Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 46 total)
  • Author
  • rachel

    Having let the dust settle (pun intended) I thought I just add a couple of thoughts. When I came to fakeologist one of the first things Rollo said to me is ‘volcanos are real’. I thought that was an insane statement. Why would anyone even consider faking a volcano. Well, I’ve learned a lot since then…

    Researching military smoke creation, I now keep seeing the same fingerprint popping up. So I’ll show some examples of smoke and you can decide for yourself. The term smoke and mirrors comes from somewhere.

    Vintage smokescreen.


    It reminds me of a day I was sitting in the garden and a plane flew over, and literally, the trail it left fell out of the air like flour, finer than above, but the exact same effect. I think the point of chemtrails is to create screens.


    But back to the White Island smoke. Is there really much difference between the smoke in these two events besides colour.

    white island

    Notre Dame

    What about this:

    space shuttle

    The shuttle picture, there is no reason for all that smoke. Where is it coming from? Not from the shuttle it would appear, its view is magically unimpeded. We are not looking at fact here, we are looking at art, and once that clicks, look at what follows.

    The exact same thing can be seen with all the Notre Dame fire pictures. So much smoke, yet unimpeded views of the building, fire light, and the spire that falls:

    Notre Dame Sky

    Notre Dame The Nation

    Notre Dame

    Has anyone considered how physically impossible these pictures are? Even if you forgive the smoke’s colour, that amount pouring out and a completely unimpeded view of the architecture. Picture perfect, iconic in fact. Similarly, the gif above, clearly a composite image, the spire is not in the same physical space as the smoke.

    Looking further at what is being pushed as reality, wetless water being sprayed on the fireless fire. Well they wouldn’t want to risk actual water damage would they.

    wetless water

    wetless water

    wetless water

    I never bothered looking at the Notre Dame fire at the time, I knew it was fake straight away as it fell on the thirtieth anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. It just irritated me in fact.

    It just gets better from an art perspective.:

    Notre Dame Sun

    Anyway, this is White Island, so let’s see, what type of stills can I find?

    White Island

    White Island

    White Island

    White Island

    White Island

    All very pretty. All displaying a similar smoke style. And if you want examples military grade of coloured smoke, how they perform, it matches what we see above…

    yellow smoke

    black smoke


    Also REAL the contents of the caskets…when three of a family were “farewelled”

    The invite looks like a bad paste-up to me…

    fotoforensics agrees, the text being as real to the image as the copyright mark at the corner…

    Link to analysis here…


    On further reflection of Mount Tavurvur volcano 2014 and Whakatane camera 2013 footage above, I would place myself on the side of both being genuine, the error analysis Unreal points out, it could be simply down to the video compression used.

    The Whakatane video is a time laps running at x5 speed, so could easily be more of a kettle boiling effect. I’ve read related analysis about clouds and how different cloud types appear to exist at particular altitudes, suggesting the sky is built up of layers. It’s curious, because it does seem towards the end of this video, the cloud released is beginning to do exactly that, split into the layers of the existing cloud levels.

    This is off-topic so I won’t continue to pursue it here. But neither of the videos seem to fit the image portrayed by the propaganda surrounding volcanos. The first would seem to be a man-made detonation, the second, a geyser type eruption.

    Old Faithful Geyser erupts on a clear winter day in Yellowstone National Park (Credit: Jacob W. Frank, National Park Service. Public domain.)

    If a couple of the classic eruptions portrayed as real on the following channel are clearly cgi, what does that tell us about the entire content of this channel and our ability to discern fact from fiction?



    Here’s a compare and contrast…

    The eruption of Mount Tavurvur volcano on August 29th, 2014. Captured by Phil McNamara.

    White Island eruption taken from images of the GeoNet Whakatane camera, 20 August 2013. Compiled from 1 second images, the video is sped up by a factor of 5.

    The first video, Mount Tavurvur volcano, would appear to be real footage, a flash-bang measurement (5 seconds gap = 1 mile) of 13 seconds meaning the person filming is just over 2.5 miles away from the eruption. We can see the local clouds are blasted away just after the explosion, and although there is wind noice throughout, the boat jolts as the sound wave hits.

    So, while the event is real, is it an actual volcano eruption or a man-made detonation with the cover story of an eruption? Three boats in the area would suggest they knew exactly when the mount would blow. Scientist would explain that one by the idea that volcanos are constantly monitored, the scenario played out in many volcano disaster films. They really want that fact embedded in out subconscious, so what does that suggest? Considering the logistics involved, it has the usual hollow ring about it. Would it not be more reasonable that scientists know exactly when to turn up and film because they are the ones with the trigger button.

