Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

Dear nonhocapito,

The perps have a new CGI fakery program which churns out wide angle photo-like images to fuck us over.
Now, how do you decide between a faked and a real wide-angle photo? Perfect cover. THIS IS IT, as I said in my bold logical leap. It evolved into this. The fakery program evolved into this. Because in that case, they can push on us nearly anything as news pictures. All they have to say is: no, no, this is just wide angle. See the beauty of it?

What is a wide angle photo in itself? A wide angle photo shows everything as if you were on an acid trip. It is surreal, it distorts your depth and size perception. Reality altering, perception manipulation? Ring a bell?
I know I am oldschool, but the Libyan photos are not sold to us as arts. It is sold to us as documentary. Documentary is when you show reality as it is, not distorted. That means, all wide lens photos from Libya are faked by default.

If you saw a wide angle photo from 9/11, on which an airplane with enormous tail is blocking the view of the 1st Tower and diving half into the 2nd Tower, would you say: I do not know if it is fake or not, maybe it is just a wide angle? Of course, you have to back it up with a theory why you do not believe it at all in the first place.

Beside, wild angle does not explain this:

A rebel militiaman runs for cover during a government helicopter attack on the frontline March 5, 2011 in Ben Jawat, Libya.

The reporter may be brave, but was he standing in the middle of the desert, or did he reach that spot running faster and turned back? His hands did not shake, and he aligned the figure into the middle, so he is not out of breath.
The rebel is clearly the machine-gunner, because he carries no other weapon in hostile territory.
The only chance of survival under that helicopter attack is to speed up the Technical to represent a fast moving target, and use the Technical as a moving fire platform, and open up with the mounted anti-aircraft machingun and all available weapons on the heli.

Or this ones:


We are after an air strike on the Ras Ranuf road. The MIG is not far away, the bomb dust is in the air. The MIG is patrolling the road, as the rebel Technicals travel on it. In a second, the MIG will return to machine-gun the road. Neither the reporter, nor the fighters care. Sure.

Still they are lying, still all Libyan pictures are faked, still no reporters in Libya. Not to mention all the videos.
This is an all-fake Libyan imagery, a big event, a gift on the 10th anniversary of the biggest all-fake event ever. The way it worked, that is how this works.
Democracy will be exported to Libya, even if that means having to invade and kill all the Libyans to liberate them...

warriorhun wrote:Democracy will be exported to Libya, even if that means having to invade and kill all the Libyans to liberate them...

... and leaving the US in control of the oil in Eastern Libya.

So far I think warriorhun's analysis is on-point, and consistent with the evidence we have.

simonshack wrote:I trust you may imagine what sort of resources are being deployed today to discredit our TV Fakery research. Would it be presumptuous to suppose that BILLIONS are invested to counter it? Put yourself in their clothes, for a minute: wouldn't you put to full use the full clout of your resources, activating an armada of military psychologists, CGI experts, social-network spooks and the like to combat the findings which our grassroot network is uncovering? Of course you would.

And yet we remain here, undaunted, clear-thinking, and resolute.

Simon, I love this paragraph. It reminds me that I am not alone, protected only by my own limited capacity to discern what is fake.

Thank you.

Warriorhun, as I said I don't really want to discuss the photographic evidence you offer, it is too much of a dispute at this point. [EDIT: to clarify, just in case, one more time: it is not personal and it is not because I know or believe that the pictures are real, I know there's a good chance they are fake, or staged. It is only because they're mostly not incontrovertibly so, I feel the need for different approaches]

Fbenario, the relation between the analysis and the evidence at this stage is consistent like the relation between the face of a poker player and his cards. I have a hard time being reassured or helped by such kind of consistency, even though there obviously must be some there.

Dear nonhocapito,

you say:

Warriorhun, as I said I will not be discussing with you the evidence you offer furthermore, it is too much of a dispute at this point.

First of all, thank you for your comment on the wide angle to put me into perspective. The treshold of fakery topic was enormous help, too. I was trying to look at the pictures from a simple peasant common sense. My opinion was, they are using a not perfected yet fakery program, and they are stupid. Quite the contrary. They are geniuses.

I bet you were expecting a new fakery program which shows pictures as you see it with human eye taken with a camera, no? So you will not be able to distinguish what is real and what is not, no? So you will be pressed much harder to find clues, no?

