August 4, 2018 at 7:55 am #855097
There is a slight bulge half way up to his right knee, I wonder if that is actually the tip of his right foot. If so, that would make in a little shorter than the two men he stands between.
That is a very interesting observation. I completely agree something is off with Lincolns bodysize. Another circumstantial clue is Lincolns very tall hat compared to Pinkerton at the left and McClernand to the right. The choice of the tent mast centered on Lincoln further exagerates his size.
It is clear the photo is meant to make Lincoln tall, and additionnally Pinkerton is lowering his head and inclining his hips in order to be as “unimposing” as possible and no higher that General McClernand (who seems to have a slight dupers-delight grin despite the long exposure).
Lincoln compared to a classic 7 & 8 part proportional woman and man
There’s something strange about the face, there looks like a four digit number printed on where his beard should be.
I am unable to see the ‘printed four digit number’ where his beard should be, but i do see heavy strokes of airbrushing around the mouth and towards the bearded areas of Lincoln’s cheeks.
The photo of Lincoln in profile above was used to model the Lincoln-head cent, and made by Anthony Berger, the manager of Mathew Brady Gallery in Washington. Many important photos were done at the Mathew Brady Gallery where they had a floor of painters working too, who would be able to airbrush and alter images if need be (18 of the 19 American Presidents from JQ Adams to W McKinley had pictures taken by Brady).
Abraham Lincoln profile – by unknown author, summer 1860
(source : here)
Lincoln profile from lost original on plate tintype – by Christopher S German, 9 February 1861 (source : here)
Lincoln profile after the death of his son Willie – by Mathew Brady, February 1862
(source : here)
Abraham Lincoln profile – by Alexander Gardner in his new gallery, 8 November 1863 (source : here)
Profile of Abraham Lincoln, used for the Lincoln-head cent – by Anthony Berger, 9 February 1864 (source : here)
The Abraham Lincoln profile pictures are clearly well rehearsed and one even might wonder if they were not all done at the same time with various backgrounds etc. in order to have the same look if they were altered or wearing the same “fake-face” theatre makeup.August 4, 2018 at 10:46 am #855098
I’ve come to this subject via studying common law/Roman law. The mask metaphor seems to go as far back as Adam and Eve and the fig leaf. In law there is the private and the public, the man and the person. The patricians seem to have devised a way of using a mask of the opposite gender for their public persona, therefore disassociating the man from the statute/legislation which can only be applied to the person.
We both clearly agree the Elite invert gender in public. And also that this is an old practice.
When it comes to why and how at least parts of the Elite practice such gender identity inversion, your position is both interesting and reasonable. The research that now is understood as EGI from the Fakeologist forum thread research, it started out with the same observation as yours : there are members of the Elite who are not the gender they claim to be.
To draw a definate conclusion as to where, when and why part of the Elite practice a form of gender inversion is difficult. With the bible and Adam/Eve there are many interpretations one can make*, and i’m rather skeptical that history such as the alledged Roman Empire is a period that factually has really happened.
Law – Wall ( phonetic anagram & semordnilap )
Research on Elite Gender Inversion (EGI) is ongoing and we still struggle to know exactly how gender inversion is practiced and why. A large number of topics have been discussed despite the general attitude of closemindedness both from online “transvestigators” and from those who do not agree the Elite’s gender identity might be deceptive.
*EGI – Elite gender inversion (forum topic)
*God created EGI (article)August 5, 2018 at 4:55 am #855104
The disproportion in many of Abraham Lincolns pictures is clearly troubling and a number of weirdness’s seems better explained by theatrical staging and and after-effects than by the truthful reproduction of reality that a photography normally represents.
When we consider that photographers commonly worked with (or were themselves) painters and artists, we might keep in mind how old photographs are more like artworks where each captured scene was planned in advance, sketched and drawn, art directed, prepared and post-produced to desired effect.
Example of the technical aspects of early photography where long exposure time demand aids for immobilizing the subject, here a chair with dissimulated (to the camera) head-rest
When we realize that a good picture would require to immobilize the subject due to long exposure times, it is evident that the best photo studios would be very naturally very good at also staging photos, and making Lincoln taller would not be a task that would require much extra work.