    But back to my main point. If we now compare the second video, the White Island eruption, we firstly catch the explosion complete, and there is no movement in the nearby cloud. In fact the white cloud that is directly above the eruption stays in place and turns to the same grey. With regards to the grey, it could be shadow, but this seems unlikely as the shadow starts from the wrong place – the bottom edge of the cloud moving up instead of the top edge of the cloud moving down. It seems more likely the cloud above the eruption has been coloured over to match the exploding cloud so it didn’t have to be removed. And it is very odd that the top of the exploding cloud has more definition than its base. Plane con-trail watches will know this is at odds to the way they expand drift and become transparent. It reminds me more of the following video, but the quality of the above video, it is hard to tell for sure.


    I’m thinking it’s a mix of real-time and recorded event. I can see the stuff on the beach might have happened in real-time to test the emergency services, and that’s where we continually see the white smoke.

    The white/black smoke is seen from the boats, and both stills below have evidence of the real background being masked out and the cloud footage added post production.

    White fringing can be seen at the bottom of roof’s upright in front of the sea part, and also at the top right corner…

    White fringing can be seen around the iphone and on the left window frame, particularly near the top…

    So my feeling having reviewed some cloud simulations, the white and black is a particular feature of cgi, and also the plume going up first, then spreading out at the bottom.

    Cropped in this way, the boat doesn’t feel part of the background image, and also it looks like an effect has been added to the underside of the roof, it’s supposed to be a reflection of the sea, but it has no reality to it.

    Below first up is a definite cgi volcano explosion simulation from 2015. It’s not fooling anyone and wasn’t meant to, but the dynamics it is built on are the same as we see above.

    Next up is cgi footage that is pretending to be real footage from Krakatau, apparently drone footage from 2018. Obviously managed comments as no one has called it out as fake when clearly it’s not real in any shape or form. I know it for sure not so much from the cloud rendering, it’s the camera views, very 3d graphic software.

    The above video, it is very similar to the cloud effect used behind the boats, the way the cloud grows as one thick mass.


    From this video…

    At 50 seconds there is a pan shot of the scene, portrait mode, so I’m guessing apparently from a mobile phone. But actually, I think they chose that orientation to give the impression the action is happening over a wider area, when in actual fact…

    I would therefore think this isn’t on location, Unreal, and I this is an emergency drill, so they know they timing because the timing is important.

    You can see the ground under the water, so if they stick near the shore, it’s not deep, they could easily stand up in the water. Also, given the size, it wouldn’t take that much work to dress the location in white dust that morning.

    Interestingly, we see 1, the rescue boat travelling towards the eruption, not away, which would add the to conclusion – what we see is what there is with regards to the ash on the ground. And 2, the boat filming and taking pictures couldn’t be bothered moving in to save these stricken people who we first seen at the shore ready to get on the inflatable boat (close-up a little further in the video clip).

    Then looking a bit precarious on the said inflatable boat (close-up of above image).

    I’m not convinced this raft is really in this particular shot as shown, but it is at the shore line, so maybe it has just been enhanced with the white spray that has no shadow to look more dramatic. I also think the man in the white hardhat is a dummy.


    I couldn’t fathom why someone would go to the trouble of making such an unreal computer blur-filtered image and add that black pole to the left.

    I didn’t mention it in detail in this post, but if you look at the fotoforensics ELA image, an unedited image should have no real contrast. Parts that show up white indicate editing, they highlight a jpeg compression rate that is different on that part of the image. The pole has artefacts that could not come from the saving process. You could argue that Anthony Langford edited this picture himself, but why would anyone blur out the background of a holiday snap, when the point of a holiday snap is to show people where you are. So an alternative, if this is a real event, is the Daily Mail likes using and editing dead peoples photos clearly without their permission for its own profit. I really don’t believe that of the Daily Mail.

    But it actually becomes clear why the image has been blurred out when you see it in context…

    Clearly these shots come from the same day’s shooting of cruise. They are all pretty poor past-ups. The light is annoyingly wrong, particularly the bottom two images or the Fawkner’s and the Joubert’s pictures from the The Australian report. If you look at the way the people are lit, it looks like it’s approaching Golden Hour, but if you look at the background, it’s earlier in the day – the water and the sky have no gold to them.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by rachel.

