I’ve requested before that you try to keep your comments at least in the general arena of my posts; I’ve also asked that you don’t make multiple comments when one will do. Several of you have paid no attention to these requests, and when I delete irrelevant stuff or refuse to OK it, I’m accused of censorship.
This is tiresome. I have to keep a lookout for shills/moles, and I know several of you are of that ilk. I had three attempts (one that worked) to insert a link to a theory that Jews are descended from Neanderthals. This is an attempt to discredit my information by conflating the crapola with diligent research.
Last night.
More of this will result in… yes, banishment!
Another mole/shill-giveaway is long and rambling and irrelevant blather that includes deceit regarding what I actually said. This guy, ‘Jethro’ — who bailed out when he realized he’d been caught lying — is an example, although one never knows; Jethro could be just a genuine victim of of his own inability to process evidence.
As I’ve said, and which should be obvious to anyone whose been around this blog, Operation Mockingbird and its descendants is not only alive and well but very active in the alt media. These people are aware of me and don’t seem to mind my truth exposures: I believe they are curious as to what I will figure out next; I have too few subscribers to amount to any sort of real threat to them.
Adam is clearly looking across…
They do know, however, that I’m very good at sussing out their lies, especially the subtle ones, and the old ones that have survived for years, for decades, without exposure. My favorite recent one was my realization that Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ is a fraud. That expose came at the end of my essay on Sam Harris, the PTB mole.
Notice his eyeball. Looking up.
Another favorite was my observation that Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel Ceiling has changed over the… years… timelines… whatever the Mandela effect actually is. If you don’t recall that post, here it is. The proof is in the eye line of ‘Adam.’ He’s looking up in one version and straight across (at God) in another. How to explain this? Who else has noticed this? Is this not important?
Nope, can’t be done, by Bezos either.
I could go on. The Spacex fraud. And yes, the other billionaire space boys are frauds also. Like Jeff Bezos, who, like Musk, is ignoring the laws of physics with his backwards-landing boosters. (I also found out that his company has not bought any liquid oxygen… at all… it’s needed for rocket fuel, you know.)
I look back at my posts and notice that almost every one has a gem that you will not find anywhere else. And what do I get (in comments)?
A good percentage of the Neanderthal posts are either irrelevant or (like Jethro) attempts to distract readers from what I have uncovered, or, as mentioned, to discredit my information with blackwashing. It would be nice if someone other than me pointed a finger at these people.
And it would be nice is a few more of you — those who realize my worth — would chip in $3.25 a month. As of now, the blog’s income doesn’t even cover expenses. I don’t remember the last time I brought this up; it was many months ago. As you know, I don’t do this for the money (a joke), but it’s a way of encouraging me to keep at it.
I believe my Neanderthal work is worthwhile, and yet many of the comments are on other subjects, or are an attempt to discredit, like the comment saying that Lloyd Pye was a mole, based on his military service record and nothing else. You never know, but absent other ‘evidence’… what’s the point of bringing it up?
A couple nights ago.
Another comment included the ‘observation’ that an aspect of his lecture (Zana’s heritage) was completely off the subject of Neanderthal bones and primate strength.
Addendum: After an hour of Net-scouring, I was unable to find any actual evidence that Zana was anything but what Pye theorized — a real living hominoid, possibly an ‘alma,’ i.e., a Eurasian version of the yeti. The closest to anything of substance was an opinion by none other than Bryan Skyes, the mainstream author of the the book I took apart in my post. Is this where the commenter came up with his information? Pu-lease. If you’re looking to debunk something I say… I welcome it, but you should do better than this.
And finally, what possible motive could the PTB have for backing Lloyd Pye as a mole? Although an aspect of being a limited hangout is to include ‘good’ information with the crapola that’s coming, everything Lloyd Pye ever came up with was anti-Darwinian, and anti-Darwinian is the biggest no-no of them all. On the other hand, the best way to discredit Pye would be to spout specious claims/half-assed accusations…
I guess I’m in one of my moods today. To make up for it and since many of you seem to like my little videos, here’s another, from last night:
Allan
Addendum: August 22 and I’m not sure why I have to do this, but it seems some people don’t want to see what they don’t already believe.
I’ve blown up the Sistine images to make it clearer (which anyone can do). Please, can we have a vote. If you see that in Number 2 Adam’s eye line is higher than in Number 1, please say so, and if it’s obvious or not.
