Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

simonshack wrote:

gwynned wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79S2rMSZZzI

So we see someone come into the medical emergency and get a bandaid? I thought Al Roker was on the scene and then he's standing next to Brokaw in front of a very bad green screen.

Why are they doing this?

These are NOT real firefighters. These are (crappy) digital inserts:

So my question is, Simon, do you think this was just an itty bitty tornado event blown up to magnanimous proportions by the media using fakery?, or did no such disaster happen at all? what would be the purpose and motive?

RoyBean wrote:

nonhocapito wrote: ...from the same playlist: also noticing the damage in Minneapolis. I was particularly stricken by these pictures:




I don't know about you. I know something about trees, and I am very surprised to see that a tree of that size (that doesn't look sick or weak) could be knocked over, without losing much foliage or breaking branches, especially when all glass windows in both houses seem to be intact.

The video looks weird but I'm not sure why. Can't see why they'd fake images for this one. Where's Hoi? maybe he can head over to the north side and verify what actually happened to the trees and houses in that area? Looks like roads are still open there.

I will check it out. Minneapolis has terrible storms that genuinely rip out trees and knock them over on top of cars and houses, even when there isn't a tornado. But I admit this picture looks queer. I'll investigate.

Looks like there was fairly typical devastation from Emerson to Upton, from Lowry Ave to the 40's, and in the suburbs as well. The only thing abnormal about this from my standpoint is that the normal level of damage in these storms is concentrated in a single spot. Since that is just about the definition of a tornado, I can't really suspect foul play from these pics except when they just look odd. This video you found features the only "weird" Minneapolis picture I've seen, and it could just genuinely be weird-lookin' and compressed stupidly rather than fake. When the trees fall over in the storms here, I've watched them sometimes and they fall over slowly and their sheer weight slowly crushes the house or car underneath. The large branches break the fall, but slowly. It is weird, but one car could be smooshed like a Mario Bros. goomba and the other car right next to it hardly gets a scratch but has branches all over it. It's all in the luck of where the weight falls when it settles.

Having said that, I don't doubt the lying authorities of our country will use any disaster, even as minor as this, to catch their sim software up to speed and insert an extra downed tree or an extra smashed home just to remain "on top" of the disaster and sort of claim it for themselves. I think they did that with the Japanese tsunami - creating false pictures to mix with reality - exploiting people's confused nature to "shuffle" false and real pictures in our heads in order to merge the sim with our reality.

The more people accept false pictures - and they will especially do so during a disaster when they are flustered and bothered - the less they will question when the sim generates and spins out completely false events. So although there was real damage, there is plenty of reason to be wary of the news coverage of it.

I think more people are on to this than are given credit for, though it might not be expressed in the same way. Yesterday I was listening to a local radio show and the host was making fun of tornado coverage, saying how people had evacuated safely, but that you had weathermen running around screaming and crying in fields. Then he went on to surmise it was because you had frustrated film majors who could buy $200 cameras, chase storms, and get a show on the Discovery Channel.

Re: inserting the firefighters, all I can think of is some sort of conditioning so we're used to seeing authority figures everywhere, or we start linking all events together. There is really no reason for fire fighters in full outfits to be walking through rubble.

The Daily Mail has photos of "the six block scar". Six blocks is very large, but it's not nearly as horrible as it's being made out to be on TV. I would think it might be worthwhile to go through and find photos from tornadic events from the 70's when there was an unusually high amount of them (Tornado Alley has shifted a bit since then) and compare.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... times.html

I looked at that satellite image of the 6 block scar. Interesting how the debris stayed off the roads as they all seem clear.

Here's something taken from the David Icke forum. I think people are beginning to question the official story.

Suspicion Surrounds Missing From Tornado In Joplin
There is some bizarre stuff going down in Joplin, Missouri.

First, they announced there were 1500 missing. I became
suspicious since the death count was only 125.

Then, they published a list, of 232 missing, with peoples
names in alphabetical order. Suddenly the next morning,
Sarah Adams, the first person on the list, just happens
to be found, yet the news still reports 232 missing.

