I have to repeat myself a bit today, to make sure we’re all on the same page with a couple issues. If even one of you has misunderstood me or misinterpreted the implications of the imagery I’ve lately presented, I want to give clarity my best shot, before we move on to speculations and related subjects.
Two issues. The first is to verify that we know that the ‘Roadster in space’ video that’s been blasted around the planet on TV and the Net was in fact not produced in space but in a studio here on earth. I’m hoping you’ve all see my two videos on this subject; this one and this one.
I’ve also presented still imagery, often screenshots from the video. I’m going to present some of them again but this time explain their meaning in a slightly different, and more detailed, manner.
Image 1. The Roadster over Australia/NZ plus the time of day. Ya gotta click in to make it bigger!
I ended the last post with three images inspired by Jarrah White’s attempt to prove that Musk’s space videos are genuine. Jarrah ‘mirrored’ the part of the Roadster’s ‘orbit’ which showed it passing over his native land of Australia (see Image 1), even adding the national anthem as a patriotic touch. Last time I forgot to mention what inspired me to look closely at ‘Australia’ to begin with: the visible coastline (presumably the east coast) does not match the map (Images 2). Give them a good look, please, with this in mind. (How could Jarrah not notice this?)
#2. Notice where New Zealand is here and should be in #1.
But it was the dense cloud cover stretching far to the east of the land mass that really caught my attention. It’s summer in the southern hemisphere, so a vast bad weather system like that shown would seem unlikely. So I googled for the weather over New Zealand (Auckland, specifically) for the date and approximate time when the ‘Roadster’ passed over (see Image 5). Since I might have screwed up with time and date changes, I also checked the weather for the days before and after February 6 (the launch date). All those days reported sunny to partly cloudy (with maybe a squall or two).
#3. It was around 11AM on February 7 at NZ.
Even if the 5:15 PM (EST) – which would be 11:15 AM on February 7th in Nz — is a bit off, no matter: As anyone with eyes to see should now know, the true weather at New Zealand does not match the Musk image. (The tiny break in the cloud cover cannot explain the discrepancy – this is not where Nz is, and anyway, the week’s weather archive shows no dense cloud cover.)
Q.E.D., right?
I’ve grown fond of this ‘initialism,’ by the way, as a way of claiming that I’ve proved a point, by any reasonable standard.
…(also written QED and QED) is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum meaning “what was to be demonstrated” or “what was to be shown.” Some may also use a less direct translation instead: “thus it has been demonstrated.” [Wiki]
This is important for our purposes because it means that the evidence shown is sufficient – meaning that no other evidence is needed for the point to be considered correct.
Regarding this post, what I’m saying (in plain English) is that if only one of the two proofs I’m showing you today is correct – and the other is somehow flawed – we still have a ‘Q.E.D.’ with respect to my argument that the imagery is/was fraudulent. (This doesn’t even count my videos.)
As mentioned last time, I have dozens of archived ‘impossible lighting’ screenshots, but the one shown here (Image 4) is my favorite. Why? Because I had a difficult time figuring out how they came up with this lighting moment (no matter the context in the video). Please enlarge it and look at it closely. That the sun could not have lit the scene is almost moot! I mean, how could the dummy’s helmet be lit up (with a little fall off on the seat next to him) while the car – and most especially the windshield frame, which cuts across the dummy’s face – is completely dark?
#4. What can one say?
The lighting here is reminiscent of how night car-driving scenes are lit in Hollywood movies, i.e., with a tiny hidden lamp embedded just above the rear view mirror and which illuminates the actor’s face. In fact, if anyone can come up with an alternative way to get the effect in this image, please, I’m all ears. (By the way, do you see how this observation is sufficient but not necessary evidence of fraud?)
The implications here are interesting. In fact, in the Spacex video there are so many anomalies on so many different levels that incompetence as an excuse is starting to feel unlikely. Unless the DP (director of photography, who does the lighting) put the little embedded light there to jazz up the arc light he uses for the ‘sun,’ and forgot to turn it off when the car went dark, it means this screw up was purposeful.