Also, it makes no artistic sense that Adam is on the same level as God. God should be looking down on Adam (as in Number 2). Others have noticed this, also. Do a search.
(Number 2, above.)
A better example is Mona Lisa, who now has an obvious smile. Her expression used to be neutral, ‘enigmatic.’
FYI: “Miles Mathis” hasn’t posted in almost 2 months; very unusual. Maybe something to do with your poking?
Valium seems in order.
Heroin maybe a better choice.
You are gonna have a friggin heart attack.
Yes it sucks sometimes but you need to meditate and I mean it. You need to love yourself more. Much more. I struggle with this myself and I am about 7 or 8 years younger than you (I am guessing you are 70).
There are many ways to crack up. Are you searching for the quickest or most effective?
DC
HEROIN a choice??…you have got to be kidding!.
Let’s not talk about heart attacks, because they are common, especially anywhere from the age of about 50. And friend, they hit folks who do & say nothing! , just as much, if not more!.
I’m thinking opiates might be a bit excessive but getting out of the comments section is probably a good idea.
But as long as I am here, and the conversation has turned to ME, are you aware of the new Tom Hanks movie? I saw the trailer in the theater this weekend. He came out as Fred Rogers and sang THIS neighborhood. Then a subway full of his fans serenaded him but sang THE neighborhood. And then, when the trailer was over, the title came up – “It’s a beautiful day in THE neighborhood”. WTF?
And another one that may be of interest to you and your readers –
https://www.androidauthority.com/linux-1022218/
I’ve never considered Linus Torvald’s possible involvement in anything, but his fingerprints appear to be on much of what you have been writing about. Maybe worth a look?
The painting has been restored and “fixed” repeatedly. It is has been changing as they determine what it originally looked like through analysis. God only knows when those pictures were taken.
“The frescoes on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel had a number of interventions prior to the restoration process which was started in 1980. Initial problems with the ceiling appear to have been caused by water penetrating through the floor above. In about 1547 Paolo Giovio wrote that the ceiling was being damaged by saltpetre and cracks. The effect of saltpetre is to leave a white efflorescence.”
(More white in the eye?)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Sistine_Chapel_frescoes
It is also one of the most copied artworks of all time. God only knows what the pictures are of.
“The Creation of Adam is the central element in Michelangelo’s large Sistine Chapel fresco. It is one of the most replicated biblical paintings in history, now blazoned on anything, from placemats to umbrellas.”
https://historylists.org/art/20-of-the-world’s-most-famous-art-pieces.html
I think there is a lot of room for differences and actual changes over time that can be explained without resorting to “the Mandela Effect.”
Ok, I’ll repeat myself one more time: The issue was about eye lines, not the ME. AS I SAID BEFORE, the difference in the paintings is a POSSIBLE example of residue, which I only bring up because of similar examples, like Mona Lisa, who is now smirking at us.
But since you, Chris, are unable to self-reflect AT ALL — and would rather pretend we are talking about something else, rather than say, ‘Ooops, I was wrong’ — I’ll refer you to my post re some Amish I met.
http://blog.banditobooks.com/the-amish-effect/
See, there HAVE been changes in the bible, as my post indicates — to be clear, the Amish I spoke to all remembered (as do I and like 95% of those asked), it in fact WAS a ‘lion’ with the fucking lamb, not a wolf. This being just ONE example.
Men breast-feeding babies? Homosexuals going to heaven? And on and on. Cherry picking will do you no good. There are too many examples, too much ‘residue.’
Or will you agree with ‘Miles Mathis,’ whose explanation is the CIA sneaks into your house and switches tapes and books? (Including all the Amish bibles.) Because it’s either that or something… very unnatural is going on.
Oh, and I suppose the announcers in the Emmys were all slurring ‘and’ into ‘in’, in my video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlCEwxtWZwM&t=45s
I’m just talking about The Creation of Adam. It has been changed a lot recently. I don’t believe in the ME. Sorry. Memory is fallible. I once spent 10 minutes arguing that a Maui zowie pizza at round table pizza was supposed to come with ham and pepperoni, because I was sure of it, after all, I used to know people that worked there. Upon serious reflection later that evening, I realized I was a complete douche-nozzle, and my memory was wrong, and had somehow “revised” what I remembered. It CAN come with both of those, but doesn’t automatically. I chalk it up to low blood sugar from not eating enough in the morning. But I was fucking sure of my memory earlier. That is self reflection, and realizing one’s own fallibility, and making adjustments. You continue to ignore that Sex And The City changed its name in multiple international markets, including Spanish speaking ones. (Sexo en la ciudad). I have no interest in aggravating you. We disagree.
