FUKUSHIMA nuke/tsunami scare 11-03-11

[nonhocapito]

Can we perhaps stop speculating about what's going on here, analyze what we've learned so far, and maybe somehow rise above the attitude of mere skepticism we've taken? Maybe this is a warning for us to be less trivial and more concrete in what we're saying, if that's at all possible ...

I wished you showed me how! But isn't skepticism useful? Doesn't it make the things we eventually pick up as clues stronger and more self-evident?
I understand this need of acting all together in accord as we research for clues. But I think these early stages of open debate and speculation are important too, since not only we all have our ways to get to the complete picture, but the reader of tomorrow does as well, and he or she might appreciate seeing that we scratched our heads for a while there, since we are not "insiders" and we are not a cult, neither we do respond to the input of a fatherly figure like an Alex Jones: we can only base what we know on what we are shown by the media, no?

Once we feel we are somehow convinced of the boundaries of the present fakery, and we also have a sense of the plot that could be behind it, maybe we can move on researching documents and other elements that can help pin-point the map of the particular perpetrators who might be behind this. Does this make any sense?

BTW, I knew 2011 was going to be a busy year, but... Alexandria-Giffords-Domodemovo-Egypt-Libya-Japan and it's only march. No wonder there can be all these smudges in the fakery jobs: they know the public will soon be distracted by something else, so who cares anymore if Mariouma Fekry existed or Giffords is recovering or her "killer" was a patsy? Boy my head is spinning...

[Questron]

For some reason this March 14th reactor explosion looks like WTC "collapsing" in reverse or something. Look at the pieces that fall of the top... and the "fingers" of smoke/debris that jut out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_N-wNFSGyQ

[hoi.polloi]

I see your point, nonhocapito. Yes, it is going to be a busy year - even for fakery believers like us. The world truly is changing.

[nonhocapito]

They've been using HAARP for years now, in many ways, its not just an "earthquake machine" or just for weather modification. Only now would be the time to unleash hell.

I know there is all this evidence surrounding Haarp or similar activities. The evidence suggests that the military is involved in this, but we have fifty years of much stronger evidence for the military involvement in the use of nuclear weapons, and yet not much certainty of their reality.

But I don't know, of course, so I am open to the idea that the earthquake machine might exist.

But there is another element that cautions me from believing it.

Just like Kubrick before 1969 and the Apollo landings, before 2001 Steven Spielberg was filming "A minority report" a movie that like others, but probably more impertinently, underlines the features of a future police state where the technological control over the people blends with a metaphysical control over their future crimes.

The movie has other features, among them a one-eyed illuminati symbolism that runs all through it, starting with a drug dealer at the beginning of the movie who quotes the eternal quote: "in a land where everyone is blind, the one-eyed man is king".

But I think, retrospectively, considering that in those years these Hollywood big shots were certainly aware of, if not involved in, what was being prepared for September 2001, "A Minority report" alludes to something else, something that was certainly on their minds just about then: the fact that, just like in the movie, a "ban" was being imposed over "murder". In the movie murders are only enacted by the pre-cogs, are projected images, but dealt with as if they are reality. All weapons we see do not kill but only are meant to "hurt" and subjugate (and after 2001, IRL came the "tasers").

The movie does not mention any other crime: conspiracy against the government, white collar crimes, military violations, whatever: only murders are fought against "because of the way they tamper with the metaphysical fabric that binds all us humans together" and blah blah.

In other words, a key for these big masonic-corporate-zionist fakery plots, as the research have showed plenty, could be that they cannot require murder of innocent people. Murder is banned. That's a precondition to get all these important people, these professionals with their nice lives, and involve them in a game that might cause them to have scruples or fears to join otherwise.

So what happens if you involve all these professionals of fakery in a crime that actually causes, not just profits from, the death of thousands of people? Is the game changed so much that they can accept now what was not required for them to accept in 2001?

[Uranus]

Sorry Guys, maybe we should split this thread.

I'm tired of providing hard evidence and see it buried under long-wording commentary and discussion.

Its very interesting to read some ideas and to discuss, what really happened and why,
but on the other hand I very much like to find the fakery and proove it with pictures or vids.

[maiklasLTU]

Completely agree with Uranus

[nonhocapito]

Sorry Guys, maybe we should split this thread.