Shouldn't the missing have gone down to 231? And what are
the odds the very first one on the alphabetical list is found?

Red flags flying high now....

And then, this morning, the list is suddenly down to 156. Yet they haven't
published a new list.


Now, CNN is reporting about a secret morgue.

You have to watch this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owEMmSVw ... r_embedded

A secret morgue? Really? Towards the end of this unbearably ridiculous news story, it's revealed that a cop sneaks into the morgue, identifies the body of the son of a friend and reports back to the friend that the son is in the morgue. BUT the parents are not allowed in the morgue, no official is reporting the death, and YET we hear about this all on national television.

I call no on the space launches, people in my family have seen them. They are definitely launched and they definitely land. These events are open to the public, to watch from a safe distance of course. I know a bit about rocketry... the reason for the translation during take-off I'm not sure of; it might have to do with the misalignment of the three Shuttle nozzles.

Trees definitely fall over without losing branches, this happened here in my town: http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2011/05/27/hi ... -high-wind.

I believe in the 911 fakery but at this point, going after all this other stuff... I don't know, seems like if you go for one you have to bite on all other things - what is the limit with what is faked? Are they really trying to fake even local news, thunderstorms, etc.?

A secret morgue? Really? Towards the end of this unbearably ridiculous news story, it's revealed that a cop sneaks into the morgue, identifies the body of the son of a friend and reports back to the friend that the son is in the morgue. BUT the parents are not allowed in the morgue, no official is reporting the death, and YET we hear about this all on national television.

This does sound a bit strange. Where was this little toddler that the parents wouldn't know if it was alive? Did it decide to walk down to the liquor mart to pick up beer and cigarettes? Seriously. Or this Lance dude? I guess driving somewhere and got impaled by piece of wood:

Questron wrote:I call no on the space launches, people in my family have seen them. They are definitely launched and they definitely land. These events are open to the public, to watch from a safe distance of course. I know a bit about rocketry... the reason for the translation during take-off I'm not sure of; it might have to do with the misalignment of the three Shuttle nozzles.

Trees definitely fall over without losing branches, this happened here in my town: http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2011/05/27/hi ... -high-wind.

I believe in the 911 fakery but at this point, going after all this other stuff... I don't know, seems like if you go for one you have to bite on all other things - what is the limit with what is faked? Are they really trying to fake even local news, thunderstorms, etc.?

Well, they might, because we have seen them doing it. Many seem to make the same mistake, to imagine that a researcher offers herself or himself as a wizard who is instantly capable to say whether this or that event, this or that part of an event, is faked or not. But obviously it isn't possible to instantly declare fakery --and it will be less and less possible the more technology advances, along with the absolute global grip on all forms of human communication. It is not what we try to do here.

So what are we doing here? We look for clues, and we submit the clues to other members of the forum to see if they make sense and lead us somewhere.
You can get carried away occasionally, and anticipate that something is certainly fake -- this happens because after a while, you just expect it, and you get a feeling for it. With events like the Tucson shooting or the Domodemovo bombing, you don't even have to question the idea, from day one it is almost certain the events are faked. It is very different with tornadoes or earthquakes -- but elements of fakery seem to float along reality in great quantities there -- for whatever reasons -- and we are compelled to sieve through.
Yet even when there is certainty, our task remains to find clues, and to find ones that are good: good means that can actually show fakery in action even to those who are virgin to the concept... A victim's faked facebook pictures; A journalist gesturing in front of a green screen; A video artifact that indicates manipulation: etc.

(As to the tree in that video, it wasn't as much about the intact branches and foliage as it was about the intact windows. As to the launches, it isn't about coming out of the blue to say launches do not exist, but contemplating whether the imagery of the launches is faked. We learn with events like the Japanese earthquake that the fakery teams work on top of real events to be always in control, to accustom us to faked imagery so that we aren't capable to discriminate anymore, when they propose their version of a disaster or a threat.
Who knows what happens with shuttle launches? Simon is investigating, that's something, no?

It is only after a lot of collective research that, over time, it gets possible to picture scenarios and declare something (say the imagery of the WTC collapse) entirely fake, because aside of all the clues, it just make sense in the scenario that has unfolded.)