If that is correct, and this is the best their renovation team can do, I’m shocked.
The quality of the pictures repairs and repainting , are absolutely piss poor.
I could do a better job!.
There’s something afoot IMO to all this quantum stuff , ME and CERN . What we know so far.
1. Quantum mechanics is saying we create our reality ( consciousness collapses the wave function)
2. Particles exist outside of space and time .
3. Quantum researchers and scientists at the cutting edge are occultists .
4. what’s with that crazy demonic opening Swiss tunnel ceremony ? It looked like a story presentation rather than a ritual .
Looks like the region of the tunnel is steeped in devil mythology which would explain the ceremony .
I found something else quite interesting though regarding the occult angle from one of the leading philosophers – esotericists of the 19th-20th centuries, Rudolph Steiner. He claims Lucifer appeared in China 3000 bc and brought false spirituality and paganism , the Christ appeared for 3 years and brought Christianity and Ahriman (Satan)is set to appear now who will bring excessive materialism , soullessness and mastery of the physical realm ( quantum mechanics?) . According to Steiner, Ahriman’s forces will be working hard towards his arrival and in the future (now) he will be winning the war against the Luciferic and Christ forces . Steiner’s words seem very prophetic , we are indeed currently living in an extremely scientific and materialistic world .
First of a 4 part vid on the matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRwBwiMlX48&t=1s
From these two pictures (both pairs) there is definitely a difference in the angle of Adam’s eye line. That’s my vote.
Allan, you are correct, the white of the eye gives this away. There is certainly white under the eye of picture 2 where there isn’t any in picture 1 – indicating he is looking UP. I emailed you my rotated picture picture composite as a JPG file.
However, as you pointed out in your comment August 23, 2019 at 3:01 pm that they are different paintings. I agree with ME and this possibly being an ME artifact, but may not be as good (comparing separate paintings) as “No, LUKE, I am…”, “Life IS like a…”, “Sex IN the City”, the VW emblem, and Dolly.
I know. this is not proof of the ME. In fact I am only aggravated about the eye line issue. More in another comment, to tomkelly33.
It was extremely frowned upon (chopping heads off frowned upon) in those days to even make any images of God never mind putting him on the same level as man .
I also thought there was a ray of light in the gap which connected God and Adam’s fingers as the painting signifies God awaking humanity .
looking up – shape of the white portion of eye is different in second image, clearly.
Okay, tomkelly33 and anyone else who can’t see it: I added more imagery at the end of the post. Please send a vote as to the eye lines.
Hi Allan, I still don`t see it. Did you check the graphic mockup I sent you via email? There I analyzed the eye lines via arrows and lines to make it more clear.
In both images Adam`s eyeline goes slightly above his hand.
In image 2 Adam is tilted backward (as can beseen from his right leg and left arm position) so of course he is looking up at his hand! It`s not the same angle as in image 1…
I checked antique book covers of the Sistine Chapel for ME residuals but they positioning of god vs. man doesn`t look changed. Do you have any other sample of how the “old” was supposed to look like?
Look, I could be wrong about you (tomkelly33) and if I am I apologize. But I do not apologize for being aggravated for having to take the time to prove what is obvious to all other than you, apparently. This issue does not prove the ME, but it is a possible ‘residue’ — like the Mona Lisa and many many other stuff.
Thanks for the video Allan.
Those are 2 totally different pictures….one of them is obviously a “clone” done by some artist.
There is a ton of difference between the 2 in the details.
I have been through that place, AND the jaw-dropping main Church….all I wanted to do was find the secret door to the vast collection of gold bars & cash in it’s basement!!
Perhaps Allan just wants to see who can spot that they’re two different pictures?
Alternatively, via pressure or usurpation, this site is being ‘sanitised’ by steering it away from revelation (of deceit) toward distraction:
1. Paleoanthropological hoaxes (Neanderthal, Piltdown, etc.)
2. ‘Mandela effect’ psyop – latest example being this Sistine chapel bunkum.