    The Langfords: Anthony (far right) 51, and Kristine, 44, (second from right) Langford and their children Jesse, 19, (left) and Winona, 17, (second from left) set sail from Sydney last week on a Royal Caribbean cruise

    This image is a poor attempt at faking depth of field, and you’ve got to wonder why even bother when the image is meant to have come from a smartphone, which like go-pro cameras, are designed to get most things in focus.

    I don’t usually bother with fotoforensics.com (image upload link) because I know what it does, and most images, the result will be inconclusive. This one however is a good test piece to explain what fotoforensics actually indicates.

    Anthony, front layer, has unsharpen mask (sharpening) applied to make him pop, the white and black indicates a strong change in contrast that is not indicative to the image overall. Next Kristine layer, she instead has a small amount of gaussian blur applied, but is still sharper than the overall image. Next Winona layer, slightly more gaussian blur applied, then Jesse layer more again, all in a step progressive fashion. Then oddly it appears the black pole has been added, it has both blurring and sharpening artefacts that don’t match the rest of the background, which has been blurred out quite uniformly.

    What we can say with confidence, this image has been photoshopped, and this family were never part of the original unedited image. I wonder if the picture was borrowed from someone’s flickr feed, the blurring and black pole added so the image isn’t spotted by the owner or an automated search-engine.


    Interesting, thank you.

    Is this image proof that the helicopter is actually the correct scale? Hmm, if only it was that easy…

    To cast a full dark shadow on the cliff backdrop, the sun must be behind. Looking at the foreground, the light is coming from the left. Put this together, then the sun is somewhere behind the rocks to the left, therefore the shadow should be this side and to the right, but quite short. The people on the boat, the hardhats, the woman in pink, the thing next to her, the water foam this side of the raft, it doesn’t fit with the background, it doesn’t really fit with itself.


    But to digress a little, the helicopter damage referred to earlier in the thread interests me.

    It kind of has this feel about it…

    If you want to fake the scale of something, it’s all in the camera angle, and objects placed around the subject. (To confirm, picture below is a toy.)

    So, what do we have? A red medical bag and some sort of platform that might lead to somewhere interesting, if only we could see where…

    Right, so nowhere interesting actually, just a platform with no practical purpose other than to sell the impression something is off shot, and subliminal scaling. The helicopter’s actual size is decidedly less convincing from this second angle. Could it be a scale model? What is the spike to the left? And how big are we actually saying it is if to human scale?

    Also, if you look at helicopter crash footage on Youtube, there is no evidence that blades ever bend, they just shatter. It would seem there is no possibility for a real blade to be broken that way yet still remain attached. To do that would probably require some sort of plastic coating that is holding it together. What sort of helicopter features a design like that?

    It’s interesting what other kinds of accessories you can buy to go with your to-scale rc-helicopter kit…


    Not that I’m claiming Turvurvur Volcano Erupting might not also be a staged explosion. It just has a different look about it.

    I’m aware how long it takes to set-up equipment for things to look half decent. If, as you say (xileffilex) it is a 2006 eruption, the camera would have probably been recording to tape, storage time 60 minutes standard. Then there’s the batteries to consider. The footage is relatively stable, wind vibration only, so the camera will be mounted on a tripod. It is possible this is a crop-in shot, so we don’t know if the framing is as was, but they had time enough before the event to mount the camera, set up a stable shot pointing in the right direction, check the white balance, focus it. How long where they hanging around in readiness for it to blow?

    Also interesting regarding the Volcano Eruption in the Papua New Guinea footage. Three boats situated in a cross pattern, all ready for the explosion. Again, a tripod, camera centred on where the activity will happen, all in focus.


    Turvurvur Volcano Erupting… This cloud has a different dynamic in its movement, a definite upward momentum, no cloud at ground level…

    Compare that to the creeping cloud of this event…

    Easier seen with this ground level gif, the cloud is following the contour of the rock and looks like it will creep down the mountain, at which point the footage is cut.


    Cloud Generating Machines, similar.

