Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Industrial Light and Magic
Original ILM Logo
With the invention of television and motion pictures, a powerful new tool was placed into the hands of those who practice deception. The ability to convince men and women that fabricated events are in fact reality rose to a new level. Grand illusions could be passed off as fact. From very rudimentary beginnings, the ability of a skilled cameraman and director to create credible facsimiles of reality advanced rapidly. Soon, it became difficult to discern what was fake and what was authentic.
All was fine as long as viewers were informed when they were watching a staged studio production. If a person turns on the television to watch a sitcom (situational comedy), they are informed beforehand that what they are viewing is fiction. It may appear very real, but the context announces it to be merely a clever production. Aside from the fact that the television network advertises the program as “entertainment,” the audio may include canned laughter and other elements which reveal to the viewer that they are watching a work of fiction.
Many works of fiction include visual elements that appear very real. From meticulously crafted stage sets, some the size of several city blocks, to recreations of scenes of war such as the opening moments of the movie Saving Private Ryan, it is very difficult for the viewer to perceive the falseness of what he is seeing.
If I took the image above and inserted it into a documentary book full of dramatic images from World War II, placing a caption under it identifying it as a picture of Omaha Beach on D-Day, June 6, 1944, could you tell that it is actually a screen shot from the movie Saving Private Ryan? The image appears convincingly realistic. That is the magic of Hollywood. The entire industry is geared toward creating believable illusions.
Look again at the logo for the visual effects company Industrial Light and Magic. A magician is surrounded by a large gear. This signifies that magic is being accomplished through industrial means. Hollywood is like a large and complex machine designed to create illusions which appear as reality to the viewer. Light is the medium which the motion picture industry employs to create their magic. Apart from light we could not see. By manipulating light, a false image can be made to appear as reality. Oddly, it is the Lumiere brothers of France who are credited with developing the first commercial motion picture system. The French word lumiere means “light,” sharing the same base as the English word luminous.
The logo for Industrial Light and Magic is pregnant with meaning. A magician is someone who uses misdirection, slight of hand, and various acts of deception to create an illusion of reality before the eyes of his audience. The global center for the movie industry is Hollywood, California. Witches uses Holly wood to craft their magic wands. It was from the wood of a Holly tree that Harry Potter’s wand was created. The association of the motion picture and television industries to occult practices and acts of deception is profound. Television and the movies are used to mesmerize, deceive, and exert an invisible control over the masses.
As disciples of Christ living as aliens and strangers in a world which lies under the dominion of Satan, we are admonished to be “wise as serpents, yet harmless as doves.” We are further commended to “beware of men.” It would be naive for the Christian to assume that those who control the media would not use this power and influence as an instrument of deception to further a personal agenda. Let us not be simple-minded and think that the powers which control Hollywood productions will act with integrity by always maintaining a clear distinction between what is real and what is illusory. To assume that men and women in positions of power and influence would not pass off staged productions as reality, would predispose the individual to be deceived.
In the book Dragon Flood, I cited a number of occasions where government leaders used lies and deception to justify entry into wars; wars which were immensely profitable to global corporate interests. One of these events was the sinking of the Lusitania. Following is an excerpt from the chapter titled The Lies of War.
The Lies of War
The Lusitania - Precursor to America’s Entry to WWI
The hand of the invisible government has found it needful to devise atrocities that will mobilize public sentiment in favor of entry into war. The powers which govern realize that Americans are reluctant to engage in foreign wars. This was all the more true a century ago after a long period of isolationism. Americans viewed World War I as an European conflict. Most citizens of the United States believed that it was none of their affair. The banking interests needed some event to serve as a catalyst to move American opinion in the direction of open engagement in the war. The sinking of the ocean liner Lusitania proved to be that catalyst.
The sinking of the Lusitania was a contrived affair. Although reported as an unprovoked attack of a German submarine on a defenseless passenger ship which carried nothing that threatened Germany’s war effort, the truth was far different. Of course, it was not the truth which was reported in the New York Times, or other newspapers of America. They printed propaganda with the sole aim of getting the American public to embrace entry into the war.
Cunard Lines, a British shipping company, owned the Lusitania. They had turned the ship over to the British Navy for use by England in her war against Germany. The First Lord of the Admiralty during WWI was Winston Churchill. The Lusitania was operating as an auxiliary ship of the English Navy.
Churchill sent the Lusitania to New York City where it was loaded with six million rounds of ammunition, owned by J.P. Morgan & Co., to be used by England and France in their war against Germany. England broke the German war code on December 14, 1914, and by the end of January 1915 British Intelligence was able to advise the Admiralty of the departure of every German U-boat as it left for patrol. Winston Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty knew when German U-boats would be in the area of the English Channel, the body of water which separates England and France.
Germany had spies who worked on the New York docks. They reported that weapons were being loaded onto the Lusitania, which was also set to carry more than a thousand passengers to be disembarked in Ireland. Germany did not want America to enter the war on the side of the English and French. The German government did all it could to avoid inflaming American public opinion. When Germany learned that the Lusitania was being used to ferry both passengers and war supplies (a violation of International law), the German Embassy in America took out ads in 50 American newspapers, most of which were on the East Coast. The advertisements read:
NOTICE! Travelers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that in accordance with formal notice given by Imperial German government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or of any of her allies, are liable to destruction in these waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
The advertisement included a picture of the Lusitania with her sailing schedule.
The American State Department intercepted the ads and would not permit them to be posted in the American papers. Only one ad slipped by them, and this one was printed in the Des Moines Register, from which the above image was obtained. Captain Dow, the captain of the Lusitania resigned on March 8, 1915, just two months before the ship was sunk, because he was unwilling to shoulder the responsibility of hazarding passenger lives by carrying munitions on the ship.
When the Lusitania arrived in the English Channel off of Ireland it slowed to await the arrival of the escort ship Juno which was to lead her into port. Churchill ordered the Juno back to port, causing the Lusitania to idle for hours out in the channel where German U-boats were known to be operating. On May 7, 1915, a single torpedo from a German U-boat struck the Lusitania with its 300 pound charge of explosives. A secondary, and much larger explosion followed. This second explosion was caused by the ammunition exploding that was being carried illegally in the ship. So great was the damage caused by the second explosion that the Lusitania sank approximately 18 minutes later with a loss of more than 1,200 lives, more than a hundred of which were Americans.
The sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-boat was splashed all over the front pages of America’s largest newspapers. Germany was vilified, and eventually America entered the war on the side of Great Britain.
Cunard Lines had merged with White Lines, and J.P. Morgan was a major shareholder in the company. It is estimated that the J.P Morgan banks issued more than $500,000,000 worth of loans to nations on both sides of the war.
[End Excerpt]
Television had not yet been invented in 1918, the year the Lusitania sank, but silent movies were commonplace and popular. No time was wasted in coming up with propaganda pieces to “regiment the masses,” inflaming the emotions of Americans so they would enter the war on the side of England. Following is a popular 9 minute animation which was shown repeatedly at movie houses following the sinking of the Lusitania. It is an obvious piece of propaganda.
https://youtu.be/ko418jQabuY
It is apparent that this is an animated re-creation of the Lusitanian saga. It would be unlikely that anyone would mistake it as an actual video of the event. Although this short movie is deceptive in that it presents a false history of what actually occurred, it does not have the same power of persuasion that actual footage of the event might wield. It would be an altogether different matter if the media created fake footage of the Lusitania sinking and passed it off as authentic. Such an act would constitute a betrayal of public trust. This in fact did happen. British media filmed a re-enactment of people floundering in the water and fighting to get into lifeboats, showing the film at movie houses while billing it as actual footage of the aftermath of the sinking of the Lusitania. The scenes were in fact filmed on a London pond. Following is an excerpt from the documentary What Happened On The Moon - Hoax, Lies, and Videotape.
https://youtu.be/om4vRZabtro
Before the advent of television, news reels were shown at movie theaters before the main film began. They served as the equivalent of the network television news broadcasts of more recent years. As far back as the days of silent movies, the news media was faking scenes and passing them off as authentic. Special interests were using this new medium as a tool of deception. It would be naive to think that network television did not continue the practice. Indeed, such deceptions have been commonplace from the beginning of televised news and continue on a daily basis. Consider this relatively recent example of a news broadcaster misleading viewers by making it appear that Nancy Grace of Headline News was holding a conversation with Ashleigh Banfield of CNN at a remote location. Examination of the background of both women reveal they were located in the same parking lot about 30 feet apart. See link below for details.
http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/05/nancy-grace-ashleigh-banfield-cnn-parking-lot/64965/
The article gives a partial defense of the two newswomen by stating, “cable TV news often features "remote" split-screen interviews with hosts and guests, even when they're in the same building.” In other words, it was not such an egregious deception because it is a common practice. Although misrepresenting one’s location may seem fairly benign, it reveals that in the minds of the media, to create a credible illusion is as good as the real thing. The mainstream media has no scruples against employing deception. Creating a crude deception that can be readily detected may be considered a faux pas, but the industry has no shame.
In watching television broadcasts of the Apollo 11 lunar mission, I have been struck by the odd behavior, body language, and mannerisms of those involved. The three astronauts who participated in this hoax appear discomfited, even ashamed, as if they were worried that their secret would come out and they would be branded as charlatans. NASA cloistered the astronauts away for three weeks before they were allowed out into the public to do interviews. I suspect this was to give them time to steel themselves as willing accomplices in an act of betrayal of the public trust. They need not have worried too much, for the government was careful to control the environment of their questioning, holding an official press conference where all three men fielded questions from a select group of media representatives.
These hardly look like men who have just accomplished the greatest feat of exploration in human history. The men appear uncomfortable, embarrassed, worried, as if they are having difficulty carrying forward this public charade. Similar behavior is observed during the Apollo 11 television news broadcast of CBS which was anchored by Walter Cronkite. There is a disingenuous character to his mannerisms, as he appears to be faking his enthusiasm regarding what is occurring 240,000 miles away on the Moon. Observe both the mannerism of Walter Cronkite and astronaut Wally Schirra in this segment. Note especially Schirra’s face and forced smile which are consistent with someone who knows they are lying to the public and does not yet have the confident assurance that the deception will prove successful.
https://youtu.be/w__2L_F-R7M
Examine the words and actions of these two men and ask yourself whether they appear consistent with men who are witnessing the greatest human achievement of the 20th century. Bear in mind that Wally Schirra was close friends with the astronauts of Apollo 11. Do his words and actions reveal concern for their safety, or excitement for their achievement, or is there an appearance of discomfort and feigned enthusiasm at what he is observing? Walter Cronkite is clearly the more experienced deceiver, yet even in his words and actions there are telltale signs of acting. The moment when he takes off his glasses and wrings his hands is particularly telling.
What is Walter Cronkite’s relationship to the corporate elite who are seeking to bring forth a global government under the rule of Satan? Cronkite was a well paid corporate man. He has long been a willing pawn of the corporate global powers. He makes a startling announcement of his allegiance to Satan in the following video.
https://youtu.be/w2isCEoEmN8
This is the man who informed viewers of the way the world is five nights a week, and the populace eagerly accepted his word as gospel. Brothers and sisters, the rulers of this world realized very early on the potential present in motion pictures and television to deceive and guide the masses. For this reason the corporate powers purchased control of the movie houses and television networks. In this way they were able not only to control the narrative, but to create false events which served to regiment the masses to their will.
Over time the ability to create credible illusions has increased dramatically. Special effects, especially those which take advantage of computer power, have advanced the capabilities of the media until it is impossible for the average viewer to discern the difference between an illusion and reality. Consider the following video.
https://youtu.be/WhN1STep_zk
If you think the news media would not use green screen technology to fool their audience, you are wrong. They use it all the time. As far back as 1994, ABC News was in a flap when it was discovered that deception was used when anchorman Peter Jennings interviewed news correspondent Cokie Roberts as she was standing in front of the U.S. Capitol building on a cold winter day. The problem was that Roberts was actually inside a studio wearing a coat and the image of the Capitol building in the background was faked, a mere illusion. Similarly, CBS made the news when, during a Dan Rather year 2000 New Year’s Eve special at Times Square, the network altered the imagery of Times Square, placing a large CBS advertisement behind Dan Rather. The CBS billboard wasn’t actually there. What was there was an NBC sign and an ad for Budweiser, both of which were removed from the shot. The viewer could not detect the deception. Technology has only improved in the intervening years, making it nearly impossible to detect when an image has been altered or entirely imposed into a news broadcast.