Full-length photograph of Abraham Lincoln from 1860, author unknown
(source : here)
Much like the photograph of Pinkerton/Lincoln/McClernand where the presidents body appear much too long, so does the above photo look out of proportion. In this picture height could also have been altered and once again it is the legs that seem to be the essential part of trick.
In this full-length photo of Lincoln the knees also look a bit funny, but it seems more likely that a shorter person in this picture would have their feet where the silhouette of the boots starts, which makes the boots the deceptive device, and the fake knee looking funny because – well – it is just the illusion of a knee.
Same Full-length photograph of Abraham Lincoln as above, with scaled proportionate models according to deceptive boot hypothesisAugust 5, 2018 at 5:16 am #855105
Just realized there is an out-of-place box behind Lincoln, just at the same level as where the boots seem to start.
It might be this simple, the actor that plays Lincoln is just standing on the box we see behind him in the picture, and the perspective hides the “real” legs.
The ackward body and head position would actually be quite natural if they were standing on the box behind Lincoln, and the weird angle of Lincoln’s body also would make more sense…August 5, 2018 at 6:25 am #855107
On the topic of big heads, i’m also reminded of Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849) who much like Lincoln or Willcock has a skull and here especially forehead, that is is disproportionate in regards to his other facial features and especially his tiny jaw-line and mouth (his deformed left eye also is reminiscent of Elite symbology).
The ‘Ultima Thule‘ Daguerreotype of Poe on the morning of November 9th 1848 by Edwin H Manchester (Masury & Hartshorn studio, Rhode Island – source)
When looking in detail at the eye area, it seems heavily airbrushed to the point no eyebrow hairs are even visible, and a rather clear touched-up contour appearsAugust 7, 2018 at 3:11 pm #855140
Interesting stuff. I haven’t done any research into how real the Roman Empire was so am more agnostic than skeptical. I’ve noticed The Bank of England has a very Roman/Greek look.
And here’s a Gold Sovereign from the British Royal Mint, apparently depicting the English George and the Dragon.
Your ‘God created EGI’ is interesting. I’d suggest Eve crossing her legs has more to do with chastity and modesty, as opposed to the serpent’s Jezebel spirit; both looking to Adam. I believe the serpent is female, though with enough male characteristics to make it an hermaphrodite.
Modesty points to the hidden. And interestingly, The Tanakh, the Old Testament, in its original form had only the consonants written down, the vowels were passed through oral tradition. This seems odd, but when we realise consonants are considered male, vowels female, we again see the hidden aspect of the female, as Eve hides her modesty in the painting. This feeds into the mask metaphor, and perhaps why there are so few notable women in history.August 7, 2018 at 3:51 pm #855144
Regarding Edgar Allan Poe. This, a crop from ‘1849 “Annie” daguerreotype of Poe’ on Wikipedia.
They look like a female’s eyes to me.August 9, 2018 at 5:19 pm #855159
Talking about Creation, Apple Computers logo was clearly designed to reference the bite taken from the fruit of knowledge. We also have incorporated a rainbow – an early reference to transgenderism maybe?
Interestingly, there has been a convention set up that when writing about technology the female gender should be used – she/her instead of the standard he/him. Why manoeuvre that in place if the main players are all men?
We have StEVE Jobs and StEVE Wozniak, but no Adam in this story? Well yes, actually there is one, Douglas ADAMs…
And another English connection to add to Sir Jony Ive.August 14, 2018 at 3:18 am #855211
And another English connection to add to Sir Jony Ive
The use and meaning of “EVE” is very interesting, and the fact both Jobs and Wozniak have their “Eve” encoding is curious – and even moreso if we consider IVE/EVE to be homonymeous from an esoteric viewpoint.
Regarding “ADAMS” there is indeed a square jaw’ed Katherine L. Adams on Apple’s board of directors (Senior Vice President and General Counsel).
The “A” can be seen as a pyramidal, feminine shape* that carry a smaller segment in its middle. The “V” has a inverse, male pyramid shape. To have a defined “V-shape” for a man is seen as a complement in bodysculpting as an exemple where the V-shape signifies broad shoulders and narrow hips.
