FUKUSHIMA nuke/tsunami scare 11-03-11

[hoi.polloi]

The strange picture above is supposed to be the other power plant the Dai Ni.



Fukushima (1) Daiichi was the first one prominently in the news - the one alleged to have exploded.
Fukushima (2) Dai Ni (illustrated above) is the latter one, apparently in less simulated danger.

[brianv]

The strange picture above is supposed to be the other power plant the Dai Ni.



Fukushima (1) Daiichi was the first one prominently in the news - the one alleged to have exploded.
Fukushima (2) Dai Ni (illustrated above) is the latter one, apparently in less simulated danger.

Daiichi means 11 in Japanese, if I'm not mistaken! DaiNi 12, DaiSan 13.

[simonshack]

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

Indeed, Hoi

"Some peculiar non-real-world logic" sums it up well.
I'd appreciate your take on the black water spray. Does it look real to you - or indeed to anyone else on this forum?

[simonshack]

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.

Nonhocapito, you wrote:

"I see at play here a slight, mild, tiny tendency to ask for (or expect) consensus" ..."Do we care to be always right? We're not the pope after all."

No - and I was hoping you wouldn't bring up this angle of the debate again. In fact, I was tempted to add in my last post something to this effect - ' Let it be clear that I am not suggesting we should all pat ourselves on the backs' - but ultimately left it out, deeming such a disclaimer unnecessary. I realize now it wasn't and yes, I'm a little bit disappointed that this is how you interpreted my thoughts; but not to worry, I will just try a little harder to express my views in simpler words. Let me use my last tsunami analysis ("SUN DOES NOT LIE") to this end:

- The pitch black water spray (see above post): I personally see it as patently absurd - and makes that video rationally undefendable as authentic. The only possible explanation I can think of is that it's the unfortunate consequence of an asinine 'artistic licence' conceded to its creator. I have no better explanation at the moment. Now, and here is what I'm getting at: if someone should offer that "the water spray was blackened by some TV producer for more dramatic effect" - "or the spray was blackened due to video compression" - I would still say that's absurd. Or if someone offers that "Japanese seawater is really really very black" - I would still say that's absurd. I believe this doesn't make me dogmatic, stubborn or pope-like. I am only looking for a plausible, credible explanation.

See, I really hope we can put aside this recurring, slightly irksome insinuations that any given researcher implicitely demands to be dead right on the money whenever he/she shares any material of relevance. To be sure, questioning & peer-reviewing every research contribution is of course essential to sound empirical/scientific research. But as you rightly mention 'intellectual honesty' -something that must grace all of our discussions - I do find it frustrating at times (as Uranus pointed out) when relevant issues are simply ignored and left untackled by the little team that we are. We should get better (myself included) at responding to/and assessing each other's contributions. As a case in point, I will reiterate this question - and please note that it is only a question - which I humbly submitted a few pages ago on page 6 of this thread:

Ok - so I'm no tsunami expert. I am posting this for real tsunami experts to explain to us what we are seeing here. Anyone?

I just happened to see this clip on Italian TV last night - but they showed only about 5 seconds of this spectacular footage...Why?
Of course, non-tsunami experts are also welcome to submit their take on this issue. The question being: is it plausible that - in the real world - the entire water-level raises by the visible amount in only 3.5 seconds? Even the Pope himself is welcome to answer this question.

[hoi.polloi]

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

Indeed, Hoi

"Some peculiar non-real-world logic" sums it up well.
I'd appreciate your take on the black water spray. Does it look real to you - or indeed to anyone else on this forum?

It doesn't look real to me. Japan's beaches are pale yellow from what I recall and no amount of white sand will turn water black, as far as I know. Is this some implicit visual relationship to the 'oil spill' hoax of last year? We can only wonder.

[Uranus]

Simon and Hoi, you are perfectly right.

Wild water is never black, even with dark skies. So here is a proof of fake.

Also the increasing level in few seconds is not probable.
I have seen amateur vid of the tsunami, which looked authentic, will try to find the source, so we can compare.

Rgds
Uranus

[simonshack]

I have seen amateur vid of the tsunami, which looked authentic, will try to find the source, so we can compare.

Can't wait to see some authentic-looking amateur tsunami footage, honest !

However, I hope you were not thinking of this one...
"THE MIYAGI HOUSE REGATTA":
http://tv.repubblica.it/dossier/giappon ... pagefrom=1

Ok, folks - so I do know a little about landslides: if a hillside gets drenched in rain for weeks, I could possibly accept seeing entire timber houses being lifted up and glide down the hillside - eventually breaking apart as they tumble down the valley. But here we have what looks like dozens of intact houses sailing around at speed over inundated plains and farmland. I also know a little about house construction : having built 4 Norwegian wooden houses myself, I would never expect any of them getting lifted up by a sea wave and start drifting on the surface like seaworthy ships. Roll up, folks - and place your bets! Some houses perform better than others - at times overtaking each other like in a surreal, "real-estate regatta" !

[hoi.polloi]

Don't be impertinent, JohnNada. I deleted your misleading post.

[Dcopymope]

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.

Well HAARP was a military operation to begin with, and when the military builds something they don’t build it to take pictures of it and admire it, they build it in preparation of using it. Why even compare HAARP to nuclear weapons? The ability to play god with the weather or nature made the nuclear weapon obsolete a long time ago. While we’re contemplating whether or not they actually have this or that old weapon, they’ve already moved on to something far more powerful and advanced. As I said before, we're still living in the past. Sure, the footage of all of the nukes going off could be fake, but that in no way means that they don’t have the weapons today. And really, they are using nuclear weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan now in the form of depleted uranium, and as far as can tell, any weapon that uses uranium of any kind at any dosage is technically nuclear weaponry.