One of the first uses of chroma key technology (green screen, blue screen, etc.) was by Industrial Light and Magic, a George Lucas company which he formed in order to create the special effects for his 1970s Star Wars movies. Lucas had originally contacted Douglas Trumbull, the special effects wizard whom Stanley Kubrick employed for 2001, A Space Odyssey. Trumbull was already committed to Steven Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind, so he recommended his assistant John Dykstra.
Keep in mind that this was 1975, the year of JAWS release and only a few years removed from Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. These were the pillars of visual effects at the time and JAWS was centered around a lone, malfunctioning (if now classic) mechanical shark. In comparison even to 2001, STAR WARS, as they say, was a whole new ball of wax.
So, was Dykstra prescient or just crazy?
Geniuses tend to be a little bit of both. Doug Trumbull, one of the visual effects maestros behind 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, pointed Lucas toward Dykstra when the young director was scouting for capable (and cheap) visual effects talent. A young Dykstra had impressed Trumbull while working for him at his company, Future General, on the 1972 sci-fi film SILENT RUNNING...
“What George came to me with was a perfect combination of the stuff that I had been doing with Doug Trumbull–using fairly low tech solutions [to create visual effects].”
[Source: http://www.propstore.com/john-dykstra-intergalactic-man-of-magic-part-1/]
Chroma key technology, which requires a computer, wasn’t available during the years Stanley Kubrick was working on 2001, A Space Odyssey; the years 1964-1968. These were the same years, incidentally, that NASA was gearing up for their Moon missions which would commence in July of 1969. The “fairly low tech solutions” employed by Kubrick and Trumbull included the front screen projection system.
Front Screen Projection System
The front screen projection system works by projecting a backdrop onto a mirror, which in turn projects the image onto a highly reflective fabric screen. The screen is typically made of 3M’s Scotchlite which consists of millions of glass beads affixed to the surface of a cloth material. Scotchlite reflects back 95% of the light cast on it. Because the Scotchlite material is so highly reflective, the required brightness of the projected image is relatively low. This allows for an actor, or other subject, to stand between the mirror and the Scotchlite, and not have the projected image show up on them.
Stanley Kubrick made extensive use of the front screen projection system in the opening scenes of 2001, A Space Odyssey. At the beginning of the movie, we are shown a group of ape like human ancestors in an environment that resembles some areas of Africa.
The image above is from the opening sequence of Kubrick’s movie. The foreground is a stage set where some wild pigs and some men in ape-like costumes are located. The background is an image projected onto a Scotchlite screen. If you look carefully you can see the intersection of the stage and the screen. It is marked with a lone below.
Looking at the sky, particularly the far left and far right, you can discern some lines and geometric shapes which are faintly discernible. These are caused by seams and wrinkles in the Scotchlite fabric. If the contrast and gamma of the image are altered, these background artifacts become more visible. These are the same type of artifacts which Richard Hoagland detected in the black sky of the Apollo lunar photos when he altered their visible properties. Jay Weidner has provided yeoman’s service by explaining the use of the front screen projection system and illustrating its application in 2001, A Space Odyssey as well as in the Apollo missions. Images shown here are from Weidner’s video Kubrick’s Odyssey - Part One.
As Jay Weidner points out, the director has to hide the bottom of the projection screen by having a raised surface on the stage in front of it. Also, by giving a contour to the foreground stage, it becomes more difficult to detect the point where the stage and the rear screen meet. If the stage were perfectly flat, differences in coloration between the stage and projected image would be more visible as there would be a straight line where the two meet, and the differences would be obvious. In the images above, you can see differences in shading and coloration between the foreground and background, but they would be far more obvious if the back edges of the stage were straight. Following are a couple additional examples showing where the stage ends and the Scotchlite backdrop begins. The blue line below marks the edge of the stage.
In the screen shot above you can see we have both the foreground stage with the actors, and the Scotchlite backdrop with the image projected onto it. In the photo below, we see the same stage from a slightly different angle, but now there is no projected image on the backdrop.
Following is a screen shot from a later scene in 2001, A Space Odyssey. No line has been drawn to mark where the edge of the stage intersects with the backdrop, but it should be obvious to the viewer.
Jay Weidner, who has worked in the film industry himself, stresses that this hiding of the bottom of the Scotchlite backdrop is always necessary when using the front screen projection system, and it serves as a telltale sign of its employment. Weidner proceeds to show images from the Apollo missions, noting where the stage edge intersects with the Scotchlite backdrop.
Can you tell where the stage ends in the image above. Look for a raised surface and a difference in shading and coloration. It is also helpful for the photo shoot director to place large objects just in front of the edge of the stage to make it more difficult to detect.
In many of the lunar photographs it is difficult to detect the evidence of the front screen projection system due to poor photo quality, as in the example above. As has been previously noted, NASA claims to have lost the high definition images taken from the Apollo missions, a claim which is difficult to believe, but necessary for the continuation of the deception. Following are more examples.
Do you perceive once more the raised edge of the stage and the difference in ground texture and shading where the projection begins?
Look carefully again for a change in the appearance of the ground’s texture and coloration, and note the placement of the Lunar Rover to hide much of the stage edge.
Jay Weidner states that not all Apollo photographs used the front screen projection system. Some, especially those of Apollo 11 and 12, simply had a black background which would not have required any image to be projected. In the later Apollo missions it becomes especially evident that the front screen projection system was used. Jay Weidner goes on to mention the anomalies discovered by Richard Hoagland, revealing them to be further evidence of use of the front screen projection system.
If you enlarge the image above you can see the two blips of light in the black sky. These are caused by misaligned glass beads in the Scotchlite material which are reflecting light back at the camera. Normally, the Scotchlite will only reflect light that strikes it at a right angle, but the rare misaligned bead will cast light in other directions. As Hoagland enhances the image, the fabric background becomes obvious.
