Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

nonhocapito wrote: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.

And then of course there is this.

U.S. Navy office building, Coronado Island, San Diego


Decatur, Alabama, Methodist retirement home

Segol claims the swastika shape of Wesley Acres in Decatur pays homage to the German scientists who came to nearby Huntsville after World War II and designed the rockets that put Americans on the moon.

gwynned wrote: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.

Another VERY interesting video by RT here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FGrrGTrQaQ
The title? "Wag the Dog"!

The subject being the fact that reporters are "blowing out of proportions" everything that happens in Libya, to create a bias against Gaddafi, accusing of crimes the Libyan army that fights to hold on to the country infrastructure and resources. (This is the Yugoslavian script, word by word, actually).

My impression is that this RT video is probably closer to the truth than other interpretations. Which means, though, that the Libyan civil war is NOT a "complete" hoax, it is not entirely staged: things are happening, but the version sold to the west is faked and exaggerated, which in turn can mean a real risk for Libya, if the west decides to "intervene".

This also means, and I think the RT video above makes pretty clear why, that reporters are actually deployed on site, and as I have been trying to say for a while, this is necessary even if the final goal is one of fakery and propaganda.

Albeit lodged in the safety of the "green zone" of Tripoli, these glorious reporters are strongly pressured to provide usable, exciting material to their media channel/agency of reference, because such channels still have an urgent need to make audience, sponsors, money. And if the reporters aren't able to come up with exciting stuff, they can always make self-referential articles like this one, to paint themselves as the victims of a brutal regime - and earn their buck.

ps. also for reference; this video by RT, about the presence of foreign forces on the ground prior the starting of this "planned" insurrection, and how this would be a battle "for oil" (which, well, they said about Iraq too, but after a few years for some reason "Israel" sounded like a better explanation). An interview goes on while some footage is shown, footage that could or could not have fake/staged parts. But, funny how we are still incredibly far from having anyone being able to say "who" (what "foreign forces") would be behind this "insurrection", this "battle for oil", this "whatever".

If we can all agree at least for the moment that most if not all of the Libyan conflict is staged, we then have to ask what is the purpose and who benefits.

The obvious answer is that the PTB are ramping up events ahead of an invasion or some other type of involvement or regime change activity. But what is actually happening?

SAS officers and the Brits leave embarassed, by their ineptness.
Hillary admits that RT and Al Jazeera are beating us in the media war.
RT reveals mainstream media lied about airstrikes.
The completely divergent reporting makes a mockery of accurate reporting.

I am suggesting that there is a media conspiracy here whose purpose is to expose the PTB. I am guessing that the conspirators include the Russians and the Libyans at the very least, and perhaps 'white hats' within the US government.

I've noticed something else unusual, namely that some of the people we love to hate, like the Hillarys and the W's are finding themselves in embarassing positions. Bush can't seem to leave the country and Hillary made those strange admissions about the media. So far, the most interesting is the case of one of MY favorites, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld.

About a week ago, Jon Stewart grilled him on the Daily Show. Shortly thereafter he appears on some obscure comedy show where he is laughed at and asked repeatedly, "Are you a lizard?" A question which he never answers but does at one point say, "My granddaughter is in the audience." Don't believe me? I'll send you the links.

Now this.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/rumsfeld-posts ... 5-051.html

Donald Rumsfeld has resurrected a bizarre gift from Saddam Hussein: a video that purports to show female Syrian soldiers biting the heads off snakes, and a male comrade stabbing a puppy to death.

The only explanation I have is that someone else is doing his own PR these days.

Dear nonhocapito,

you say,

But really, I so knew you would stop there and lazily do nothing else but exercise irony on arabs with swastikas...
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.

But really, I so knew you would stop at that particular swastika flag, explaining it away as "anti-semitic" protest against zionist-connected oppressing regimes, and the Arabic world's historical sympathy with the nazi regime.
While you are at it, please tell me why the flag to the left of it, although it is daytime and it is held in the same angle, and it is just as colored nazi regalia, can not be seen as clearly-and of course, the fire in the background could not distort the colors. Now, swastkas have clear political meaning, but what is the meaning of total white flags, lots of them? They can not be placards, no writing on them. And before you say they are placards: what is the point of placard if no-one can read them but one meter from it?