    Cloud Generating Machines



    Very informative thread. Got one for you (if it uploads), the cloud, the way it grows, reminiscent of 9-11. No velocity to it.


    in reply to: Fake face #856090

    another test post

    in reply to: Is Paul McCartney a woman? #855736

    Antipodean, I absolutely agree with you about the hair. As you say the colour is different, and also the texture, the way it sits on the head. The Paul on the right appears to have more wiry hair compared to the softer hair of the Paul on the Left. Yep, I’d agree with the Tom Conti look. I’ve been picking at this story for a few years on and off, it’s invariably when I mention it to someone else, another bit of logic clicks into place. That’s really what I’m looking for, a logical story based on tangible evidence in the public domain.

    Regarding the recordings, I feel pretty confident that this is an accurate estimation of the time between the two videos. It is a matter of historic record that the Desert Island Discs episode was recorded on 20 January 1982, with the actual 40th anniversary broadcast airing on Saturday 30 June from 6.15-6.54pm, BBC Radio 4. The Arena documentary which the video was actually made for, airing on 23 February at 10.05pm, BBC2.

    The Nationwide programme featuring Paul McCartney talking about his new album aired on 8 January 1982 at 6.00pm, BBC1. And while we don’t know the exact date of recording, it was definitely recorded before the Arena video, and given the content Paul talks about, his approaching 40th birthday and that he wasn’t interested in rushing the album out for Christmas, it places the recording probably early January, which is in line with the eight day turnaround for the news report that featured a reference to the upcoming Desert Island Discs anniversary.

    I think anyone can download the Desert Island Discs audio from the above link, not just if you are in the UK. You’ll notice Paul is happy telling us about his childhood, family, how he met John, the early Beatles, a space (can’t remember), then onto Wings and Linda.

    in reply to: Is Paul McCartney a woman? #855720

    In working on this puzzle I have followed the official Beatles history as documented at Beatles Bible website. It lists every date The Beatles played before they were famous, and kind of blows the claim that they were a construct not from Liverpool out of the water. I can confirm the real existence of a few of the venues they played at, and it makes sense that it is the version of events closest to the truth. The lies have only been cranked up since 9/11.

    I can see that, perhaps observing what was happening in the US with the likes of Buddy Holly and Elvis Presley, the British establishment wanted to have a piece of the music money pie. They liked the idea of plucking working class nobodies out of obscurity. Young lads, not knowing the ways of the world, would except contracts that on the face of it appeared a very good wage compared to their peers, but short change in comparison to what the share holders would earn off their backs.

    Extract from the 20th June 1963 Incorporation document of The Beatles, found at Companies House

    So using their contacts in the northern cities, they searched working class music venues. When I listen to Paul McCartney interviews when he gets onto the subject of ownership and money, I sense an angst. He states in a 1987 BBC Wogan interview his first wage was £15 a week, so that doesn’t sound like he or any of the other Beatles were shareholders.

    And I do absolutely believe Lennon and McCartney wrote all the songs attributed to them. Someone had to, and if it wasn’t them, why would Paul even care how they were used. He has made it clear over and over that he does not want his music used to overlay the selling of products in adverts. When he wrote ‘She loves you’, I’m guessing it’s because she did love you, whoever that ‘you’ was. The fact he has brought two court cases to increase copyright duration on his work until at least his death seems to me seeded from an embitterment of the music industry fostered in that first five year contract where people with no talent got to call the shots because they held the power via the shares.

    David Frost interview with Paul McCartney, BBC, 15th April 1964

    Transcript starting at 1:33
    DF: Have you got any ambitions in other sphere completely, I mean do you want to be Prime Minister one day?
    PM: No, I don’t want to be, no nothing like that, no. Retire… [nodding his head] that’s quite an ambition.
    DF: Retire? When do you think you’ll achieve that ambition?
    PM: [pulling the gesture below] The way things are going, a couple of years…
    PM: [moving hand away] No, no, I don’t… No idea…

    Transcript starting at 4:09
    DF: Of course, everybody I imagine says to you the pop world is very short lived. What will you do when the phase passes… Does it worry you?
    PM: No, I couldn’t care less really, I don’t think, if we flopped tomorrow. It would be sad, but it wouldn’t really worry me.
    DF: Could you go back to doing something else?
    PM: I don’t know. I’d miss doing this. I think I’d think of something else to do, something I’d like to do.
    DF: What would you do?
    PM: Write songs for other people. I enjoy doing that.
    DF: Anything completely different?
    PM: Completely different… Retire, that’s completely different, really…

    Paul's finger
    Paul McCartney is giving someone the finger on national television in 1964, the shareholders perhaps?