In the enhanced image above you can see evidence of a backdrop being used. There are very evident horizontal and vertical lines. They are caused by the seams of the fabric panels which were stitched together and/or the scaffolding behind the fabric which was erected to support it.
Jay Weidner also mentions that in the original release of 2001, A Space Odyssey, there were many credits thanking NASA and a number of the aerospace companies which worked with NASA on the Moon landings. These credits were removed from later releases of the film. Kubrick was clearly working with NASA and its contractors. The movie 2001 provided suitable cover for Kubrick’s association with NASA, though it is my belief, as well as many others, that Kubrick was also directing the film shots of the Apollo landings from a stage here on Earth.
Frederick Orway - NASA Advisor, Deke Slayton - Astronaut, Arthur C. Clarke - Sci-Fi author, Stanley Kubrick, George Mueller - Senior Administrator of the Apollo Project
Would the U.S. government fake the Apollo moon landings, filming them on a studio lot and then present them as reality to the public? I have no doubt of the matter. In the next chapter we will look at Stanley Kubrick’s confession of his involvement in the Apollo missions.
Credit to Joseph Herrin
When the Lusitania arrived in the English Channel off of Ireland it slowed to await the arrival of the escort ship Juno which was to lead her into port. Churchill ordered the Juno back to port, causing the Lusitania to idle for hours out in the channel where German U-boats were known to be operating. On May 7, 1915, a single torpedo from a German U-boat struck the Lusitania with its 300 pound charge of explosives. A secondary, and much larger explosion followed. This second explosion was caused by the ammunition exploding that was being carried illegally in the ship. So great was the damage caused by the second explosion that the Lusitania sank approximately 18 minutes later with a loss of more than 1,200 lives, more than a hundred of which were Americans.
The sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-boat was splashed all over the front pages of America’s largest newspapers. Germany was vilified, and eventually America entered the war on the side of Great Britain.
Cunard Lines had merged with White Lines, and J.P. Morgan was a major shareholder in the company. It is estimated that the J.P Morgan banks issued more than $500,000,000 worth of loans to nations on both sides of the war.
[End Excerpt]
Television had not yet been invented in 1918, the year the Lusitania sank, but silent movies were commonplace and popular. No time was wasted in coming up with propaganda pieces to “regiment the masses,” inflaming the emotions of Americans so they would enter the war on the side of England. Following is a popular 9 minute animation which was shown repeatedly at movie houses following the sinking of the Lusitania. It is an obvious piece of propaganda.
https://youtu.be/ko418jQabuY
It is apparent that this is an animated re-creation of the Lusitanian saga. It would be unlikely that anyone would mistake it as an actual video of the event. Although this short movie is deceptive in that it presents a false history of what actually occurred, it does not have the same power of persuasion that actual footage of the event might wield. It would be an altogether different matter if the media created fake footage of the Lusitania sinking and passed it off as authentic. Such an act would constitute a betrayal of public trust. This in fact did happen. British media filmed a re-enactment of people floundering in the water and fighting to get into lifeboats, showing the film at movie houses while billing it as actual footage of the aftermath of the sinking of the Lusitania. The scenes were in fact filmed on a London pond. Following is an excerpt from the documentary What Happened On The Moon - Hoax, Lies, and Videotape.
https://youtu.be/om4vRZabtro
Before the advent of television, news reels were shown at movie theaters before the main film began. They served as the equivalent of the network television news broadcasts of more recent years. As far back as the days of silent movies, the news media was faking scenes and passing them off as authentic. Special interests were using this new medium as a tool of deception. It would be naive to think that network television did not continue the practice. Indeed, such deceptions have been commonplace from the beginning of televised news and continue on a daily basis. Consider this relatively recent example of a news broadcaster misleading viewers by making it appear that Nancy Grace of Headline News was holding a conversation with Ashleigh Banfield of CNN at a remote location. Examination of the background of both women reveal they were located in the same parking lot about 30 feet apart. See link below for details.
http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/05/nancy-grace-ashleigh-banfield-cnn-parking-lot/64965/
The article gives a partial defense of the two newswomen by stating, “cable TV news often features "remote" split-screen interviews with hosts and guests, even when they're in the same building.” In other words, it was not such an egregious deception because it is a common practice. Although misrepresenting one’s location may seem fairly benign, it reveals that in the minds of the media, to create a credible illusion is as good as the real thing. The mainstream media has no scruples against employing deception. Creating a crude deception that can be readily detected may be considered a faux pas, but the industry has no shame.
In watching television broadcasts of the Apollo 11 lunar mission, I have been struck by the odd behavior, body language, and mannerisms of those involved. The three astronauts who participated in this hoax appear discomfited, even ashamed, as if they were worried that their secret would come out and they would be branded as charlatans. NASA cloistered the astronauts away for three weeks before they were allowed out into the public to do interviews. I suspect this was to give them time to steel themselves as willing accomplices in an act of betrayal of the public trust. They need not have worried too much, for the government was careful to control the environment of their questioning, holding an official press conference where all three men fielded questions from a select group of media representatives.
These hardly look like men who have just accomplished the greatest feat of exploration in human history. The men appear uncomfortable, embarrassed, worried, as if they are having difficulty carrying forward this public charade. Similar behavior is observed during the Apollo 11 television news broadcast of CBS which was anchored by Walter Cronkite. There is a disingenuous character to his mannerisms, as he appears to be faking his enthusiasm regarding what is occurring 240,000 miles away on the Moon. Observe both the mannerism of Walter Cronkite and astronaut Wally Schirra in this segment. Note especially Schirra’s face and forced smile which are consistent with someone who knows they are lying to the public and does not yet have the confident assurance that the deception will prove successful.
https://youtu.be/w__2L_F-R7M
Examine the words and actions of these two men and ask yourself whether they appear consistent with men who are witnessing the greatest human achievement of the 20th century. Bear in mind that Wally Schirra was close friends with the astronauts of Apollo 11. Do his words and actions reveal concern for their safety, or excitement for their achievement, or is there an appearance of discomfort and feigned enthusiasm at what he is observing? Walter Cronkite is clearly the more experienced deceiver, yet even in his words and actions there are telltale signs of acting. The moment when he takes off his glasses and wrings his hands is particularly telling.