But any real wide angle picture looks as if it was just as un-real as a faked picture, no? So if you fake a wide angle picture with a program, it will look like a fake picture too, and you can not distinguish it from a real wide angle picture, no? So whatever bullshit picture they can give you, and you will think, looks totally fake, but because of the wide angle, and not because it is fake, no?

You expected fakery move towards more realistic, yes? They did the other way around: they used the accepted perception of real imagery to reach the same aim. Different approach, same result. All faked images looks like real: real, as in wide angle.

On the battle pictures: Lenin said there is a dialectic of revolution. I say, there is a dialectic of battle. Look at the battle pictures with pure military common sense (if it is not a contradiction in terms...). Most of you received basic traning in the army during your national service, no?

Okay, I will give you an up-date on my three Gaddhafi-scenarios: 1. All images are Media fakery, there is nothing going on in Libya. Gaddhafi is in the fakery game, Gaddhafi will stay in power. 2. All images are Media fakery, there is nothing going on in Libya, but the country will be invaded. Gaddhafi is in the fakery game, but he will be fucked over and executed Saddam-stile. 3. All images are media fakery, there is an insurrection going on with Western advisors. It will either lose, or will receive some serious Western help, like a possible invasion, then Gaddhafi executed Saddam style.
All the learning points of Libya will be later used in Iran. The "Crescent of Democracy"-plan do not stop.
And you expected some bif fakery event on the anniversary of 9/11? The "Crescent of Democracy"-plan it is. Destabilizing the Middle-East with Media fakery involved: big enogh? Honors 9/11 pretty well I think...

warriorhun wrote:Dear hoi.polloi,

you want something outrageous and impossible, something totally un-believable? Ok, I show restraint and post only one image from the millions.
It is Bahrain. Secular liberal democracy is not established there yet, that is why they are protesting in the first place.

Okay, the image:


Now, enter into google something like "bahrain women dress code". For me the first link which came up was this: http://www.asiarooms.com/en/travel-guid ... t%27s.html
Let me quote from this simple 2011 "Bahrain dos and don'ts" advice for tourists:

The women wear loose clothes that cover their hair, arms and legs...
However, modern western outfits like spaghetti tops or tops with deep necklines are not permitted. Women can choose from the half sleeves to the full sleeve tops.

So, in real life, the two girls would be raped and stoned to death, period.
Impossible image enough?

And I am not simply doubting modern imagery: I do not believe a thing these Media strangers show me as Media imagery, and I quit watching TV totally. I concentrate on real life instead, the real people and the real world around me. And I have to thank septemberclues for starting up my thinking in regard of this. TV is not reality. And I admit reality is fucked up: just not the way they show on TV.

Ok warriorhun, you're bias is starting to show.

Bahrain is actually quite secular and no, women dressing like those women, would not be "stoned and raped" as you so propagandally put it . Wow. For real? That's what you think of the ME, yet you are making claim upon claim of all the "fakery" going on there when you don't even seem to have a genuine grasp on the reality of the diversity of the ME? Ever been to north africa or the ME? The majority of the countries there are not at all in league with Saudi Arabia in terms of strictness around practice and/or enforcement of religiosity.

Here's some info to share with you on Bahrain:
from wikipedia (a sketchy source, especially since it contains one of those needs cleanup disclaimers at top, but this is a start):

The typical Bahraini woman dresses conservatively, uasually the daffah (عباية), a long loose-fitting black gown, is worn. However, there is no formal dress code in Bahrain, and foreigners as well as local women are seen wearing modern (but modest) outfits as well.

So clearly there is no "raping and stoning" of women not dressed in loose fitting black gowns. Also something to note is that there is a 15 percent population of Jewish and Christian there, which would separate it from the country you seem to be confusing it with, saudi arabia.

Now lastly on your Bahraini women waving bahraini flags, I would suggest that the pic is not from bahraini women in bahrain, but bahraini women parading/protesting whatever, somewhere else in the world. I once met a bahraini living in the states and she was as liberal and secular and skimpily dressed as they come.

Dear Guerrero,

noticed in your quote the "modern but modestly dressed"-thing?