Katherine Adams is currently Apple’s Senior Vice President
Modesty points to the hidden
Very much agree how modesty transcribe the notion of the hidden.
•What is Eve being so modest about with her legs crossed and hiding Adam’s apple in her left hand?
•And why is Adam so turned on as to lick his finger as the snake* approaches ?
•Why is Adams index-finger on Eve’s shoulder so long ?
•Howcome Adam sticks a finger into his mouth* in the first place ?
•For what reason are the leaves that cover Eve’s genitalia so big and opaque compared to Adams smaller, partially see-through leaves?
All these questions and observations are mostly related to questions of gender representation. Nevertheless there is as suggested a very strong connection between impersonating someone else (or wearing a mask) and taking on the appearence of the opposite gender.
Both disguising your appearence and inverting your gender identity are compatible acts that could be considered to reinforce each of these individual acts (disguise and gender-inversion).
Steve Jobs from 1972 Homestead High School Yearbook
*the fact Superman was played by Christoffer ReEves is clearly more of the same double entendre
*the serpent is universally recognized as a phallic symbol in almost every country and culture. The visual ressemblance between a serpent and the male sex organ (and even semen) become even more explicit when depicted in visual representations such as paintings. The fact serpents also have the ability to shed it’s skin also hints at disguise and ambivalence despite it’s core shape remains the same. The snake, serpent and dragon symbols are all interchangeable while retaining their inherent meaning as male phallic symbols despite additional interpretations- a snake will always be a phallic symbol despite what comes atop.
*in adult imagery as an example, licking one’s finger is one of the first poses shown of females when they try to excite men – sticking something into one’s mouth is symbolic of being penetrated.
August 17, 2018 at 10:37 am #855297
A great catch on IVE/EVE, makes total sense as Ives would be would be a more usual surname.
*the serpent is universally recognized as a phallic symbol in almost every country and culture. The visual ressemblance between a serpent and the male sex organ (and even semen) become even more explicit when depicted in visual representations such as paintings.
While I don’t dispute the phatic symbolism, I still maintain in essence the serpent is female with male characteristics (or hidden as a male).
The picture: we have Adam dexter, with Eve and the serpentine sinister (God putting enmity between them – Genesis 3:15). Sinister, left looking out, is usually associated with the feminine, Lunar, negative, sexual; while dexter, right looking out, is associated with the masculine, Solar, positive. Adam is higher than Eve but lower than the serpent (the usurper). Adam’s gaze ignores Eve, instead looking up to the serpent, sticking a finger into his mouth – a sexuality between him and the serpent?
It is interesting that in languages that use gender, in French the serpent is masculine, but in Latin the serpent is ‘Common’, meaning it can be either masculine or feminine. More interestingly, the symbol for Mercury is derived from the intertwined serpents of the caduceus; Mercury is the symbol of the virgin female, and from Hermes, the Greek version of Mercury, we get hermaphrodite.
Adam = male, Mars
Eve = female, Venus
Serpent = intersex/virgin female, Mercury
And who is the most famous virgin female in history?
When comparing it to the open mouth of a Burmese python, is not Our Lady of Guadalupe just a touch creepy? Especially as prying to an image of the Virgin Mary could be considered Idolatry. And here we have her clothed in pink with a green back covered in stars. Is she actually bowing her head, praying for the soul disappearing down into the pit of the serpent’s belly?
All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing? Behold, all his companions shall be put to shame, and the craftsmen are only human. Let them all assemble, let them stand forth. They shall be terrified; they shall be put to shame together. – Isaiah 44:9-11 ESV
Symbols for Mars, Venus, Mercury
Instead of having the Moon at her feet, as seen in ‘Our Lady of Guadalupe’ depiction, Mercury has the Moon above her head. Could s/he in fact be the winged figure depicted below the virgin’s feet? And could this figure be the Baphomet?
Does the Baphomet have a goat’s head or does she wear a goat’s mask? The Goat being the symbol of Satan… And ’The GOAT’ meaning ‘the sewer’ in Legal dictionaries. The channel of water from land to sea in which the serpent can usurper its law of the sea onto the land. And the Latin ‘crepa’ means ‘she-goat/nanny-goat’. Like the serpent, the one that creepeth up from below?