3. Secret space program psyop.
4. Evolution/Creationism faux-controversy.
5. Road trip auto-biopic.
Let me get this straight: Aside from the wise-ass number 5, you don’t consider your list to be examples of deceit (on one level or another). Is this really the case?
Like the flat Earth psyop, 1-4 are not worth wasting any time on, irrespective of any deception involved.
1. Impossible to corroborate. Minimal evidence. Disposition to fakery. Irrelevant.
2. Impossible.
3. Nonsensical. A deflection from NASA fakery.
4. Deflection from catastrophism. Few are able to imagine processes that take millions of years – gradual or otherwise.
A recent distraction (from more important celestial mechanics) in the news is the ‘black hole at the center of the galaxy becoming active’ tripe. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pa7y4m/our-galaxys-black-hole-suddenly-lit-up-and-nobody-knows-why
Discernment is not only about recognizing deception, but also about recognizing dead-ends or time sinks – fascinating amusements designed to enthrall the gullible and unwary, to impede their progress on their journey of discovery.
Sorry folks, but someone says something like the above, how can I NOT assume he’s doing the work of the PTB?
I’ll just take one, so as not to waste our time:
3. Nonsensical. A deflection from NASA fakery.
So, exposing Spacex (and/or Apollo) and The Pale Blue Dot fraud is somehow a ‘deflection’ from NASA fakery’? Okay, then give us an example of IMPORTANT NASA fakery, and please be specific.
Where do you think people should be putting their attention Pete ?
Like the Flat Earth psyop, the SSP is a psyop to distract from NASA fakery.
How can you misinterpret that to mean that the Apollo landings weren’t faked, that SpaceX isn’t faked, that the blue marble & pale blue dot imagery isn’t faked – or that demonstrating such fakery is a waste of time?
Your past articles in which you demonstrated such fakery were worthwhile, but now you’re wasting time on wild goose chases.
I’m saying the SSP is a nonsensical invention – a distraction, and thus investigation of it is a waste of time.
NASA imagery is faked, and so the Flat Earth psyop is created to provide an incorrect explanation for such fakery, leading the feeble minded to conclude it isn’t faked – because the Earth isn’t flat…
Similarly, the SSP was invented to imply that NASA easily had the technology to do Apollo, but all was not as it seemed. So, a conspiracy theory that affirms Apollo rather than undermines it.
Let’s put together your comments and see if you are making sense. I’ll put my observations in CAPS. First you write:
Alternatively, via pressure or usurpation, this site is being ‘sanitised’ by steering it away from revelation (of deceit) toward distraction (DISTRACTION MEANS MISDIRECTION, I ASSUME; AS IN IRRELEVANT):
1. Paleoanthropological hoaxes (Neanderthal, Piltdown, etc.) SORRY BUT LIES ABOUT HUMAN ORIGINS ARE NOT IRRELEVANT. THEY ARE PART OF THE DARWINISM FRAUD. BY THE WAY, HOW DID PILTDOWN WORM ITS WAY INTO THIS? POISONING THE WELL, ARE WE?)
2. ‘Mandela effect’ psyop – latest example being this Sistine chapel bunkum. YOU WILL HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC. AS I’VE SHOWN, ME MAY HAVE STARTED AS A PSY OP BUT IT’S NOT EXPLAINABLE AS SUCH ANY MORE. SEE MY VIDEO AND EXPLAIN – FOR ONE THING – HOW SEX AND THE CITY WAS SEX IN THE CITY IN ALL THOSE AWARDS SHOWS. ET-FUCKING-CETERA
3. Secret space program psyop. HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO THE UFO ISSUE AT ALL? WHAT THE FUCK IS FLYING AROUND BREAKING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS? NOTICE THAT YOU DON’T CONFLATE SSP WITH NASA HERE. YOU DO SO LATER OUT OF THE BLUE.
4. Evolution/Creationism faux-controversy. WHEN DID I EVER MENTION CREATIONISM? DARWINISM, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS ONE OF THE BIG LIES. IRRELEVANT?