Now, Kuwait regime, where there is big oil revenue paid out to every adult male citizen, is hardly viewed as oppressive by the locals. They are quite patriotic people, and they are loyal to the emir. The Gulf war suffered together again points to that direction. And it is not an anti-zionist protest, it is protest for democracy. Why would you care about democracy when the regime, led by the emir you like, pays for your living? And if the non-citizen workforce would protest, they wouldn't, because they will be shipped home in 10 minutes and new ones take their place.
Now, you did hear that nazi movement was especially popular in Iraq? Berlin-Baghdad connection? If I remember well, some officers even wanted a fascist coup in Iraq. In Kuwait, at least after that invasion, I think they would scorn on any kind of iraqi connection-and I agree, this point is the weakest of my arguments.

warriorhun wrote:But really, I so knew you would stop at that particular swastika flag, explaining it away as "anti-semitic" protest against zionist-connected oppressing regimes, and the Arabic world's historical sympathy with the nazi regime.

OK, sorry if I sounded a bit arrogant in my previous message to you, Warriorhun, it is just because it is so damn difficult to make my position clear with you, and move on from these equivocal pictures where, it seems, you really want us to be stuck.

Quickly the thing you call a fire in the back are the lights of a truck, probably a police truck that marks the end of the demonstration. This also helps you to see how this is probably a very minor march, not representative of what the majority of the people in Kuwait feel or do not feel. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Hungarian caption also talks about a "couple of hundred" people.
Besides if this was a neo-nazi thing, neo-nazi movements are not spontaneous. They never are. But as I said it could also be quite the opposite, an attack on regimes that are deemed to be comparable to nazis.

The very same banner is clearly visible in this video, also from Kuwait.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Tjb5iwIe0
It shows protests of "stateless Arabs" who live in Kuwait without citizenship or basic rights.


Another shot of the same rally is visible on this article.
And actually, i find an explanation for the swastika on this other article.

Stateless residents in Kuwait holding a banner comparing the country's Committee for the Stateless to that of Hitler's regime march in As-Salbiya February 19, 2011. Kuwait state security forces were out in force to prevent the demonstration from becoming violent. Kuwaiti police fired teargas at hundreds of stateless Arabs demanding citizenship in a second day of protests in the village outside the OPEC member's capital on Saturday, a human rights activist said. The banner reads: "Committee for the Stateless".

As to those white banners, I don't know. Probably there is some home-made writing on them that got lost in the pixels.

Dear nonhocapito,

you say:

OK, sorry if I sounded a bit arrogant in my previous message to you, Warriorhun, it is just because it is so damn difficult to make my position clear with you, and move on from these equivocal pictures where, it seems, you really want us to be stuck.

Do not worry about your style if you think I am wrong in something, point it out as "arrogantly" as you wish, we are not little girls to worry about whose "feelings are hurt" if we point out a possible mistake. With the exception of accusing my mother with indecent acts, there is no other limit on criticising my comments. Let me tell you, I enjoy our correspondence immensely, and sometimes one of your or other people's comments can give me food for thought for a whole day.

I understand your different approach, but I do not want to be "stuck" with the pictures: I simply wanted to solve their riddle first, because figuring out the extent of the fakery-especially if all Libyan ones are fake as my theory claims-that would be a very-very strong help in speculating out what is behind. And trying to find clues of fakery in the Libyan images is hardly hijacking the topic or hardly alien from septemberclues' spirit or objectives, if you think on it.
Let me give you my basic approach to the Libyan or Middle East revolution imagery, and the reason why I seem obsessed with it: (I quote my credo):

1. We live in an information age.
2. In an information age, having information on real events and live happenings from trusted sources, is not just simply time-critical in decision making, but an outright decisive factor in winning warfare, in realising economic gains, in achieving political agenda.
3. If you had such information, would you share it with every peasant who has a TV subscription?
4. No, you won't.
5. Therefore the Media is not doing it either.
6. So, what is the media doing instead?
7. Projecting images of a non-existent "reality" only, altered and faked images, in order to provoke thought patterns in the viewers, provoke emotions and opinions in the viewers, and incite mass reactions.

This is my basic opinion and approach to the Media and to all Media images, including the Libyan ones: and my credo is non-negotiable.

As I highlighted the important points, I view Libyan news and images through them. Real news and real images of the Libyan happenings would contain not only such information which would betray the propaganda efforts of both sides, but as I pointed out regarding the "rebel pictures", the real images would contain such decisive information which would mean life or death for the real people on such pictures. Did you do national service in army too, did you receive basic training, so my claims regarding the "battle/airstrike pictures" make sense? Whatever, these are my reasons to assume all Libyan images are faked, and what I wanted to check is my claim is valid based on the existing images. I believe they faked images imitating wide angle pictures, because you can not tell a faked wide angle picture from a real and legit wide angle picture, because both looks very fake.