Read it, but with caution. You may lose sleep.
But why? Well, why do the PTB pull absurdly transparent fakes at all? Since (and before, too) 9/11 the list is almost endless. For me, this has been an especially vexing issue since reading the book, The Most Dangerous Book in the World, which, although written as a limited hangout by an agent of the state, shows with chilling clarity how powerful and detail-obsessed the psychopaths who run things really are. Everything about 9/11, from the architecture of the WTC to the name of an airport in Alaska to all the numbers involved to… well, to the name of the only dog killed that day… every detail was planned and executed with an almost supernatural precision.
And they can’t get the lighting right on a fucking car? (Yes, I am assuming the same entity that did 9/11 is behind this latest fraud, and yes, I could be wrong about this.)
What gives? I do have a theory or two to mull over, but it’s off-subject here, so let me get back to you on it.
By the way, if you’re wondering about the significance of the dog killed on 9/11, his name was Sirius. Sirius is the most important star in the heavens, according to most mystery schools and secret societies (including the Freemasons). As a by-the-way within a by-the-way, near the beginning of the movie The Truman Show something crashes onto the street in front of Truman’s house (which is in a giant ‘studio’ with a dome roof as the sky). Truman picks up the object to find the label ‘Sirius’ on it.
So: A star literally fell from the heavens, the star being Sirius, a.k.a. ‘the Dog Star,’ an obvious reference to Freemasonry, for those ‘with eyes to see.’ My point being that given the incredible ‘reach’ of those who shape our culture, how could they so often ‘screw up’?
Truman and the fallen dog star. Lotsa stuff in this flick.
(One more point of logic: When evidence from two unrelated realms (weather and photography) independently point to the same conclusion (visual fakery), that conclusion is even more strongly corroborated.)
But back to today’s subject matter: We know that the Musk/Spacex ‘Roadster in space’ imagery was/is fraudulent, i.e., done here on earth in a studio, right? Okay, my second point is this: Is this important?
Obviously, I consider it important. It’s more important that you see it as important. Why? For one reason, there are a helluva lot of ‘alternative media’ outlets/people that apparently do not think it important. Folks whose life’s work apparently is to keep you informed of important ‘truths’ that the mainstream and the PTB want to keep hidden.
Yep, this is what I’m really getting at. Ever since I realized that someone I’d been listening to for years and who apparently wants me to know HTWRW, was/is in fact a limited hangout agent. I speak specifically of James Corbett, but I later realized that it was only by happenstance that I came across the evidence that James is not who he seems. It could have been anyone.
(Aside from the link above, Corbett’s incredible, no, impossible output, gives him away. Also, on one podcast he mentioned that his (Japanese) wife has no interest in his work; she in fact won’t even help him with translations. I tried to imagine a person who must work 40 hours a day (sic) making the documentaries and mini-documentaries and podcasts and writing the essays, all of which tell us ‘truths’ the PTB want to keep secret… and he marries someone he apparently can’t even talk to about his work? I don’t think so. This would only happen if his work was just his ‘job,’ i.e., a way to make money.
Keep in mind that I am not suggesting you stop listening to Corbett or to anyone else, be they limited hangout or no. I’ve had some true epiphanies via LHs. Mostly, though, I would suggest we (you and I) stay aware of what subjects are not dealt with by ‘truth tellers.’
So, there’s the connection with the Musk fraud and today’s post. If you think the evidence I’ve presented is important, hang in for some observations regarding those who do not.
Allan
Thanks a bunch to those who emailed me with a ‘Yep’ in the subject box to let me know you’re out there and interested. (I also found some of your comments most encouraging and insightful.) I still ask anyone who hasn’t yet done so to please email me at acwdownsouth at yahoo.com, or hit the reply button (I prefer the former) and just put ‘Yep’ in the box. But don’t do this if you’ve already done it. Put something else in the subject box.
And yes, I know I’m taking my time getting to the Whys and Implications behind this latest fakery, but I have my reasons. Hang in.