5. Road trip auto-biopic. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS ONE?
Then you write:
Like the Flat Earth psyop, the SSP is a psyop to distract from NASA fakery. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU CONFLATE NASA AND SSP, ISN’T IT? IF THERE IS NO SSP, YOU MUST BELIEVE THE UFOs are EXTRATERRESTRIAL. RIGHT? THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT CRAFTS ARE FLYING AROUND BREAKING THE KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS. OR HAVE YOU NOT DONE THE RESEARCH? ALSO EXPLAIN HOW RUMORS OF SSP WOULD DISTRACT FROM NASA FAKERY. HOW DOES THAT WORK? ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER. I LOOK AT A FAKE NASA PHOTO AND DO NOT THINK OF SSP. DO YOU? WHY TRY TO CONNECT THESE ISSUES? MIGHT AS WELL CONNECT JFK WITH SSP.
How can you misinterpret that to mean that the Apollo landings weren’t faked, that SpaceX isn’t faked, that the blue marble & pale blue dot imagery isn’t faked – or that demonstrating such fakery is a waste of time? IF YOUR LIST HERE IS ALL FAKED, THEN I GUESS I HAVE NOT WASTED ANY TIME AFTER ALL.
Your past articles in which you demonstrated such fakery were worthwhile, but now you’re wasting time on wild goose chases. TELL ME AT WHAT POINT I WENT FROM GOOD WORK TO WASTING TIME. HUMAN ORIGINS LIE EXPOSURE IS A WASTE OF TIME? NOT EVERYONE AGREES. ANY BIG LIE IS WORTH EXPOSING. YOU CAN BELITTLE THE M EFFECT, EASY TO DO BUT HARDER TO EXPLAIN THE ‘CHANGES.’ READ MY POSTS ON THIS AND BE SPECIFIC IN DEBUNKING.
I’m saying the SSP is a nonsensical invention – a distraction, and thus investigation of it is a waste of time. HOW IS IT NONSENSE? HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO IT? I HAVE. THE ‘RESEARCHERS’ ARE LARGELY LIMITED HANGOUTS BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE PTB ARE NOT DEVELOPING SECRET CRAFTS. THIS IS A NONSENSE SENTENCE YOU’VE WRITTEN.
NASA imagery is faked, and so the Flat Earth psyop is created to provide an incorrect explanation for such fakery, leading the feeble minded to conclude it isn’t faked – because the Earth isn’t flat… THIS IS OLD NEWS I’VE SAID MANY TIMES.
Similarly (I SEE NO SIMILARITY), the SSP was invented to imply that NASA easily had the technology to do Apollo, but all was not as it seemed. So, a conspiracy theory that affirms Apollo rather than undermines it. THIS IS DUMB. NO ONE WOULD THINK THAT SSP WAS INVENTED TO BUTTRESS AN OLD CHEMICAL ROCKET FRAUD. (WHEN DID SSP RUMORS START?) HOW COULD ANTI-GRAV SECRET CRAFTS AFFIRM APOLLO, FROM 1969? THIS MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.
Pete,
Comparing the FE psyop to SSP is quite a stretch. And what would keep one from looking into SSP while keeping in mind that deception with respect to it may be sneaking around, and at the same time be fully aware that Apollo was a cold war psyop that eventually must be owned up.
The feeble minded need not concern us here since there are plenty of peckerpaws who are certain that Apollo was a joke and yet also believe that the earth is flat. The association of FE with retardation is the primary one and the association of FE with Apollo is the secondary one. The link is the smear. The target is Joe Normyl, who after many years of stupefying education, seldom thinks clearly about anything, and maybe has such a devastated ego that he compensates with pride in the vicarious exploits of an agency he had nothing to do with. That is a blinding pride that will have no patience with anything to the contrary. These are the ones that get spitting mad when you try and show them stuff.
Limited hangouts are just as much a psyop under the rubric of deception, and without doubt researching SSP is both legitimate and prone to be fertile ground for distraction.
Allan, I am suggesting that you should concentrate on what YOU can know – and with what you CAN know.
You can observe Newtonian laws of physics, i.e. excluding Einstein.
You can observe what you can see with your own eyes (deceit, deception, fakery, etc.).
Nevertheless, your mind is not perfect. Beware that like all human beings, you are suggestible. ME is purely a consequence of suggestibility – you can easily (subconciously) kid yourself to agree that yes, it always was “sex in the city”. The alternative, that the fabric of reality was tweaked, but that not everyone’s brain was fully reprogrammed (a la Dark City), is ‘flat Earth’ grade nonsense.
