I’ve been thinking of two possibilities for the near future. Either quit this blog altogether, since it seems to have no effect and only serves to put me on the radar of bad people, or get on with it and expose Sam Harris for what he is. Then maybe quit. We’ll see…
Here is the original. Doesn’t look right to me but what do I know about God and art?
Last night I was watching Rosemary’s Baby and realized a frame or two was maybe significant. So I screen-grabbed it. The scene was shot with Michelangelo’s ‘God and Man’ in the background, as part of the wall of an apartment (the movie-repro was almost certainly done via a photograph of the original). I recalled that many people remember the image with the Man lower down and looking up at God, as it is in the frame grab. (There is no logical connection between the possible occultism of the ME and Rosemary’s Baby, notwithstanding the obvious demonic theme of the latter.)
If you do a current search (the Sistine Chapel ceiling), you’ll see that God and Man are on the same horizontal plane, not with Man looking up. This would seem to be another possible ‘jab’ at God or religion. I mean, shouldn’t Michelangelo have positioned the Creator higher than his Creation?
According to the movie-grab (from 1966), he did do this; even if the camera angle is misleading, the Man’s eye is clearly looking up not across at his Creator. Look carefully at these images.
A close up; how the image is now. Yep, Man is looking across at his Creator, not up.
I bring up this example because of the Biblical theme. Most Effects (assuming they are genuine) seem random, purposeless, from a PTB perspective. The ‘religious’-themed ones might reflect an agenda; they may even be the main agenda behind whatever is going on, aside from the sort of ultimate power trip they represent. The destruction of organized religion to make way for a one-world system could very well involve the casting of doubt upon ‘holy books’ and imagery — I’d bet the Koran contains similar defacements. In this case, the ‘change’ to God and Man being on the same level may seem trivial, but from who/whatever is behind this, I would expect subtlety plus outrageousness in their methods.
Click it to enlarge then compare with the previous image. Look at his eye in this grab from the 1966 movie. He’s looking up, as he should be, and maybe was at the ‘time’ the movie was shot.
Meanwhile, I stumbled upon an annoying video that informed me that many people have been under the mistaken notion that the U.S. has 52 states. Ridiculous, right? I thought so. But the annoying video displayed some U.S. government documents that actually say this. So I went to Google Trends and was surprised to find that about the same number of people have done searches for ‘The 52 states of America’ as for ‘The 50 states of America.’
WTF?
I plugged in 49 and 51 and ‘No data’ came up. With ’48’ I got a reading, but
A different level than logos and movie lines, right?
that’s to be expected, ‘the lower forty-eight’ being a well-know term, for obvious reasons. Deniers will bring up whatever they want as an ‘explanation’ but the geography theme is thought-provoking. One of the MEs that at first sounds just too ridiculous is ‘South America is wrong,’ i.e., is ‘too far’ to the east ‘now.’ The map image to the left is from that annoying guy’s video so I can’t vouch for authenticity but I suspect if you do your own searches you’ll find that South America indeed has been moved. (I know: I’m laughing too.)
What’s that blob to the west of Oz?
But just as ridiculous is the screen grab I did from the 1993 movie called (aptly) Dazed and Confused. I rented the movie after seeing a clip on Youtube; I wanted to make sure there wasn’t any photo-shop BS from the Youtuber. There is bad news for the Kiwis on this blog. New Zealand is apparently gone on this globe, and/or reshaped and moved to the other side of Australia.
The question here becomes twofold. One, did someone go to a bit of trouble to insert a bogus globe into a few frames of an obscure 1990s film, or is the ME potentially ‘earth moving’ in its effects? Or both. (I mean, I think we can rule out a globe-making company accidentally making an error of this magnitude and no one catching it.)
Think about it. Is there another choice? Either it is a psy op, or, at another ‘time’/’place’, the earth was radically different. (Again, the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics comes to mind, plus maybe the occult clowns of CERN.) Or both, of course. But as I mentioned last time, if the ME is a psy op, it has to go way beyond the pale of past psy ops; if it’s a psy op, it means the spooks are fiddling with reality itself. And again, if this is the case why are the various media (MS and alt) so quiet about it? Has it gotten out of hand? Have they lost control?
Not only does the right side of her mouth turn upwards ‘now,’ but the expression in her eyes has subtly changed, to one of amusement.
Surprisingly, my review of The Most Dangerous Book… is still the ‘most helpful’.
The examples I bring up on this blog are the ones that tell me something about motive, like the Biblical ones. From my study of The Most Dangerous Book in the World, I know another PTB ‘tell’: a sly and demeaning wit. Take the Mona Lisa. In this grab from the annoying guy’s video, it appears that her expression has changed: Now she has a perceptible grin. (The image on the left is from a t-shirt, which, presumably, was designed ‘before’ the change.)
That’s Carl Sagan’s finger pointing to our solar system’s position in the Milky Way — on the outer reaches.
This is a good example of a ‘sense of humor’ (which, again, separates it from ‘random’ MEs). Is the new Mona Lisa representative of the PTB’s sly grin, telling us they can and will fuck with classic art (as with Michelangelo’s)? I mean, the current version might as well be winking at us. This stuff is important because it reflects a ‘human’ agenda behind some of the Effects, which is both scary and revealing.
It’s not just a matter of orientation, but distance from the galactic center…
But if you think tinkering with our planet’s geography is as far as the ME can go, you’re wrong. I’ve done some searches on this and found that our Galaxy has ‘changed’ as well. Just about every cosmologist has pointed to a different location for our solar system. I don’t have room here for more than three, but take my word for it: If you believe physicists, we’ve been camping out all over the cosmos.
See what I mean? You can hardly find two positions that are even close. (Enlarge and LOOK where the sun is: that red dot in Orion’s Spur.)
If you’re thinking that it’s a whole lot easier to change a ‘map’ of the galaxy than to move the solar system, I couldn’t agree more. My point is more along the lines of another example of the sly wit involved.
Addendum: As I go to bed it occurs to me that these ‘galaxy maps’ theoretically are based upon the view of the heavens from earth, so, theoretically, different maps should reflect very different views of the star fields… Mmmm… just a thought.
Anyway, as I say up top, I dunno if I’m going to keep doing this blog. It costs me money and exposure, and it doesn’t seem to have any effect other than aggravation (my own and others’).
I’m thinking I’ll finish up the one on Sam Harris and be done with it.
Allan
By the way, since we seem to be on the subject of ‘changing history,’ I’m wondering if any of you are familiar with the theory that about 1,000 years of world history has been totally fabricated (mostly via ‘adding’ the Dark Ages), via non-supernatural shenanigans?
Addendum image. See what I mean about ‘view of the star field’? Would we see Andromeda the same from the other maps?
Meaning ‘history’ is a whole lot shorter than we thought. I know: Just when you thought I couldn’t get any crazier…
If you have a lot of patience, you might try this guy, but be warned: he’s very ragged in his presentation. His clips of Sylvie Ivanova’s stuff make it worth your time, I think. Some of her evidence is nothing short of staggering.
Final note (I promise): What got my attention to Greg Jay’s work was this one, which indicates that the tides are not a function of the moon’s (plus sun’s) gravitation. Newton and Einstein may have both been wrong. (As Electric Universe implies, but the numbers actually prove it.) It also looks like Newton faked his data re the moon/tides. No surprise, come to think of it.
53 comments for “A Sly Wit?”