Before I come up for a last time with two pictures at the end of this comment, as you proposed to discuss theory on Gaddhafi and the events, I comply.
I allow the Tripoli Hilton is probably swarming with Western reporters, in that I have to say you were right. But the lies of reporters being victims of the regime's intimidation , plus Gaddhafi's opposite lie that reporters are not restricted, according to my theory means this: the reporters are frustrated that they can not move around without official Libyan guides into everywhere they want, and Gaddhafi wants them to stay in the Tripoli Hilton. In all probability, local contacts may take pictures for them, but no way are they sharing them with us instead of their own countries' intelligence. These are not used as basis for image altering, because an altered image may contain some overlooked clue which the enemy will notice and use.
I quote myself from another topic, on Gaddhafi and "pro-democracy rebels" and the excepted beautiful secular liberal democracy for Libya, just to sit again on my favourite horse and chew again on my favourite bone, my "Crescent of Democracy"-plan theory: I wonder what your opinion will be:

If Gaddhafi falls, that means he and his tribe is out of power. The resulting system will be called "democracy", but believe me, those "pro-democracy rebels" could not care less about democracy. They want their tribe to take the power. So if Gaddhafi goes, the strongest tribe-with Western backing I suppose-will take the power, and will consolidate it with cutting a deal with the main other tribes and share it with them in exchange for their support. "Democracy", if the Westerners press it, will look like this: there will be Party A, Party B, and Party C to vote on. Party A will equal Tribe A, Party B will mean Tribe B, and so forth. All Triba A members will vote on Party A, all Tribe B members will vote on Party B, and so on. Party A will cut a deal with Party B and C in the above mentioned manner. Easy.

And please allow me just this once to return to Nazi Kuwait and those white banners. Perhaps you will forgive me for me wanting to discuss them with you if you will see what I am on about. The first picture is from the link you provided:


To help the comparison, I attach the original for the last time:


Same place, same banners, same time. And no, they were not turning back, the banners are in exactly the same position, only the swastika flag and the left one to it moved about. Can you explain the colored banners/white banners discrepancy, or can we say this is a clue of media altering/faking reality, and especially fakery going on regarding these images? (And the car on the second picture does not have a front numberplate, just for you.)

nonhocapito wrote:But, funny how we are still incredibly far from having anyone being able to say "who" (what "foreign forces") would be behind this "insurrection", this "battle for oil", this "whatever".

Are you sure about that? Those of us who think Wikileaks is:

(a) a CIA-front organization, and

(b) all the document dumps are an attempt by the US to manipulate the perceptions of the entire world all at once,

could easily conclude (as I posted here somewhat recently), that the US might have decided they wanted a new set of controlled governments (replacing the old crop of dictators) in these countries, and while they're at it, go ahead and
insert more US troops in strategic places.

That is why the coming US 'humanitarian intervention' in Libya will put troops in Eastern Libya, where they can control the oil fields. I think the US planned all of everything that is going on, and it is taking place exactly as the US intended.

(If the US isn't in full control, then why hasn't Mubarek been hung upside down by the Egyptian populace, like Mussolini and Ceaucescu? He's obviously under full US protection, and there is not likely to be any PROVABLE great mass civilian protest movement in existence in Egypt.)

The blurring style of all these pictures seems odd to me. Like overly stylized.

hoi.polloi wrote:The blurring style of all these pictures seems odd to me. Like overly stylized.

The fakery is starting to be noticed elsewhere and makes me suspect that the criminal wants to be caught. Otherwise, why so obvious?

gwynned wrote:

hoi.polloi wrote:The blurring style of all these pictures seems odd to me. Like overly stylized.

The fakery is starting to be noticed elsewhere and makes me suspect that the criminal wants to be caught. Otherwise, why so obvious?

You know, I remember while I was looking at supposed footage of a tornado as reported by the news, and one individual found something kind of odd about the footage she was seeing, it looked fake to her, and I said to her that "it very well could be fake". And she said "What? no the news wouldn't show us fake footage". I could have gone further with the conversation but I didn't, as it was merely a small experiment for me, delving into the minds of the masses, of mass psychology.

So its really simple gwynned, at this point I believe its because the perps know that the very idea of the media giving fake news is unthinkable in the minds of the masses, who's minds are so far gone from reality, who's perception of reality is so distorted, that they can no longer tell the difference between reality & fiction, as reality and fiction has been blurred, creating a form of surrealism. Much of what we see & here in the media could be all fake, trivial or otherwise. So they can be as blatant as they wish, they know that there is no amount of bull shit that the masses won't believe in.

Dcopymope wrote:
You know, I remember while I was looking at supposed footage of a tornado as reported by the news, and one individual found something kind of odd about the footage she was seeing, it looked fake to her, and I said to her that "it very well could be fake". And she said "What? no the media wouldn't show us fake footage". I could have gone further with the conversation but I didn't, as it was merely a small experiment, delving into the minds of the masses, of mass psychology.