    What happened a couple of years after the 1964 interview? When was Paul apparently replaced by Faul? When did the original five year Beatles contract, said to have been signed on 1st October 1962, end? When did Paul buy a farm in Scotland? When did the way the The Beatles present themselves change? Are we seeing an intersecting point? Has Paul just told us what he did? I think so. And John will pretty much confirm it four years later…

    Lennon Revealed: Larry Kane interview with John Lennon and Paul McCartney, US, 1968

    Transcript starting at 7:44
    LK: One final question. In all the time you’ve been Beatles, before you were just people from Liverpool, there was always a question somebody asked you, when’s the bubble going to burst. The bubble hasn’t burst, and it doesn’t seem like it’s going to burst.
    JL: It just flew off.
    LK: Do you ever envision a time of just ceasing being The Beatles and going off on your own. Or even working together.
    JL: We do work on our own anyway now.
    LK: You can never be anything else but The Beatles?
    PM: We are The Beatles, that what we are.
    JL: We are also Apple as well, see. We are like Dr Jekyll and Mrs Brown, but they’re both meant to be nice.

    An interesting reference considering the person sitting next to John appears to be a different Paul to the one who said he wanted to retire. Listen to the change of tone; 64 Paul “you get a bit of power…we can turn around to Brian and say could we do such and such a thing” a clear direction compared to wishy-washy 68 Paul “you know, we don’t plan anything, it just happens“.

    And of the references?

    Dr Jekyll: A character from ‘Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’, he creates two potions, the first transforms him into Mr Hyde, the second transforms him back into Dr Jekyll, and so on. – SUBSTITUTION
    Mrs Brown: Refers to Queen Victoria’s relationship with her highland servant Brown. It is said she believed in spiritualism and that her dead husband Prince Albert would visit her via John Brown. – SUBSTITUTION

    This is confirmation for me there are two Pauls, and I now believe there always were.

    in reply to: Is Paul McCartney a woman? #855662

    When I originally started researching PID, all I really wanted to do was find the evidence to dismiss it. But the more I looked it became clear there were definitely two Pauls, and in a different way to The Beatles using doubles as a diversion. While a possible explanation was Paul had died, something John Lennon said in one of his interviews absolutely confirmed to me this wasn’t the case, and I’ll look at that in the next post.

    So before moving on to the second reason I ask the question ‘Is Paul McCartney a woman?’, I’ll look closer at the videos I included in the last post.

    As previously stated, these two video clips were made by the BBC and recorded about two weeks apart in January 1982. The stills that will be shown on the left are from an Arena Special celebrating 40 years of Desert Island Discs, Paul McCartney being the guest on that anniversary broadcast. Paul was also coming up to his 40th birthday and if he indeed did retire from performing in late 1966 when his five year contract was over, this would have been the event to smoke him out. And what we see, someone with quite narrow shoulders and a small head. This is the person I ask my question about.

    Desert Island Discs

    The stills on the right are from a BBC Nationwide report recorded a couple of weeks earlier than the Arena filming. We would not expect to see any major differences between the Paul in one recording to the Paul in the other. In some ways they are very similar, yet in others they are definitely two different people. The Paul on the right looks distinctly older, having a bigger head, longer neck, wider shoulders, harder features, definitely male. Could it just be down to Paul wearing more prosthetics and makeup and bulkier clothes in the earlier interview to the later?

    January 1982, two Pauls

    No, I don’t thinks so. The last two stills of left Paul have very different eyes, a feminine gaze. If you watch the two videos, left Paul uses his expected left hand, right Paul uses his unexpected right hand. They have different characters, left Paul ‘the sensible one’, and where as left Paul looks down and to his right when thinking, right Paul looks up and to his left. Right Paul looks like he’s a bigger person…

    left handed and right handed

    So, they are not the same person and yet they look very similar. Brother and sister similar perhaps? I find that notion very interesting because I’ve never considered that possibility before, and we do know Paul has a brother. I mean, if you were going to pull off a stunt as big as that, blood would be the way to go, and it corresponds to my second reason for thinking the original Paul might be a woman, which I will discuss in a later post.

    in reply to: Prosthetics, Photoshop & Green Screen #855495

    While looking at Sex and the City pictures this one caught my eye. I believe it is a promotional shot for the second film.

    Sex and the City

    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.

    height comparison

    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?

    fake head

    in reply to: Fake face #855449

    posting an imbed

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by rachel.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by rachel.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by rachel.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by rachel.
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 46 total)