What is Walter Cronkite’s relationship to the corporate elite who are seeking to bring forth a global government under the rule of Satan? Cronkite was a well paid corporate man. He has long been a willing pawn of the corporate global powers. He makes a startling announcement of his allegiance to Satan in the following video.
https://youtu.be/w2isCEoEmN8
This is the man who informed viewers of the way the world is five nights a week, and the populace eagerly accepted his word as gospel. Brothers and sisters, the rulers of this world realized very early on the potential present in motion pictures and television to deceive and guide the masses. For this reason the corporate powers purchased control of the movie houses and television networks. In this way they were able not only to control the narrative, but to create false events which served to regiment the masses to their will.
Over time the ability to create credible illusions has increased dramatically. Special effects, especially those which take advantage of computer power, have advanced the capabilities of the media until it is impossible for the average viewer to discern the difference between an illusion and reality. Consider the following video.
https://youtu.be/WhN1STep_zk
If you think the news media would not use green screen technology to fool their audience, you are wrong. They use it all the time. As far back as 1994, ABC News was in a flap when it was discovered that deception was used when anchorman Peter Jennings interviewed news correspondent Cokie Roberts as she was standing in front of the U.S. Capitol building on a cold winter day. The problem was that Roberts was actually inside a studio wearing a coat and the image of the Capitol building in the background was faked, a mere illusion. Similarly, CBS made the news when, during a Dan Rather year 2000 New Year’s Eve special at Times Square, the network altered the imagery of Times Square, placing a large CBS advertisement behind Dan Rather. The CBS billboard wasn’t actually there. What was there was an NBC sign and an ad for Budweiser, both of which were removed from the shot. The viewer could not detect the deception. Technology has only improved in the intervening years, making it nearly impossible to detect when an image has been altered or entirely imposed into a news broadcast.
One of the first uses of chroma key technology (green screen, blue screen, etc.) was by Industrial Light and Magic, a George Lucas company which he formed in order to create the special effects for his 1970s Star Wars movies. Lucas had originally contacted Douglas Trumbull, the special effects wizard whom Stanley Kubrick employed for 2001, A Space Odyssey. Trumbull was already committed to Steven Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind, so he recommended his assistant John Dykstra.
Keep in mind that this was 1975, the year of JAWS release and only a few years removed from Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. These were the pillars of visual effects at the time and JAWS was centered around a lone, malfunctioning (if now classic) mechanical shark. In comparison even to 2001, STAR WARS, as they say, was a whole new ball of wax.
So, was Dykstra prescient or just crazy?
Geniuses tend to be a little bit of both. Doug Trumbull, one of the visual effects maestros behind 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, pointed Lucas toward Dykstra when the young director was scouting for capable (and cheap) visual effects talent. A young Dykstra had impressed Trumbull while working for him at his company, Future General, on the 1972 sci-fi film SILENT RUNNING...
“What George came to me with was a perfect combination of the stuff that I had been doing with Doug Trumbull–using fairly low tech solutions [to create visual effects].”
[Source: http://www.propstore.com/john-dykstra-intergalactic-man-of-magic-part-1/]
Chroma key technology, which requires a computer, wasn’t available during the years Stanley Kubrick was working on 2001, A Space Odyssey; the years 1964-1968. These were the same years, incidentally, that NASA was gearing up for their Moon missions which would commence in July of 1969. The “fairly low tech solutions” employed by Kubrick and Trumbull included the front screen projection system.
Front Screen Projection System
The front screen projection system works by projecting a backdrop onto a mirror, which in turn projects the image onto a highly reflective fabric screen. The screen is typically made of 3M’s Scotchlite which consists of millions of glass beads affixed to the surface of a cloth material. Scotchlite reflects back 95% of the light cast on it. Because the Scotchlite material is so highly reflective, the required brightness of the projected image is relatively low. This allows for an actor, or other subject, to stand between the mirror and the Scotchlite, and not have the projected image show up on them.
Stanley Kubrick made extensive use of the front screen projection system in the opening scenes of 2001, A Space Odyssey. At the beginning of the movie, we are shown a group of ape like human ancestors in an environment that resembles some areas of Africa.
The image above is from the opening sequence of Kubrick’s movie. The foreground is a stage set where some wild pigs and some men in ape-like costumes are located. The background is an image projected onto a Scotchlite screen. If you look carefully you can see the intersection of the stage and the screen. It is marked with a lone below.
Looking at the sky, particularly the far left and far right, you can discern some lines and geometric shapes which are faintly discernible. These are caused by seams and wrinkles in the Scotchlite fabric. If the contrast and gamma of the image are altered, these background artifacts become more visible. These are the same type of artifacts which Richard Hoagland detected in the black sky of the Apollo lunar photos when he altered their visible properties. Jay Weidner has provided yeoman’s service by explaining the use of the front screen projection system and illustrating its application in 2001, A Space Odyssey as well as in the Apollo missions. Images shown here are from Weidner’s video Kubrick’s Odyssey - Part One.
As Jay Weidner points out, the director has to hide the bottom of the projection screen by having a raised surface on the stage in front of it. Also, by giving a contour to the foreground stage, it becomes more difficult to detect the point where the stage and the rear screen meet. If the stage were perfectly flat, differences in coloration between the stage and projected image would be more visible as there would be a straight line where the two meet, and the differences would be obvious. In the images above, you can see differences in shading and coloration between the foreground and background, but they would be far more obvious if the back edges of the stage were straight. Following are a couple additional examples showing where the stage ends and the Scotchlite backdrop begins. The blue line below marks the edge of the stage.
In the screen shot above you can see we have both the foreground stage with the actors, and the Scotchlite backdrop with the image projected onto it. In the photo below, we see the same stage from a slightly different angle, but now there is no projected image on the backdrop.
Following is a screen shot from a later scene in 2001, A Space Odyssey. No line has been drawn to mark where the edge of the stage intersects with the backdrop, but it should be obvious to the viewer.