I'm tired of providing hard evidence and see it buried under long-wording commentary and discussion.

I think your last hard evidence was about pictures of the Fuck-U-shima plant, to which it was answered that there are many of such plants in that location apparently, so unfortunately until we are sure which picture is representing which plant, there's not much else to say about it...

as to the loco steve picture or others, I am sure everything that is hard evidence in them will be picked up, nobody has interest in "burying" anything. Personally I don't find the cars to be that unscathed or shiny clean nor the lamppost to be transparent. But holding back my observations is actually a way to avoid polemics and let the research go ahead, not a way to "bury" that part of the discussion.
As I said elsewhere, I feel there is sometimes a rush to pick pictures or videos and declare them fake, as if in a race against the news channels, plus making this declaration of fakery a dividing issue... a thread only made of declarations of fakery over pictures could also be frustrating or one-dimensional.
If you can put up with it, I think the "mixed" threads with both commentary and fakery analysis are quite a good, balanced feature of this forum.

[Uranus]

non ho capito = i did not understand

There are TWO Fuck nuclear plants: Fuck I and Fuck II.

Supposedly Fuck I have all the problems, so all pictures relating to the actual "desaster" should come JUST from this plant, right ?
If pictures are showed which do not look alike this could be
a) a little mistake of the newspaper to have used the wrong pics
b) or something else

My point is: There are obviously no real actual desaster-prooving pictures available, therefore they google whatever pic they want to show.
Some spend some more time and put explanatory text on the pic and also show, that the pic was taken before 11.03. which make this a more serious source, than others who mix up Fuck I with Fuck II and even a much further north located different plant.

If there are no actual pics avl, this might have several reasons:
a) nobody took pics because they wait for GOOGLE to send some Sat pic to them
b) nobody has a camera at hand to make a pic
c) the nuclear energy has erased all electronic and digital data
d) the desaster did not take place and therefore you cannot make a picture of it (only photoshop something)

Did I make my point a little bit clearer?
No matter how many Nuke Plants are out there, supposedly ONLY ONE of them (Fuck I) should have problems,
so normally only disaster pics of the BLOODY SAME PLACE should be circulated, if not then ... ?

Sorry for getting impatient, there are so many stupid people out there in the real world,
I did expect, that at least here we are more or less on the same road (even with diff opinions, but fact based)

[nonhocapito]

non ho capito = i did not understand (... )

Thanks for the explanation about Fukushima, I admit I still have to learn all the details of the stories we are fed, my bad.

Just to clarify, I do strongly believe that the fuck-u-shima story is FAKE, like 100% fake, firstly because I just cannot accept that a Japanese nuclear plant facing the pacific was not designed to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and secondly for all the psy-op consequences that it is having.

Also the videos shown so far just do not make the cut, and the ones showing the explosions are too bad quality to look like anything. But if news entities who are always in a rush misplace pictures or captions, I wouldn't call that hard evidence.

As to the nickname, it's not a coded message you're revealing to the world, I guess it just stands for me not being sure of almost anything, especially when I am told I have to see things one way or the other.
To each his road, my friend, to each his road.

[nonhocapito]

OK, in the effort to be more helpful to the research and to stop scratching my head, here is a post about fakery in a video. After which I'll shut up for a couple of days and let others mark the pace.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12726783

Honestly I wasn't even looking for clues, this one just offered itself to me clearly. The reporter supposedly standing in the middle of a destroyed village, talking about rescue teams 'looking for bodies' is in fact in front of a green screen.



As he waves his arms around pointing non-existing things, we can see the green halo around him.
Oh, boy.

[simonshack]

Dear Uranus and Nonhocapito,

I think Uranus brings up a good point in saying, basically, that once we detect a consistent pattern of absurdities/aberrations such as with this Fukushima (and tsunami) imagery, we should be able to affirm decisively that skullduggery is at play. There comes a point when keeping the door open to 'ifs' and 'buts' (in the name of 'cautious skepticism' and 'investigative deontology') becomes absurd in itself. Having said that, I do understand and appreciate nonhocapito's rigorous way of going about the research; that is, as long as this rigour doesn't in itself require to stretch our belief system in 'the other direction', i.e. to apply the benefit of doubt with unduly far-fetched, near-irrational speculations as to the 'possibly innocent occurence' of multiple, inexplicable aberrations. As I see it, for someone to pronounce "this is not proof of anything" does require the same level of rationality, responsibility and evidence as the counterpart submitting its case.