Ok.
1. Stoned and raped was poetic exaggeration. What I meant is, they will not show themselves on the street of Bahrain like this, it is against the accepted norm.
2. The photo was credited to a male Western reporter's name. Not bloody likely, the girl's 12 brothers would linch him in a minute (poetic exaggeration )
3. The caption said it was taken in Bahrain. So the message of the picture is a lie.
4. I was thinking too that probably either it was taken somewhere in Europe, but the sunglass-wearing girl's top looks like a copy-paste job for me.

warriorhun wrote:3. The caption said it was taken in Bahrain. So the message of the picture is a lie.
4. I was thinking too that probably either it was taken somewhere in Europe, but the sunglass-wearing girl's top looks like a copy-paste job for me.

warriorhun, damn, I didn't want to discuss this and here I am again. Just to ask you this: Does any of the other 13 images in that series on [EDIT: protests in the muslim world] look staged or fake to you? And if most of them do NOT look so, doesn't this account for something in your book?

I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that the "insurgency" or the revolt can be faked or manipulated.
But do you honestly think that in all these north-african or middle-eastern countries people are indifferent, do not march in the streets ever, are not concerned, are not divided, are not (especially the younger ones) possibly manipulated into believing that violent action is a solution just like their european counterparts?
Are they not, right this very moment, trying to be part of, influence, impede the change they hear about and feel all around? Are they all so completely out of the world that they can all be conned, duped and used without consequences? Or do they represent at least one of the variables in this scenario, one that not always can be predicted and guided?

Even in Libya, where according to you nobody is allowed in or out and everything is sealed tight and yet a drastic change is being planned and realized, aren't the people a variable in their reactions, their concerns, their desperate need for action? Can we admit that not everything in this world is always under complete control, and that we have to allow to the others the same longing for clarity and justice that we ourselves have?

In other words: even if we prove that the media are faking every detail of what is happening, this does not authorize us to conclude, while things are still evolving, that nothing is really happening, or everything according to a given plan is happening. We are behind the fog of fakery, on the wrong side. Imagination is our most precious tool, and yet it is almost harmful if we use it to declare that things just "are" one way or the other.

warriorhun wrote:Dear Guerrero,

noticed in your quote the "modern but modestly dressed"-thing?

Ok.
1. Stoned and raped was poetic exaggeration. What I meant is, they will not show themselves on the street of Bahrain like this, it is against the accepted norm.
2. The photo was credited to a male Western reporter's name. Not bloody likely, the girl's 12 brothers would linch him in a minute (poetic exaggeration )
3. The caption said it was taken in Bahrain. So the message of the picture is a lie.
4. I was thinking too that probably either it was taken somewhere in Europe, but the sunglass-wearing girl's top looks like a copy-paste job for me.

Dear Warriorhun,

Imho, poetic exaggeration that is merely a reiteration of misguided and misleading stereotypes, delivers poetic justice to no one. So really, I'm not sure what your ultimate intentions are here.

My question to you now is, what article did you nab this pic from? Can I get a source to see the source in action myself?

I am not denying the existence of photo manipulation and/or substitution utilization in the media. I have seen it many times b4 - especially when it comes to articles relating to the middle east, arabs, and/or muslims. I mean, I have seen some crazy stupid fake shit that has been passed off as realness. Like remember the supposed iranian (little) speed boats that were supposedly rushing fast towards U.S. (large) military ships and were "menacely threatening" the US military war ships with their ummm balls and their umm call to the US military ship with their "menacing" voices saying their "threatening" words. I remember seeing/hearing this Fox news broadcast on it and as soon as I heard the supposed call, I called FAKE!!! I mean it was such a sad sorry fake I felt sorry for any bastard that believed that shite. Seriously. It was like a 12 year old's prank call faking a middle eastern accent. I called fake. My parents didn't believe me. I believe 3 days later there were little news blips about it being all faked. but of course, no big deal at all was made about the fact that 1) the US military was faking threats by iran, and 2) the US media picked up the story and ran with it. So yeah, I get media fakery. But I'd watch the thin lines you seem to tread.

Guerrero wrote: I believe 3 days later there were little news blips about it being all faked. but of course, no big deal at all was made about the fact that 1) the US military was faking threats by iran, and 2) the US media picked up the story and ran with it.

I remember well that episode with the "Iranian speed boats threatening the US war vessels". In fact, I was enthusiastic and full of hope(sadly, mistakenly) when I read somewhere that Ahmadinejad himself was accusing the US of 'faking the whole story with counterfeit images and audio'. Wish I could find that article again...

Wait a minute....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO9JHgtt ... ture=feedu

You know the way Fox showed the Lone Gunman before 9/11 and how the BBC aired Attack on London/Panorama one year before the 7/7 psyop - I do believe that we are getting the same thing again but only on a larger scale and I firmly believe the events in the ME are being orchestrated for that reason! We are getting "The Shape of things to Come"! Both Ghadaffi and Mubarek were having their finest hours on the world stage. Actors and Puppets that they are!