Jay Weidner, who has worked in the film industry himself, stresses that this hiding of the bottom of the Scotchlite backdrop is always necessary when using the front screen projection system, and it serves as a telltale sign of its employment. Weidner proceeds to show images from the Apollo missions, noting where the stage edge intersects with the Scotchlite backdrop.
Can you tell where the stage ends in the image above. Look for a raised surface and a difference in shading and coloration. It is also helpful for the photo shoot director to place large objects just in front of the edge of the stage to make it more difficult to detect.
In many of the lunar photographs it is difficult to detect the evidence of the front screen projection system due to poor photo quality, as in the example above. As has been previously noted, NASA claims to have lost the high definition images taken from the Apollo missions, a claim which is difficult to believe, but necessary for the continuation of the deception. Following are more examples.
Do you perceive once more the raised edge of the stage and the difference in ground texture and shading where the projection begins?
Look carefully again for a change in the appearance of the ground’s texture and coloration, and note the placement of the Lunar Rover to hide much of the stage edge.
Jay Weidner states that not all Apollo photographs used the front screen projection system. Some, especially those of Apollo 11 and 12, simply had a black background which would not have required any image to be projected. In the later Apollo missions it becomes especially evident that the front screen projection system was used. Jay Weidner goes on to mention the anomalies discovered by Richard Hoagland, revealing them to be further evidence of use of the front screen projection system.
If you enlarge the image above you can see the two blips of light in the black sky. These are caused by misaligned glass beads in the Scotchlite material which are reflecting light back at the camera. Normally, the Scotchlite will only reflect light that strikes it at a right angle, but the rare misaligned bead will cast light in other directions. As Hoagland enhances the image, the fabric background becomes obvious.
In the enhanced image above you can see evidence of a backdrop being used. There are very evident horizontal and vertical lines. They are caused by the seams of the fabric panels which were stitched together and/or the scaffolding behind the fabric which was erected to support it.
Jay Weidner also mentions that in the original release of 2001, A Space Odyssey, there were many credits thanking NASA and a number of the aerospace companies which worked with NASA on the Moon landings. These credits were removed from later releases of the film. Kubrick was clearly working with NASA and its contractors. The movie 2001 provided suitable cover for Kubrick’s association with NASA, though it is my belief, as well as many others, that Kubrick was also directing the film shots of the Apollo landings from a stage here on Earth.
Frederick Orway - NASA Advisor, Deke Slayton - Astronaut, Arthur C. Clarke - Sci-Fi author, Stanley Kubrick, George Mueller - Senior Administrator of the Apollo Project
Would the U.S. government fake the Apollo moon landings, filming them on a studio lot and then present them as reality to the public? I have no doubt of the matter. In the next chapter we will look at Stanley Kubrick’s confession of his involvement in the Apollo missions.
Credit to Joseph Herrin
Norway Joins the Dark Side As 666 Is Coming to America
He has his own TV show on Fox and he is slowly taking over the world’s money supply. Who is he? Let’s just say that Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled in our time.
Norway Is Forsaking Cash: The Mark of the Beast Is Near
Norway’s largest bank, DNB, has said that cash is the byproduct of drug dealers and money launderers. In order to eliminate everyday Norwegians from participating the black market and being engaged in money laundering schemes, it is important to stop using cash as a medium of exchange all together.
Bank executive Trond Bentestuen told VG the following:
“Today, there is approximately 50 billion kroner in circulation and [central bank] Norges Bank can only account for 40 percent of its use. That means that 60 percent of money usage is outside of any control. We believe that is due to under-the-table money and laundering.”
This is such a dangerous precedent because the Norwegian banks can say your money is worth what they say. By changing the value of the digitized currency, both bail-ins and bail-outs could in effect be executed and the average Norwegian would be none the wiser. Such a practice gives the bankers exactly what they want.
These beliefs are present in America and the same fate could be in store for the dollar. And by the way, when cash disappears from the market place, what you had in the bank is worth whatever “they” say its worth. It is a safe bet to conclude that the value of the Norwegian money is not going to go up. The anti-Christ has invaded Norway as the average Norwegian will not be able to buy and sell without using the Devil’s currency.
America Is Ripe for a Currency Devaluation
When something is secret and kept from you, it is usually very bad for you.
Very soon, America will lose 448,000 jobs when the TPP takes effect, says various researchers. Sold as an economic stimulant, TPP proponents have told the public that the trade deal would be a boon to the economy. When nearly five million jobs are lost in the first few weeks of the TPP, the crippled economy will demand extreme reaction by TPTB. Every austerity rule will be on the table including the Mark of the of the Beast.
Americans Are Already Reeling
The second Pew brief found that “More than half of households (54%) could not replace one month’s income using their liquid savings,” concludes . “Over a quarter of households do not have enough liquid savings to replace even one week of income.”
The news is even more dire as the Pew Center’s research indicates that 25% of high-income households have “less than 13 days’ worth of income in liquid savings.” Further, a full 25% of households making less than $25,000 a year have no liquid savings at all. In these instances, the typical household in this income bracket has only six days’ worth of income in liquid savings.
Below is a telling video from an economic expert. He clearly tells the viewers that they should be buying previous metals. However, people are not buying because the prices are flat. Instead, they are letting their cash waster away as the value tremendously decreases. There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Recently, a friend asked me what would I recommend his daughter major in as she begins college this fall. I thought for a moment and answered “welfare”. The father was quite taken back as I took out my IPAD and forwarded him some of my files which contains our recent economic statistics.
There are 35 states in this country in which it is better to accept welfare than work at an entry level job. Much like crack cocaine or heroin addicts, much of our nation is hopelessly addicted to living in the welfare state. This has real implications for the emotional and even spiritual health of our nation. The most distressing aspect of the present economic conditions we find ourselves mired in, is the fact that we are allowing our young people to have their dreams and their very sense of hope stolen away from them. Fear monger, naysayer, doomsday profit are terms ascribed to people who dare to criticize the existing economic system and speak about the real implications for our people. I dare the most liberal of you to read the following facts, engage in your own fact checking and then not to be able to conclude that the American dream, for most of our people, is dead and buried.