This connection is why I place the essence of the serpent as female with strong masculine characteristics. The hermaphrodite, intersex, androgyne, transgender.August 17, 2018 at 6:39 pm #855304
The picture: we have Adam dexter, with Eve and the serpentine sinister (God putting enmity between them – Genesis 3:15).
I’m not sure to follow all of your points of analyses on Jan Gossaert’s painting of Adam & Eve, and it is difficult for me to consider any Bible verse as being directly helpful.
My focus when choosing to analyze depictions of Adam and Eve was the apparent confusion in gender-traits which is in itself a very peculiar manner to depict the essence of what we hold as male and female.
Despite our different analysis of male and female qualities, we still seem to agree that there is a disturbing degree of androgyny* in pictures of Adam and Eve.
When comparing it to the open mouth of a Burmese python, is not Our Lady of Guadalupe just a touch creepy?
Yes, Maria does appear creepy in her Mexican depiction and the comparison to the open mouth of a serpent appears to me as an androgynous reference as i consider the serpent to be primarily a phallic reference. In addition, the fact the python is hidden in plain sight just adds to the subtlety.
Does the Baphomet have a goat’s head or does she wear a goat’s mask?
Interestingly, Baphomet originates from Templar lore and has roots in the name used by crusaders for mosques, Bafumaria.. There are truly a lot of uncertainties about the Baphomet symbol as such – its origin, its meaning etc. Your picture seems to be the Satanist Church version of Eliphas Levi’s image of his “Sabbatic Goat”.
Baphomet from Eliphas Levi’s 1854 book “Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie“
If we step away from the specialists’ interpretation and strictly analyze what is depicted, i think your suggestion is really poignant. I completely agree this image shows a person in disguise with an apparent mask.
As i hold serpents to be primarily phallic depictions disguised in various discourse, it becomes more ambivalent with the caduceus. At a basic level of interpretation, two intertwined serpents may represent same sex* intercourse – the eleven or even the black and white pillars of Freemasonry.
*Adam licking his overly long index finger and Eve hiding Adam’s Apple are details hard to reconcile with a typical cisgender couple
*it should be emphasized that also true hermaphrodites will have male genitalia and that most hermaphrodites for this reason are raised male – there is discussion on this topic in the EGI forum threadAugust 18, 2018 at 3:47 am #855307
On the subject of realistic masks, it seems that we are volontarily mislead as to the efficiency of latex and silicone works.
In films such as “Game of Thrones” or “Mission: Impossible” – we are teased with the possibility that anyone can be mistaken for another with an advanced modern-day silicone mask.
As much as fake beards and human hairgrowth in general is an ancient practice and technique that was perfected a very long time ago*, so are masks an ancient practice where the base techniques do not require any modern know-how or materials.
Latex, silicone, human hair and color pigments are the ingredients for any “hyper realistic” mask as we call them today – and all these materials and associated techniques have been mastered since a very long time ago.
The quality of such “hyper realistic” masks actually depends more on the artist than anything else which should be of notice as we frequently admire many artists from the past whose skills commonly are considered to surpass the artistic skillset of today.
Mission Impossible – All Mask Pulloff Scenes
TwoFoldMedia – 21 Aug 2015 – 01:20 (mm:ss)
Taylor Silicone Mask – Applied Version – New by Crea Fx
CreaFX Special Effects – 18 Mar 2016 – 01:51 (mm:ss)
*Bearded men (article)August 18, 2018 at 3:23 pm #855319
Omarose Onee Manigault Newman
she’s been in the news a lot lately. never thought of her outside The Apprentice and subsequent roles in tabloid headlines. recently the white house drama is all over the tvs at the gym and headlines when i check my email. upon closer inspection, she surely looks like an egi / tran candidate.
most fakeologists can look at her name and immediately raise an eyebrow.
but then, many other names of supposed egi / trannies don’t have ‘man’ in the first middle or last.
only saw one channel discussing ‘her’ (lucky ben hebrew) but curious what people here have to say about this masculine figure (literally and figuratively) in the current news cycle.August 20, 2018 at 9:49 pm #855361
I am unable to discuss the news cycle, but certainly Omarose Manigault has the skeletal structure of a man. I know there is much discussion about taking hormones to reduce beard growth, while I don’t dismiss this in certain situations, my feeling is politicians fall into the same category as actors and as such it’s all about the fakery.