How can you believe on the one hand that NASA didn’t have the technology for a rocket to lift off from the moon’s surface and dock with a command module in lunar orbit (so faked it), yet believe that they had (and still have) anti-grav and inertia-less drive tech – and are flitting around the upper atmosphere as UFOs just as much as they are ferrying things to & from the moon base on the dark side? SSP is bunk for the credulous.
I mentioned Piltdown to hint that ‘Neanderthal’ is likely to be a similar hoax – you can’t trust anything for which there is scant evidence.
You’re good at recognising deception, but (apparently) poor at detective work, i.e. moving on to “Who did it?”, “Why did they do it?”, etc.
For example, why are all terrorist & shooting events faked? They even had to create the meme of ‘fake news’ (fake fake news) because so many people were beginning to catch on.
And then again, what about things that aren’t faked, but are bizarre, such as the mass immgration of muslims into Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, etc.?
Nothing specific said, as I expected.
I’ll just add in case it’s not obvious: nothing is flying around breaking the laws of physics, because the laws of physics tell you that given the choice between:
a) Aliens, SSP, extra-dimensional entities, super-advanced tech, etc.
b) Deception, fakery, hoax, illusion, delusion, etc.
with plenty of evidence that the latter is widespread,
you have a big clue as to which is most likely out of a & b.
Don’t go all woo woo on us. Remain grounded. Deception in this world is pervasive, and very disturbing, but none of it requires breaking the laws of physics or venturing into the supernatural.
Blah blah blah. Nothing said.
Yes, they are (obviously) two different paintings but it’s unlikely that they had an artist re-paint it from scratch; too expensive and what artist would want to copy it? More likely a hi-res photo that’s reproduced, with whatever changes they wanted dialed in. I’m assuming this — don’t have time to research this detail. It’s not as clear cut as Mona Lisa, but rather a POSSIBLE ME.
Speaking of the Mona Lisa (probably the most well know & famous painting in the world?)…. If anyone wants the wind taken out of their sails, and wonder WTF that was all about, go and see the Mona Lisa on the wall at the Louvre museum in Paris.
Why people (pretend to) rave on about it is beyond me.
I agree, it’s merely based on suggestions. It’s loaded with free masons signs though and this could be the reason, why they chose this picture to be so famous. And also I many times stumbled upon claims, that the pictures in Louvre (as all the artefakts in other museums) are no longer originals but copies made by skilled painters. I saw a very nice copy of the Gioconda on our holiday in the Dominican Republic a few years ago. It was painted in oil, very carefully. They also had a photograph of the original Mona Lisa there to prove how good the copy was. It was a local shop with paintings and they wanted some 80$’s for it. I regret, I didn’t buy it but we were afraid, they won’t let us out of the country with that picture.
Look at the angle of the Sistine chapel arm. Look at the gaze towards the arm. It is the same.
No it isn’t. He’s looking sideways. Why would you claim that?
If anyone is in doubt, look up the Ceiling image yourself and see that his eye line is ACROSS his arm, not raised above it, as in the alternate version above. Fuck it, I’ll do it for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creation_of_Adam#/media/File:’Adam’s_Creation_Sistine_Chapel_ceiling’_by_Michelangelo_JBU33cut.jpg
So, Chris, please explain why you would… well, lie… about this. Look at the eye line. Are you going to say it’s the same as the other image, above?
Yeah, I guess it looks like he’s looking up more in one. They look different, though. And I wonder about the effect of taking a wide angle picture of a concave surface.
The background is different. The square pic has an extra blue blob above his head. It is square, also, and the real one is on the ceiling, which isn’t flat, so it isn’t square.
To be honest, both pics are such low quality, It’s hard to argue ( or even see) such small details. The square one appears to be a perspective-corrected artists rendering. In the original, which wraps around the ceiling, depending on where you are in the chapel, his gaze could appear different, due to the curvature. In any case, they are very different pictures, and too small of resolution to use a straight edge to measure the angle of his gaze.
Now it’s a resolution problem? You can’t just admit that the eye lines are different? That’s all this is about. Seeing who can see what is right in front of their face. Only in that sense is this important. Oh, and who can admit they are wrong. That’s another issue here.
By the way, Chris, whenever someone starts a statement with ‘To be honest,’ I wonder if they mean ‘honest’ compared to their past statements and observations.