I know it's fanciful but "Europe on the verge of Revolution"? Quite possible!!

I've been quietly monitoring a certain group for a few years, I knew there would be trouble eventually! I was watching the proceedings in UK live yesterday!!

nonhocapito wrote:
I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that the "insurgency" or the revolt can be faked or manipulated.

I haven't looked at Egypt or Tunisia, but I am DEFINITELY suggesting that the Libya rebellion is a complete hoax. Just because it seems impossible, we can't discount it, if the evidence supports that conclusion. So far, I've seen no videos or photos that would convince me there is a 'rebellion' in Libya, and much to suggest that the situation is calm, including some anecdotal information from some Russian generals just back from there.

Here's a report from RT to support that. http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday ... LYryzLdagM People walking in the street hardly look anxious.

BTW, calls for Ghadaffi to 'step down' are pretty funny as he holds no governmental position and is merely the head of the Revolution.

Dear nonhocapito,

you say:

Does any of the other 13 images in that series on Bahrein (http://galeria.index.hu/kulfold/2011/02 ... _vilagban/ sic! Dear Guerrero, to your noble attention) look staged or fake to you? And if most of them do NOT look so, doesn't this account for something in your book?

In my book it works like this: if in a series I find one faked image, I suspect there will be more faked. If I find more, I suspect all are faked, and that means I accept the rest as real only if there is evidence that they are real. Until proven real I treat them as fake by default, even if I can not point out the fakery details: I will suspect I have just overlooked them. Maybe not scientific proof, but foolproof: simple basic peasant common sense regarding credibility.

Bahreini girls photo is one. Here comes the second from the series you linked from Index: the 4th in the series, courtesy of Yasser Al-zayyat. Before I link it, a little musing:

I did not suspect there is a strong NS movement in Kuwait. I mean, the whole neonazi thing is rather about white race pride mixed with primitive football-huliganism plus lots of beer.
Skinhead Arabs seem like a contradiction in terms.
I mean, neonazi Arab skinheads may yearn for freedom too, but protesting for a secular liberal democracy in Kuwait? I guess this is what diversity is about...
Die Fahne hoch! But, der Fuehrer mann is rolling in his grave: these Arabs in Kuwait Szulajbija city, waving the Swastika flag of the Third Reich are hardly Aryans...



I would die for a video of the event: just to hear them shout "White Power" and "Oi, Oi, Oi" in Arabic!
Maybe they are just protesting for more blond, white hookers to spend their oil millions on...

According to my book, it is your (or the Media's, that I allow) turn now to convince me of the credibility of the remaining ones...

warriorhun wrote:Skinhead Arabs seem like a contradiction in terms.

Yeah I was equally surprised when in Chiapas (San Cristobal) I saw with my own eyes a group of young indios walking around with big swastikas on their t-shirts. I asked them about it, and they said it was "a cool looking t-shirt". The place was loaded with Israeli tourists, and I suspect some of them must have given away these t-shirts as a prank, cause they got a kick out of seeing indios wearing swastikas.

But really, I so knew you would stop there and lazily do nothing else but exercise irony on arabs with swastikas. Take some google time and do some research!
How is a swastika flag a sign of fakery? Couldn't it be a sign of someone holding a swastika flag? Couldn't we be in presence of some form of absurd protest propaganda, political confusion, "anti-semitic" statements, statements against certain regimes being like nazi regimes? Thing is, unfortunately, the swastika banner is a well-known sign of the infiltration of nazi movements in muslim crowds, perfect tool of the Mossad or similar entities to make any protest and criticism of Zionism ineffectual. See this for reference.

Bottom line: Sorry but, not a sign of fakery.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12673956

I don't know which is sillier. The text or the video.

"Casualties were reported as 50 tanks and 120 pick-up trucks launched three attacks on the rebel-held town 50km (30 miles) west of the capital, Tripoli."

The government now uses pick up trucks???? How did that Brit get there behind the lines? Since when does a plane drop ONE bomb and then turn around and drop another. Note that a guy was knocked down by the bomb but not hurt.

And then the final line

Col Gaddafi has refused to cede power in the past, arguing that he has no official position and therefore it is impossible for him to resign.

Whoever is running this hoax has a wicked sense of humor.