Questron wrote:I call no on the space launches, people in my family have seen them. They are definitely launched and they definitely land.

Boy, you really have a problem understanding what this forum is all about. As I recently posted, nowhere has Simon said he didn't think anything had ever been launched from Cape Canaveral. What he has very clearly stated is that no launch image/video so far is believable.

It is a sign of bad faith for anyone to continue to introduce the red herring/straw-man question whether launches have occurred. Don't do it anymore, any of you. If you have an image/video that is 'real', post it. Don't mock Simon's image/video conclusions (or any of the other work on the forum) unless you can disprove them.

And why didn't you post this nonresponsive mess on the Endeavor thread with the rest of the launch discussion?

EDIT: Here's my post from the Endeavor thread.

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Post by fbenario » May 27th, 2011, 8:35 pm

Brutal Metal wrote:

"I believe I saw something??" Man that's funny Don't personally care if you believe I watched a vehicle designed for space travel launch from a pad in Florida, yeah every resident of this state is in on it, it's all a Big Sham!!
...
just simply stating I've lived here since 1989 and I've seen launches along with a million other people.

I'm hazarding a guess that you don't believe the huge number of eyewitnesses in NY who claim to have seen the 9/11 attacks personally, so why bring in the same red herring/straw-man of "millions of Florida sheeple who all 'saw' launches"?

And why are you ignoring that this forum deals with the veracity of images/videos, and for the most part couldn't care less about 'eyewitness' reports by sheeple?

As you know, vague skepticism just wastes everyone's time, and has no place here. You think Simon's off-base in any way? PROVE IT.

Boston.com has another page of big pictures about the tornado. At the end of the page this is the last picture:

Bruce Hawkins takes a break from clean up at his moderately damaged home in a heavily devastated Joplin neighborhood May 25. An EF-5 tornado tore through much of the city Sunday, damaging a hospital and hundreds of homes and businesses and killing at least 123 people. (Charlie Riedel/Assoctiated Press) #

(another shot of same house visible here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/ar ... c561e3.jpg)

Now. You gotta help me because I have seen too many "masonic 9/11 references in hollywood" videos on youtube and I am by now totally paranoid *.
Am I the only one to see a big one eyed pyramid with a "66" underneath? Is this why this thing was spared by the tornado?

* disclaimer: this masonic crap means nothing to me. It is something that makes me depressed and bored instantly. It only interests me in the measure it seem to interest them, or at least to interest the gentiles and fools of the elites who are conned with such masonic bullshit to believe they are part of some great secret cabal, when all they are is puppets in the hands of those who outsmarted them. End of the disclaimer, thanks.

nonhocapito wrote:

That's one of the most obviously fake-looking images I've ever seen. The whole triangular addition pasted on the front of the house has no real-looking elements at all. The 'bricks' look hand-drawn and too clean, the 'window' at the top clearly isn't a window, and the real window to the left of the addition is half-blocked by the addition. Ludicrous.

EDIT: The actor Michael Madsen (Reservoir Dogs, etc.).

It does look a little too pat, with the route 66 t-shirt and all. That probably is brick siding on the house, though, very cheap and popular.

"66", the "Great work". What is up with the orange Xs?

Questron wrote:"66", the "Great work". What is up with the orange Xs?

When firemen check a dwelling after a storm and see that no one is trapped inside, they spray-paint an "X" on the dwelling to confirm no one is inside.

I've been arguing for fakery on the David Icke forum and someone came along and said they traveled to Joplin and took photos. He/she posted 3 of them as evidence the damage is real. Here is one of them.

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h45 ... 1c866a.jpg

I responded that it looked fake and have gotten lots of negative responses.

I then googled the Kum & Go to see if I could find a real photo and found this. It looks very real to me.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/k ... kgjomo.jpg

They look like the same building, but the foreground is different. Does anyone else think the first photo is fake? If so, what specifically would cause you to think so? Finally, if it is fake, interesting that forum members on the David Icke forum are now knowingly posting fake photos.

Would love to have someone else's assessment before I jump in and argue my point with them.