The Average American Is Taking a Beating
It is not just our nation that is taking a beating, our individual financial situations in this country have grown to a crisis level. America is no longer just in a depression. We have entered third world status, a kind of permanent depression, if you will. Yes, we have skyscrapers and modern technology, but only the elite control these resources and the average Americana’ standard of living is in a state of economic free fall.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are either “poor” or “low income”. Stunningly, more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government, not including the massive entitlement programs of Social Security or Medicare. The number of people on food stamps has grown to 47.79 million Americans. In 2008, when Obama first took office, only 32 million Americans were on food stamps. Approximately, 20.2 million Americans spend more than half of their incomes on housing, which represents a 46% increase from 2001. Parents under the age of 30 experience poverty rates consisting of 37 percent. The number of Americans living in poverty has grown to one out of every six US citizens. Can you say “turn out the lights, the party is over.”It No Longer Pays To Go To Work
Of all the facts that serve to describe the economic chaos, there is one fact that stands out among all others.FOR MOST AMERICANS, IT NO LONGER PAYS TO GO TO WORK FULL TIME. THE AMERICAN DREAM IS DEAD AND BURIED
Ninety million unemployed Americans are no longer even looking for work. The next time you go into DMV, please realize that you are subsidizing a driver’s license for about a third of the people. You are also paying for their health care, food stamps and shelter. And many of these lower class, poverty-stricken “Americans” are living a higher standard of living than you are and this is by design courtesy of Obama’s policies of Marxian social justice and wealth redistribution. If you are a liberal, you are probably fine with giving away your paycheck to people who will not work. If you are over 40, possess common sense, have an IQ higher than room temperature, then you realize that this is national suicide to keep doing what we are doing.
The Numbers Do Not Lie
Wayne Emmerich found that the family breadwinner who works only one week a month at minimum wage makes 92% as much as the breadwinner grossing $60,000 a year.Emmerich’s stats demonstrate that by working only one week a month can save a lot of money in child care expense. But topping the list is Medicaid, which is accessible to minimum wage earners and the program has very low deductibles and co-pays. In short, by working only one week a month at a minimum wage job, a minimum wage earner is able to get total medical coverage for next to nothing courtesy of you and me.
The middle class is not as lucky as the $60,000 breadwinner pays out approximately $12,000 per year in health insurance costs with an addition $4,500 in co-pays. And if anyone in the part-time minimum wage earning family is disabled, SSI pays out an additional $8,088 per year. When one begins to calculate the expenses incurred by a typical breadwinner making $60,000 per year, compared to the part time minimum wage worker, coupled with minimum wage earners tax supported federal bailouts for these freeloaders, the poor have more discretionary income than those who pay the taxes that run the country. And if the part time minimum wage worker is willing to cheat and participate in the underground economy, they will have significantly more discretionary income than their hard-working $60,000 per year counterpart who actually works for a living. In short, if you are a full-time employee making above minimum wage, you paying for your own economic demise. The numbers here suggest that we’d be better off staying home and living off of the labors of what’s left of the middle class.
America is no longer the land of opportunity as the United States is not even in the top ten. In fact, the United States only ranks 20th in terms of overall gross pay! Yet, what we do have is a plethora of young people hopelessly mired in student loan debt when they graduate and a federal government that is more than happy to garnish their wages and, in some cases, even SWAT team them for nonpayment.
Good vs. Evil
I have a question for all liberals who are still drinking from the Obama Kool-Aid; do you really think the banksters are ever going to allow the people to repudiate these debts without a war or the implementation of some extreme form of martial law crackdown against resistance to the present status quo?
Consistently, this column has proven its dedication to reform and change through nonviolent means. However, the small group of central bankers who have enslaved nearly every country on this planet with insurmountable debt will never let go of this control without a fight.This is why I am advocating for not participating in their bankster controlled institutions (e.g. Bank of America, WalMart, etc.). However, at the end of the day, the obvious bankster counter would be the well known, much anticipated practice of accepting the mark and you will not be able to buy and sell without it. Ultimately, at its root, this is a spiritual war between good and evil. If you do not think that Satan does not have his hand on this situation, then you are not paying attention. The Mark of the Beast is here. It is only a matter of time.
Credit to Common Sense
A whopping 542 ounces in potential paper claims to every ounces of physical gold.
There had been an eerie silence at the Comex in recent weeks, where after registered gold tumbled to a record 120K ounces in early December nothing much had changed, an in fact the total amount of physical deliverable aka "registered" gold, had stayed practically unchanged at 275K ounces all throughout January.
Until today, when in the latest update from the Comex vault, we learn that a whopping 201,345 ounces of Registered gold had been de-warranted at the owner's request, and shifted into the Eligible category, reducing the total mount of Comex Registered gold by 73%, from 275K to just 74K overnight.
This took place as a result of adjustments at vaults belonging to Scotia Mocatta (-95K ounces), HSBC (-85K ounces), and Brink's (-21K ounces).
Meanwhile, the aggregate gold open interest remained largely unchanged, at just about 40 million ounces.
This means that the ratio which we have been carefully tracking since August 2015 when it first blew out, namely the "coverage ratio" that shows the total number of gold claims relative to the physical gold that "backs" such potential delivery requests, - or simply said physical-to-paper gold dilution - just exploded.
As the chart below shows - which is disturbing without any further context - the 40 million ounces of gold open interest and the record low 74 thousandounces of registered gold imply that as of Monday's close there was a whopping 542 ounces in potential paper claims to every ounces of physical gold. Call it a 0.2% dilution factor.
To be sure, skeptics have suggested that depending on how one reads the delivery contract, the Comex can simply yank from the pool of eligible gold and use it to satisfy delivery requests despite the explicit permission (or lack thereof) of the gold's owner.
Still, the reality that there are just two tons of gold to satisfy delivery requsts based on accepted protocols should in itself be troubling, ignoring the latent question why so many owners of physical gold are de-warranting their holdings.
Considering there are now less than 74,000 ounces of Registered gold at the Comex, or just over 2 tonnes, we may be about to find out how right, or wrong, the skeptics are, because at this rate the combined Registered vault gold could be depleted as soon as the next delivery request is satisfied. Or isn't.