Yes, it is two different pics, and they are of different things, and they are such low quality it’s not worth arguing about, so I’m stopping.
Hey Allan, Chris is right and the reason for this optical illusion is actually quite obvious. In your “other” pre-ME version the entire body of Adam is tilted up. Just check the line of his right leg or the line of the mountains behind him for reference. If align both photos next to each other at the same angle (with the right legs parallel to each other pointing in the same direction the gaze is almost identical). I just sent you a graphic mockup via email as I cannot upload it here.
Look at the eyeball and nothing else. Come on, even Chris sees this now. Use the link I have above for clarity.
Please see the added imagery at the end of the post. Let me know if you still can’t see the difference.
tomkelly33 made another comment saying he ‘still doesn’t see it’ (the difference in eye line). I don’t know why it didn’t show up here. I did not reject it. I’ve only erased a couple comments that rambled and ignored my ‘edict’ about blabbing incessantly on irrelevancies.
tomkelly33 (what’s with the ’33’?) is either blind, a moron, or is misdirecting — as part of his day job. I hope you all agree, given the imagery. I’m pretty tired of this shit, so tomkelly33 and his cohorts are doing well. How they live with themselves is another matter.
There are at least two other state shills on this thread. Can you guys spot them?
Allan, as mentioned before I sent you an email with 2 graphics attached that show both images side by side and indicates that the eyeball angel is more or less the same.
Your rude and paranoid comments about my character are totally out of place considering that I`ve been a monthly supporter of your blog and we have conversed several times via email and blog comments before (so you know my real name from your monthly Paypal receipts). If you treat everyone like this, who politely asks you to eloborate and refine your theories without taking your word for the last gospel (you want to inspire critical thinkers after all, right?) you will soon end up bitter and alone on this blog. For goodness sake!
Sorry, TOMKELLY33 but i go to the trouble of putting up more images that absolutely clearly show the eye line difference and you say ‘I still can’t see it.’ You know how tiring this is? You are obviously not stupid or blind so what are we left with? You tell me.
I don’t keep track of past conversations; there are too many. I have to look at the present and decide what’s going on. If you ‘still don’t see it’…. you tell me what I’m supposed to think. Right now, for example, I could be doing something more important than dealing with someone who can’t see an eyeball looking up.
Perhaps I am ‘paranoid’ about shills. You would be too if you had to deal with this shit on a daily basis. If I’m wrong about you, please think about getting eyewear so you can see what is right in front of you.
I don’t recall getting a ‘diagram’ or whatever it is and in any event it will not change the fact that Number two is LOOKING UP.
Sykes conclusion wasn’t an opinion, it was based on DNA testing.
https://doubtfulnews.com/2015/04/the-story-of-zana-wild-woman-has-been-solved-through-dna-analysis/
I wasn’t trying to disprove anything, but the fact that you won’t even publish my first comment seems suspiciously like you’re avoiding having to address my points. I can’t even imagine what your reaction would be if someone were censoring your comments on their site, but here you are doing it on yours.
One question at a time so you can’t cherry pick: Why would you bring up Zana, when my only point was to let Pye show you Neanderthal bones compared to human bones, and how much stronger that makes them as primates?
In the previous blog entry (where I first commented), you had linked Pye’s ‘Everything You Know Is Wrong’ where he uses Zana as an example of an ‘Alma’, as well as the iceman, as an example of another hominid.
I was merely trying to point out that both of these have been shown to be false and wanted your take on it – since Pye hasn’t, or wasn’t able to update his claims before his death.
Speaking of ‘cherry-picking’, you still haven’t addressed the iceman.
One other thing, up until this point, as a subscriber, I’ve received emails for every blog entry – except this one. I hope I haven’t been unsubscribed after 15+ years simply because I pointed out that one of your sources may not be all they claim to be.
I don’t agree with Pye on the Bigfoot issue so I don’t much care if he’s right about Zana or the Ice Man. Since he died before either of these issues were debunked — if they were debunked — they don’t reflect on his honesty, so, again, I don’t care. His observations re the bones and primate strength are true and not related to these issues. I assume you understand this, and that we have been bullshitted about Neanderthal morphology. Or maybe not. One reason for pointing out irrelevancies (without pointing out that they are irrelevancies) would be to ‘discredit’ the information.