Like Unreal’s Taylor Silicone Mask, the following example demonstrates how delicate professional masks get. If a man has a close shave then a mask like this is applied, suddenly his skin becomes very feminine.
Manigault’s face has signs that we are looking at a mask. 1. There is a nick at the bottom of each nostril, this suggests the mask didn’t quite have big enough nostril holes, so it was cut. 2. The way the top lip bunches up under the nose, it has that set mud-mask quality to it, not the natural movement of skin. 3. The eye area has a darker colouring of skin which at first appears to be makeup, but if we look at the eye holes of the example mask, we see they match, meaning we are probably looking at actual skin that is darker than the mask.
Next the legs, male and female legs are different, particularly ankles. Men tend to have quite long bony ankles, their feet sort of splaying out from them and can look quite rough. Women’s ankles are solid, the foot being the same width, bones are more delicate, feet softer and shorter.
Interestingly, Manigault’s husband Pastor John Allen Newman has a smaller face than she does, and from the slight bump towards the bottom of the trouser legs, appears to be wearing a short stilt. I’ve sketched lines where I think Newman’s body actually is, the bottom lines being real foot level.August 21, 2018 at 8:14 am #855373
Sex and the City… Which one has the female feet?
Oops! None of them.
Not even the woman in the background.
Below, examples of the style of shoes women wear to get that six inch heel look. Female feet are not long enough without an addition of a platform. Also note how ankle bones are recessed and straight up compared the feet above.
August 30, 2018 at 3:21 pm #855495
- This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by rachel.
While looking at Sex and the City pictures this one caught my eye. I believe it is a promotional shot for the second film.
The character left is played by John Corbett, he is said to be 6’5″. I wonder, is that a real 6’5″ or a paper one? Certainly he looks tall, but there is something odd about the proportions of the two. Sarah Jessica Parker seems about five foot, and having just looked up her official height of 5’3″, I’ve had to pick myself up off the floor from laughing. We already know by the length of her feet, wearing six inch heals without platforms, this is pure illusion and that she’s actually probably around 5’9″-5’10”.
So, I would imagine photoshop was used to create a paste-up, processed something like this… The first actor is posed in front of a green screen looking down at the imagined location of the other’s eyes, then that image is used as an on-screen reference to pose the second actor looking up eye-to-eye, sized accordingly to give the illusion that we are looking at a 6’5″ actor standing next to a 5’3″ one. Then the background is removed, replacing it with the market scene, imagery already existing when they filmed the live action.
By reducing the size of Carrie, we get an impossibly thin woman that young female fans try to mimmic by starving themselves. How does the man using the name Sarah Jessica Parker live with that? I suspect he is as trapped as the rest of us, except his trap is more tangible, existing in the form of a non-disclosure contract.
On to the actor who’s stage name is John Corbett, apparently 6’5″. I have him standing next to a 6’6″ Juan Martin del Potro. I think we can categorically say that John Corbett is not the height the media attribute him.
The angle on del Potro somewhat foreshortens him, so while Corbett looks a similar height we can seen from his arms this is an illusion. Also interestingly, if we look where the two men’s buttocks are, while their knees are relatively even, Corbett’s bum is somewhat lower than del Potro’s. This suggests Corbett is wearing some sort of lifts to make him appear taller, and again we can see creasing around the ankle area that would hide a higher angled foot above the shoe.
If in the media most women are played by men of between 5’8″–6’0″, then to mimic real life, a male of say 5’11” might need to wear six to ten inch lifts to furnish the illusion the female character is short. But in full-length shots, the female’s feet in high heels will always give the game away.
Finally, there is a chance this image is not photoshopped, and if that is the case, there might be a game in play, the rules stating all fakery of people must be in-camera only. Then the alternative theory on how this shot was created; Sarah Jessica Parker is real, but John Corbett is played by an over-scaled mannequin. If we look at his face close up, the mouth has a lack of teeth, the eyes seem missing, there is no visible ear hole. Is this a real head?August 30, 2018 at 4:15 pm #855499
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.