So its really simple gwynned, at this point I believe its because the perps know that the very idea of the media giving fake news is unthinkable in the minds of the masses, who's minds are so far gone from reality, who's perception of reality is so distorted, that they can no longer tell the difference between reality & fiction, as reality and fiction has been blurred, creating a form of surrealism. Much of what we see & here in the media could be all fake, trivial or otherwise. So they can be as blatant as they wish, they know that there is no amount of bull shit that the masses won't believe in.

You are right, of course, and it is amazing really how the mind is so scripted it screams 'do not compute' when something extraordinary is presented to them. And so I'm going to present an extraordinary idea to you. The usual suspects are no longer in control of the media. I think we are witnessing a real time version of V for Vendetta, only our Mr. V is using words and humor to slay the enemy not swords. I say this because I have observed of late that some of our least favorite people have found themselves in embarassing situations. Hillary just said RT and Al Jazeera were doing a better job than the US mainstream media. She was uncharacteristically candid about the state of US media. Rumsfeld was on an obscure radio talk show and was repeatedly asked if he was a lizzard. Governor of Wisconsin zapped by a prank call.

If I am correct, Mr. V is turning up the heat by making the stories more and more ridiculous and implausible and the photos more and more fake until finally the lightbulbs go off in people's heads how they've been manipulated for so long.

Impossible? it would make an amazing story, don't you think?

Spoke with someone earlier just back from Malta - I asked did he see anything interesting! He said it's crawling with US and Canadian fighter jets!

Dear nonhocapito and All,

1. BBC reporters tortured in Libya by government troops? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12695077
2. France recognises the rebels as legit new Libyan government? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 33895.html

I wonder what is your take on it.

My view on no. 1: BBC team tried to sneak from Tripoli Hilton to the frontline without official Libyan guide, and got caught. Libyan troops, as I predicted, of course treated them as spies. It is good to know there is intelligent life on this planet sometimes. They probably received a good kicking/beating, then after interrogation were sent home. Now they are crying their heart out with wild torture stories, instead of thanking the Libyans for not killing them. Ungrateful bastards.

On no. 2: if the new official rebel government asks for intervention against the evil dictator to save the people, will the West be so cruel to deny them a helping invasion?

Forwarded from a friend today)



Whoops Reuters!


http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=451

Dear All,

(nonhocapito, sorry for sounding like a stuck LP, but I can not resist posting the funniest pictures):

AFP - Roberto Schmidt: A rebel tries to reload his machine gun during the battle for Ras Lanuf!



The only possible explanation lies in the following conversation:
-Sayid, you have the biggest brain among us pro-democracy rebels with that big, egg-shaped head of yours! Surely you must know how to reload the machine gun?
-Why, Omar, you see my head in wide angle, so fuck you! Of course I know: you just put new ammunition into the spent chainlinks and Insallah, the machine-gun is reloaded!

It gets even crazier: AFP - Roberto Schmidt, some anti-aircraft machinegunning: you do not even have to reload, surely the airplanes will fall out of the sky if you click your machinegun without ammo and shout loud BOOM while lying on your back:



Based on the videos, I can give you the pro-democracy rebels guide for air strikes:
1. MIGs bomb the desert, they do not patrol the road. When a bomb goes off in your city, cheer: of course it did not kill your family (or maybe you cheer because it did?).
2 Do not run for cover, that is for cowards. Wave your AK in the middle of the road and shout insults: the MIG does not come back to machinegun the road.
3. If you run for cover, jump into the ditch one metre from the vehicle, because the MIGs will see it's empty and will not bomb it. If they do, Allah's invisible force-field will defend you from shrapnel.
4. If there is a bombing, stay on the road visibly in big numbers waving AKs, the MIG will not dare to bomb your group: it is probably illegal in Libya to bomb more than one people.
5. Use your Technical as stationery fire platform, do not confuse the pilots with movement. If you shoot in the air, shoot in every direction, do not aim before the MIGs: the air is big, one bullet in the opposite direction may get lucky.

The Libyan rebel pictures and videos would make von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu to reconsider their laws of war: these images are evidence that this is how war real works.
So, this is how war works in fucking Simland.
Trained to war as these fake sim rebels behave on the images, it would be a long way to win against professional troops, so I would sing:

"Its a long way to Ras Lanuf, its a long way to go,
Its a long way to Ras Lanuf to the virgin huri I know,
Goodbye shores of Tripoli, goodbye Tahrir sqare,
Its a long, long way to Ras Lanuf,
But my virgin huri's right there!"