Like the dome, that sandstone tower features larger than life in many of the faked photos from the crash.

AND that infamous tower even makes a theatrical appearance in the Google Street View (GSV) of the area!

Look at these two GSV images of the same view. Note how they are subtly different. The infamous 140 YEAR OLD sandstone tower is present in one Google Street View but mysteriously DISAPPEARS just one click ahead!



Full size montage: http://i.imgur.com/hMJN05u.jpg

Check out the GSV images closely. Both are dated October 2012. Ostensibly, they were created at the same time: the cars are in the same place, the red & black wheelie bins, the bicycle and washbasins leaned-up for sale. All in the same place.

Most everything is in the same place, EXCEPT for that 140 year old tower! It appears/disappears from view!

On close scrutiny, it seems that East Clyde Street (the road running along the River Clyde) has been slid towards us, to artificially bring that (enlarged) tower into view!

Has "do no evil" Google been lending a hand to stir the PSYOP soup?!

Please don't take my word for it though. Examine for yourself:

See: http://goo.gl/maps/7DHe0
and: http://goo.gl/maps/vPLDb

Evil Edna wrote:_

Dear Lux, the fabricated skyline is the interest!

You mentioned the "fabricated skyline" before, as follows:

Evil Edna wrote:
The skyline is obviously falsified. Building 'B' does not exist in that position. 'B' is a small sandstone tower of the City Union Railway Bridge. But that is much further to the left. It is not visible from the supposed camera location. So Building 'B' has been spliced in.

The image is a blatant composite fake.

You showed two completely different photos as evidence of this "fabricated skyline." Stating that a structure exists in one photo but not the other. And this, you claim, is evidence of a faked skyline.

Sorry, EE, but I don't see it. What I see is that you're doing your best to fill the forum with a bunch of non-evidence and hoping the members don't look too closely at it.

And, you've done it again here:

Evil Edna wrote:

Look at these two GSV images of the same view. Note how they are subtly different. The infamous 140 YEAR OLD sandstone tower is present in one Google Street View but mysteriously DISAPPEARS just one click ahead!



Full size montage: http://i.imgur.com/hMJN05u.jpg

Check out the GSV images closely. Both are dated October 2012. Ostensibly, they were created at the same time: the cars are in the same place, the red & black wheelie bins, the bicycle and washbasins leaned-up for sale. All in the same place.

Most everything is in the same place, EXCEPT for that 140 year old tower! It appears/disappears from view!

The photo pairs are obviously taken from different angles. When you take photos of distant objects behind foreground objects the ones on the background "move" relative to the scene. The objects you claim have "disappeared" are simply now behind trees or other closer objects. This is how street view photos are taken -- from a moving vehicle.

Not to mention the complete lack of logical purpose for "fabricating the skyline" in the photos you've posted.

... and, sorry to be blunt, but I consider the following to be contrived speculation that really doesn't belong here:

Evil Edna wrote: The few photos we do have of Lucky Lucan all seem very similar in terms of his pose, his hair style, his moustache, and his supposed age in the photos. Almost always, Lucan is looking down his nose at the camera, as if to emphasize that he's a ghastly, arrogant snob! Hardly an image any man, even an earl, would want to cultivate of himself, if he were genuine! But a very suitable stereotyping for the monster he was to allegedly become. Almost all of the photos of the earl have him looking slightly to his right, as well. Perhaps indicating that all these Lucan "photos" have the same genesis, taken at a single studio session.

Same with this:

I haven't checked the newspaper archives yet, but I would bet that the name Lord Lucan didn't even enter the public psyche until AFTER his supposed murder of the family nanny in 1974. Yet Lucan supposedly inherited his title ten years earlier in January 1964, on the apparent death of his father, the 6th Earl of Lucan. And yet there are few, if any photos of Lucky Lucan or his wife, over those ten years that followed. No snaps from 1964 to his alleged disappearance in 1974? No photographically documented history for over 10 years? Is that credible?