So after these few thoughts, allow me to submit another brief analysis of a frame from an alleged amateur video of the Japan tsunami.


Source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgkXj-2p ... re=related

Firstly though, let me just generally state my now consolidated impression that, in most 'amateur tsunami videos' I've watched so far, we have very much the same, unique, smudgy 'acquarell texture' of 9/11 (Camera Planet) memory. It is no mean detail, since it is by no means a common feature of your average, consumer video camera.

The analysis I propose above is quite simple, really:
- The three cars cast a strong shadow on the dark sea surface. This means, of course, strong sunlight - not an overcast, cloudy sky.
- With this in mind, all the objects present in the picture should imperatively cast a similar, strong shadow. They don't.
- Last but not least, I have not seen once in my entire lifetime pitch black water spray. This is patently absurd - full stop.

[nonhocapito]

Dear Uranus and Nonhocapito,

I think Uranus brings up a good point in saying, basically, that once we detect a consistent pattern of absurdities/aberrations such as with this Fukushima (and tsunami) imagery, we should be able to affirm decisively that skullduggery is at play. There comes a point when keeping the door open to 'ifs' and 'buts' (in the name of 'cautious skepticism' and 'investigative deontology') becomes absurd in itself.

Allow me one last point, Simon, one that probably will disappoint you. Then as i said I'll take a short leave of absence: I see at play here a slight, mild, tiny tendency to ask for (or expect) consensus.

I argue clues that I think are not very strong, because I assume it can be helpful to the research, and for intellectual honesty. Of course I can be wrong with my observations and if I so, too bad for me. But I don't think it is ever wrong to express, with arguments, the opinion one has that a clue that "proves beyond any doubt etc etc" might not be such.
If those clues were offered with less certainty, maybe I wouldn't feel the need to test that certainty. But we all tend to pat our backs a lot, you know. We should be able to take counter-arguments with equal ease then.

Bottom line, questioning a clue or the other has nothing to do with one's general belief in the veracity of a story.
If one is to say "this picture, this detail does not prove fakery so clearly" it doesn't automatically mean that one considers the whole thing NOT to be fake. Personally I am always careful to state that i am only arguing a detail offered to me, not the whole story.

Do we care to be always right? We're not the pope after all.

[Uranus]

Ok, nonhocapito, have a few nice "holidays". After "scratching your head" so exhaustively you deserve a time off.

Unfortunately your video is a perfect example of a non-fake video. the shadows especially after 0:55 match perfectly,
which would not be possible in a studio environment. My impression overall is, that the man really stands in this area.

simon, thanks for your help. If you scroll your video a few seconds further you will find that the water while crossing the road
makes strange effects when it passes the middle white line of the road. Probably the software assumes the white line to be
something like a step which would cause some distortions.

[Heiwa]

I would expected that the estuary would first empty itself totally prior to the first tsunami wave top enters it!

Thus the empty estuary would suddenly fill up by one big wave getting higher and higher or taller as the estuary gets narrower and shallower and it - the wave - would spill over the sea wall built along the river and out on the road behind as it - the wave - progresses up the estuary. Behind the wave top is a hump and no water would spill over the sea wall there.

The whole scene looks very strange - with the fishing boats falling over the wall - and not knocking the wall down.

After the first tsunami wave have progressed up the estuary it would then flow back out again - the estuary gets empty again ... and a second tsunami wave arrives.

[hoi.polloi]

I see everyone's point of view here - Uranus, nonhocapito, Simon and maiklas and respect it in this case.

This is a complex subject and I don't think we have to be completely certain of anything. But seeing as how the rest of the Internet rejects the premise of fakery, we should be bold about exploring it as much as we can - as far as we can - and we don't have to be the pope about our speculations.



Allow me to submit - though this picture looks fake in general simply based on the absurdly low quality - that the shadows are completely washed out by one of those gray skies but the shadows in the water are caused by the way the water absorbs the light and have more to do with the way the cars actually cause cavities in the water as they come over the crest of the wave. (Note the car not yet over the wave which does not present a "shadow" because it is not creating a divot in the water.)

This doesn't mean it isn't fake - only that their physics models may have some peculiar non-real-world "logic". Please comment.