Credit to Zero Hedge
Americans Really, Really Hate The Government
If there is one thing that Americans can agree on these days, it is the fact that most of us don’t like the government. CBS News has just released an article entitled “Americans hate the U.S. government more than ever“, and an average of recent surveys calculated by Real Clear Politics found that 63 percent of all Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction and only 28 percent of all Americans believe that the country is heading in the right direction. In just a few days the first real ballots of the 2016 election will be cast in Iowa, and up to this point the big story of this cycle has been the rise of “outsider” candidates that many of the pundits had assumed would never have a legitimate chance. Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders have all been beneficiaries of the overwhelming disgust that the American people feel regarding what has been going on in Washington.
And it isn’t just Barack Obama or members of Congress that Americans are disgusted with. According to the CBS News article that I referenced above, our satisfaction with various federal agencies has fallen to an eight year low…
A handful of industries are those “love to hate” types of businesses, such as cable-television companies and Internet service providers.The federal government has joined the ranks of the bottom-of-the-barrel industries, according to a new survey from the American Customer Satisfaction Index. Americans’ satisfaction level in dealing with federal agencies –everything from Treasury to Homeland Security — has fallen for a third consecutive year, reaching an eight-year low.
So if we are all so fed up with the way that things are running, it should be easy to fix right?
Unfortunately, things are not so simple.
In America today, we are more divided as a nation than ever. If you ask 100 different people how we should fix this country, you are going to get 100 very different answers. We no longer have a single shared set of values or principles that unites us, and therefore it is going to be nearly impossible for us to come together on specific solutions.
You would think that the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution should be able to unite us, but sadly those days are long gone. In fact, the word “constitutionalist” has become almost synonymous with “terrorist” in our nation. If you go around calling yourself a “constitutionalist” in America today, there is a good chance that you will be dismissed as a radical right-wing wacko that probably needs to be locked up.
The increasing division in our nation can be seen very clearly during this election season. On the left, an admitted socialist is generating the most enthusiasm of any of the candidates. Among many Democrats today, Hillary Clinton is simply “not liberal enough” and no longer represents their values.
On the other end of the spectrum, a lot of Republican voters are gravitating toward either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Both of those candidates represent a complete break from how establishment Republicans have been doing things in recent years.
Now don’t get me wrong – I am certainly not suggesting that we need to meet in the middle. My point is that there is absolutely no national consensus about what we should do. On the far left, they want to take us into full-blown socialism. Those that support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz want to take us in a more conservative direction. But even among Republicans there are vast disagreements about how to fix this country. Establishment Republicans greatly dislike both Trump and Cruz, and they are quite determined to do whatever it takes to keep either of them from getting the nomination. The elite have grown very accustomed to anointing the nominee from each party every four years, and so the popularity of Trump and Cruz is making them quite uneasy this time around. The following comes from the New York Times…
The members of the party establishment are growing impatient as they watch Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz dominate the field heading into the Iowa caucuses next Monday and the New Hampshire primary about a week later.The party elders had hoped that one of their preferred candidates, such as Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, would be rising above the others by now and becoming a contender to rally around.
The global elite gathered in Davos, Switzerland are also greatly displeased with Trump. Just check out some of the words that they are using to describe him…
“Unbelievable“, “embarrassing” even “dangerous” are some of the words the financial elite gathered at the World Economic Forum conference in the Swiss resort of Davos have been using to describe U.S. Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump.Although some said they still expected his campaign to founder before his party picks its nominee for the November election many said it was no longer unthinkable that he could be the Republican candidate.
The truth is that the Republican Party represents somewhere less than half the population in the United States, and today it is at war with itself. Supporters of Trump have a significantly different vision of the future than supporters of Cruz, and the establishment wing wants nothing to do with either candidate.
A lot of people seem to assume that since Trump is leading in the polls that he will almost certainly get the nomination.
That is not exactly a safe bet.
It is my contention that the establishment will pull out every trick in the book to keep either him or Cruz from getting the nomination. And in order to lock up the nomination before the Republican convention, a candidate will need to have secured slightly more than 60 percent of all of the delegates during the caucuses and the primaries.
The following is an excerpt from one of my previous articles in which I discussed the difficult delegate math that the Republican candidates are facing this time around…
It is going to be much more difficult for Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination than most people think. In order to win the nomination, a candidate must secure at least 1,237 of the 2,472 delegates that are up for grabs. But not all of them will be won during the state-by-state series of caucuses and primaries that will take place during the first half of 2016. Of the total of 2,472 Republican delegates, 437 of them are unpledged delegates – and 168 of those are members of the Republican National Committee. And unless you have been hiding under a rock somewhere, you already know that the Republican National Committee is not a fan of Donald Trump. In order to win the Republican nomination without any of the unpledged delegates, Trump would need to win 60.78 percent of the delegates that are up for grabs during the caucuses and primaries. And considering that his poll support is hovering around 30 percent right now, that is a very tall order.In the past, it was easier for a front-runner to pile up delegates in “winner take all” states, but for this election cycle the Republicans have changed quite a few things. In 2016, all states that hold caucuses or primaries before March 15th must award their delegates proportionally. So when Trump wins any of those early states, he won’t receive all of the delegates. Instead, he will just get a portion of them based on the percentage of the vote that he received.In 2016, more delegates will be allocated on a proportional basis by the Republicans than ever before, and with such a crowded field that makes it quite likely that no candidate will have secured enough delegates for the nomination by the time the Republican convention rolls around.
If no candidate has more than 60 percent of the delegates by the end of the process, then it is quite likely that we will see the first true “brokered convention” in decades.
If we do see a “brokered convention”, that would almost surely result in an establishment candidate coming away with the nomination. That list of names would include Bush, Rubio, Christie and Kasich.
And if by some incredible miracle either Trump or Cruz does get the nomination, the elite will move heaven and earth to make sure that Hillary Clinton ends up in the White House.
For decades, it has seemed like nothing ever really changes no matter which political party is in power, and that is exactly how the elite like it.
Our two major political parties are really just two sides of the same coin, and they are both leading this nation right down the toilet.
Credit to Economic Colapse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)