Maybe you ought to check those archives before posting your speculation on a site that prides itself with fact checking, sourced material and sound reasoning, eh?

lux wrote:You mentioned the "fabricated skyline" before..You showed two completely different photos as evidence of this "fabricated skyline." Stating that a structure exists in one photo but not the other. And this, you claim, is evidence of a faked skyline. Sorry, EE, but I don't see it.

I'm sorry to hear that, Lux Let's have another go at it.

From:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/ ... 34x402.jpg
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article ... 867580.jpg

lux wrote:The photo pairs are obviously taken from different angles. When you take photos of distant objects behind foreground objects the ones on the background "move" relative to the scene.

Please explain, below, how Tower 'B' in the background "moves" so dramatically in relation to the foreground objects.
As foreground reference, let's use Doorway 'A' and the grey street light column to its right.
In relation to Doorway 'A', how does Tower 'B' in the background "move" so dramatically in the two images?


Full size: http://i.imgur.com/1diOcDU.jpg

Evil Edna wrote:
Please explain, below, how Tower 'B' in the background "moves" so dramatically in relation to the foreground objects.

Here is an example. I took the 2 photos below in front of my house just now.
Notice that there are 3 trash cans in the first photo and only two in the other, yet the 2 photos are otherwise virtually the same.





How did I accomplish this? With photo fakery? With Photoshop? Did I go to the street and remove one of the cans?

No. I simply took one photo and then moved one step to the left to take the other. That's all. One frigging step.

The photos you've posted which allege to show photo fakery were simply taken from different positions and/or at different angles. In fact, with much greater differences in angle & position than my photos above. Of course the content will be different between them! Objects will "move about" or become hidden behind other objects, etc. as the camera position moves in relation to the scene.

If you don't believe me, get yourself a camera and take photos of scenes with objects of varying distance from the camera. Then move from side to side and take more photos from different positions and compare them.


Oooooo -- look! I just noticed! There's a satellite dish on the roof across the street in my 2nd photo but not in the first one! It must be photo fakery!

(Please upload the full-sized originals of your backyard, for closer study later.)

More importantly, please explain where Tower 'B' has actually gone in the image pair below?!



For good measure, please help us understand the foreground anomalies, too! Most all of the traffic lights are missing in the inset image. How so? We are viewing the two images from (almost?) the same angle. The grey street light column, for example, is in EXACTLY the same position, in relation to the door canopy! So WHERE are all the traffic lights?!

Furthermore, in that inset image, please note the (red) pedestrian crossing light. The red light is apparently shown as being behind the steel barrier. Yet that crossing light seems MISSING ALTOGETHER in the larger image. How is that explained? Yet again the wonders of "perspective" ?

And what of the trees to the right of the steel flue in that same inset image? Why do they not reconcile with the trees in the larger image?

^ They went to the same place the satellite dish and the 3rd trash can went in my photos. They "moved" behind other objects and/or "moved" out of frame.

Did you even look at my photos? Doesn't seem like it.

Read my post and look at the photos in it. And, re-read it until you understand it.

Then take your own photos with your own camera and see for yourself. See how easy it is for objects to "move around" in a scene by simply moving the camera from side to side. Really -- do it. You can use a cell phone if you don't have a camera. See how objects hide behind other objects and emerge into view with changes of camera position.

I repeat: take your own photos with your own camera and see for yourself.

lux wrote:Did you even look at my photos?

As I've said, please upload the full-sized originals and I will study them later!

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2259/nyeg.jpg

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8094/6ath.jpg

Quoted, simply to preserve this statement for later reference:

lux wrote: http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2259/nyeg.jpg
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8094/6ath.jpg

and

lux wrote: http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/8726/9h13.jpg
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/1482/o078.jpg

How did I accomplish this? With photo fakery? With Photoshop? Did I go to the street and remove one of the cans? No. I simply took one photo and then moved one step to the left to take the other. That's all. One frigging step.

(my emphases).



But let's get back to business, dear lux. The missing tower AND those vanishing traffic lights!