There’s no network here

Be the 1st to vote.

Sorry to disappoint Steve – there is no organized network here. I support Chris and his work, I’ve never (yet) talked to Jay, and I have had a few calls with John Adams and enjoy his research. That’s the limit to our association.

As much as you appear against what I believe in, I couldn’t really make a list of what parts of the fakeologist research you are opposed to. I know you think Simon is presenting false image comparisons – but what about the overall big idea? Is he fundamentally wrong with his research? Do you agree and all are simulations conducted by the military?

If you do, then I can easily ignore the nitpicking. We all have areas that we think each of us is off – but compared to the mainstream population, we have far more in common than not.

Chris invited you on to discuss in his latest call. I suggest you take him up on it – he’s harmless and quite friendly.

No tags for this post.

5 thoughts on “There’s no network here

  1. Zalian

    Thought he had a point, would be lying if i said i never tought the same about Simon, but upon going to his channel i see his “snowden is CGI” videos and realize he has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to image analasis.

    A simple flipped image puzzles this guy, not sure what value his “research” has, if that is the extent of his knowledge.

    And greenscreen spill and a low quality bitrate is what he thinks is evidence of CGI generated face (sigh).

    Should never throw the baby with the bathwater, but i have difficulties taking the rest of his “info” seriously in this light.

    That being said, the missing nosepad on his glasses is wierd, wouldnt that hurt? but its at least consistent in all footage.

    Must also admit i didnt listen to the entire clip you posted after this quick glance on his channel.

    My 2 cents.


    1. ab Post author

      Simon’s work in total is game changing, even if he’s made mistakes in reverse engineering. Do you agree with this?

      1. Zalian

        Dont know yet to what extent i agree with it all.

        Big picture? sure.

        Small picture i like to decide on a case by case basis.

        But im glad we have people that try anyway, not sure i would call him a schill.
        Dont know him well enough. So at the moment its all info to me, and i accept into my worldview the stuff i agree with.

        I did watch that fakeologist/clues forum hate video this guy made after i posted earlier.
        And i found myself agreeing on some points (guess you can find useful stuff from anyone, if you filter the garbage)

        And i must agree with him, the more i look at 9/11 for instance i cant help it, but i see no CGI (as in generated footage),

        I tried giving benefit of the doubt and say models (and it might still be the case),

        But my mind always leaps back to just a closed off area and a controlled demolition.

        (ill agree to jumpers being either a seperate shot or composited, doubt people died in things as well planned as this, and victims have been a no show)

        Would love to get the input of a professional prop maker on the subject.

        I will agree to the planes being faked though.

        But there was a explosion, and from a effects point of view it still puzzles me how it was done.

        Hard to composite a explosion like that, but not impossible, but i see none of the usual signs off it.
        Was it maybe a 747 composited over a empty plane? Drone? missile?

        These theories all seem possible to me, and honestly i dont know, i was not there.

        Not trying to be a naysayer or anything, that is just the way i honestly see it, and i might be wrong or right, im awaiting more information personally, but doubt i will ever get it.

        Guess i hold the same position i always have, i see no evidence for elaborate fakes when you can just film stuff and maybe composite in the missing parts (the key to realistic shots)

        When it comes to the Breivik case i take the same position.
        I personally belive breivik to be a actor not a sim, and the crazy stuff we see in the “trial” is just that, a cheap mockup of a trial with greenscreens (like in the shaking chair stuff), not a simmed human being.

        The flat earth i still consider somewhat valid, at least i belive one should dare ask the question.

        So in conclusion there is not much i agree with Simon on, but there are some things.
        But i do always read his stuff and think about it nonetheless.

        Maybe he will convince me in the future.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.