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?

If it’s just a forgery crew then they won't be directly involved in the murder anyway. Every unit has a purpose in any covert & overt military/government operation, and they are all compartmentalized so that they never know the full details of the operation. So I don't see how you came to the conclusion that "murder of innocence is banned" from a science fiction movie. Was murder banned in Iraq? What about Afghanistan? Did the professionals involved in the mass murder of innocence in those countries have 'scruples' or 'fears' of doing it? They obviously didn’t in the slightest. And are you seriously trying to compare a few empty office buildings being demolished on 9/11 to what is supposed to be a massive "natural" disaster in Japan? I don't see much comparison beyond them showing fake footage of that event to distort our perceptions of what is actually happening over there. The media showing fake footage of an event doesn't automatically make the event itself any less real. For all we know, it could be far worse than what is being shown. Everything the perps do all boils down to perception management.

[reel.deal]

the (already semi-notorious ? ) 'James MacWhyte' 'facebook' clip
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2011/3 ... ge-2023699

[hoi.polloi]

the (already semi-notorious ? ) 'James MacWhyte' 'facebook' clip
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2011/3 ... ge-2023699

This looks really professional or really amateur but I can't tell which. Seems real and also really emotional.

[reel.deal]

theres a whole weird thing going on around this ( 'facebook only' !?!) clip... dont ask me why, i'm clueless !

http://microblogbuzz.com/redirect/98893732
heres some others too...
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/122182/ ... -local.htm

[simonshack]

the (already semi-notorious ? ) 'James MacWhyte' 'facebook' clip
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2011/3 ... ge-2023699

This looks really professional or really amateur but I can't tell which. Seems real and also really emotional.

Wow! Now that's something else! Impressive work indeed. Looks like they're gradually getting their act together. I'd just fire the clown in charge of the water animation. You just can't have white and black spray in the same clip - that kinda sucks and looks pretty silly. That aside, it's not a bad effort !





I knew it would come to this. All we have left now is our lifelong experience of reality as we know it. Let us put it to good use.

[simonshack]

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.

Dear Uranus,

I wouldn't go so fast and dismiss nonhocapito's observation of that BBC clip with that nerdy reporter gesticulating, pointing his finger in the wrong direction (towards the rescue workers) and generally looking as if he were told to emphasize all of his body language. In fact, there are technical ways to tell that the guy was standing in front of a (chromakey) green screen. With green screens, the very first problems you'll have to deal with is the correct positioning of the subject (the BBC reporter, in this case) and the studio lighting. I have put together a short "A,B,C,D" sequence to illustrate this matter:

The 'indicted' BBC video : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12726783

A: In this frame, the BBC reporter appears to have lost his left hand.
B: In this green screen tutorial, the same phenomena can be observed.



C: Once again, part of the BBC reporter's hand disappears: this can only be due to sloppy chromakeying.
D: Now, the most common, nagging problem with green screening is to avoid green linings appearing around the subject.
Any amateur 'Green Screener' knows that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaAZzSQl ... ure=fvwrel (listen at 0:48).
Here we have a classic example of this problem. A distinct green line can be observed here. No known video artifact of a normal video take could account for that lone, distinct green lining. Thus, it's case closed: green screening at play. The BBC should be questioned - not nonhocapito.


(I hope I won't get called the "Green Pope" now ... )

[Dcopymope]

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.

Dear Uranus,

I wouldn't go so fast and dismiss nonhocapito's observation of that BBC clip with that nerdy reporter gesticulating, pointing his finger in the wrong direction (towards the rescue workers) and generally looking as if he were told to emphasize all of his body language. In fact, there are technical ways to tell that the guy was standing in front of a (chromakey) green screen. With green screens, the very first problems you'll have to deal with is the correct positioning of the subject (the BBC reporter, in this case) and the studio lighting. I have put together a short "A,B,C,D" sequence to illustrate this matter:

The 'indicted' BBC video : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12726783

A: In this frame, the BBC reporter appears to have lost his left hand.
B: In this green screen tutorial, the same phenomena can be observed.



C: Once again, part of the BBC reporter's hand disappears: this can only be due to sloppy chromakeying.
D: Now, the most common, nagging problem with green screening is to avoid green linings appearing around the subject.
Any amateur 'Green Screener' knows that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaAZzSQl ... ure=fvwrel (listen at 0:48).
Here we have a classic example of this problem. A distinct green line can be observed here. No known video artifact of a normal video take could account for that lone, distinct green lining. Thus, it's case closed: green screening at play. The BBC should be questioned - not nonhocapito.


(I hope I won't get called the "Green Pope" now ... )

This observation of disappearing body parts reminds of me of 'the glass man' shown in the September Clues documentary, also explained in the link below for the newcomers.

911 Simulated Sceneries

When discussing media fakery surrounding any event they should reference little details like this from the 9/11 show. Usually, when you point out stuff like this to them they can't debunk it, as it shows as plain as day that the footage is fake. The perps should develop more reliable software than what they are using so that they don't get exposed so easily. Obviously, they haven't learned their lesson from 9/11. Lets hope they continue the fuck ups.