Forum Replies Created
Tom, I don’t watch Jungle Surfer but from my understanding he pushes the view that cross-dressing actors, musicians, etc. are having surgery to become the opposite sex. I don’t believe that at all, I think it is all prosthetics and camera trickery. That is my motivation for posting. These people are liars, fraudsters, they pretend to be something they’re not to encourage young people into destructive life patterns. By putting on a different face they take limited liability for their actions, and as such, put themselves above the law.
When I tripped over PID it fascinated me, I enjoy puzzles so I wanted to see if I could work it out. From watching as many Beatles interviews as were on YouTube, I couldn’t dismiss there was something odd about Paul. The dynamics of the group changed from Paul being the smart alpha up until late 1966 to him becoming an idiot beta later. Why? And as early as 1965, interviewers in America are asking does Paul use a double. Why?
I’ve asked myself what would make Paul more special than the other Beatles. Maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree, but as we’ve discovered (which I don’t think you subscribe to) crossdressing is everywhere in entertainment. That would be a thing that made Paul special, and as a woman, I can see the advantages if I was famous of pretending to be a man. When I take off that mask, I disappear into nothingness and can be as boring and ordinary as everybody else.
Here are two video clips produced by the BBC from January 1982 – for me, two different Pauls, they have different personalities and one looks 5 years older than the other.
Roy Plomley’s 40th anniversary ‘Desert Island Discs’ recorded 20 January 1982
Nationwide interview, aired on 8 January 1982
Do you think they are the same person? And if not, what does it tell you about Paul?
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.
- This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by rachel.
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.
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.
xileffilex, that’s a good one.
This Daily Mail article Has Stephen Hawking been replaced with a lookalike? Conspiracy theorists claim the REAL professor is DEAD and a ‘puppet’ has taken his place uses a similar theme. What interests me is that it appears in FEMAIL, and within two months of its posting, Stephen Hawking was dead. Could it be it was a public Cease and Desist Notice using the Daily Mail to show intent, but placing it within FEMAIL to hide it from actual conspiracy theorists?
Pink highlighting shows references to conspiracy theorists, they exist in most paragraphs, but maybe more interesting the paragraphs without references – maybe that’s the real message? Was someone perhaps irritated that Professor Stephen Hawking, director of research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at the University of Cambridge at the time of his death, was turned into a bit of a annoying sideshow? Could the reference to ‘an article in The Guardian’ actually be stating if this is not finished, the next article will be in The Guardian with its US circulation.
If you think this logic has wings, check out the last photograph content and placement.
- This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by rachel.
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.
Regarding Edgar Allan Poe. This, a crop from ‘1849 “Annie” daguerreotype of Poe’ on Wikipedia.
They look like a female’s eyes to me.
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.
Yes, I’ve had a look at that first picture of Lincoln beofre. 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. Then there’s this from the Lincoln Library:
There’s something strange about the face, there looks like a four digit number printed on where his beard should be. The gap under the ear, is the whole lower part of the face and ear a mask?
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.
If you ask me where Jobs went, I think he’s still at Apple. What do you think, are these pictures mirrored by chance? Same eyes?
That’s Sir Jony Ive after being Knighted by the Queen.
If not, why are there so few pictures of Ive and Jobs together? And why do the ones that do exist look like photoshop paste-ups?
Interesting, I’m a bit of a one-trick-pony so I can’t say I’ve come across David Wilcock. But again, a name referencing genitals and a girly face.
I like looking at hands…
Do you see the skin between Jobs fingers, similar on Wilcock, it took me a while to figure out what I was looking at. A female hand would be too small, so it appears a prothetic is worn palm side extending up onto fingers to give a bigger hand, but from the back view we see the full finger. I think Jobs is wearing a false finger tips on his little and third finger.
My feeling about EGI, it has nothing to do with surgery, sex or the occult, it has everything to do with legal fictions and fraud. The legal system comes from Ancient Rome, the Roman meaning of person is mask. And then this…
Look at the body shape and head size of this knight’s armour. It was clearly made for a woman, yet it has a moustache.
After reading the Mile Mathis Steve Jobs paper, I thought I’d take a look at photos to see if I could spot any fakery. Mathis suggests Jobs was real, though his history was fabricated and he ultimately disappears because of the Apple stock options scandal.
Things that suggest Jobs might not have existed:
- He was adopted – it gives the creators the option to make up that part of the story at a later date.
- He earned one dollar a year – no person, no need for medicare, etc.
- He famously refused to register his car – maybe because he couldn’t.
- That black turtleneck and jeans – it’s the hallmark of tv characters, an unchanging look.
The first picture is a switch between January 2007 and June 2010. Ears don’t change with weight loss so it would appear Job’s skull has shrunk. This would suggest we are looking at a mask.
The ridge on Job’s forehead might be because of something like this:
In his last appearance on stage, Jobs looked bony, did he have to lose weight to fake it? Nope. It’s all optical trickery. One way to make something appear thinner is to make it longer. Is Job’s taller? Here’s the evidence…
Jobs is wearing some sort of lifts, his heels most likely above the tops of this trainer with a steep foot angle. If you watch him walk it’s laboured, we put this down to ill health. The knee bend is high, I think something is worn under the trousers below the knee to minimise this effect as the straight leg looks correct.
The crotch is set to the same height as before, but in actuality it is four or five inches low on the leg. Padding is added between the legs and Jobs wears a jumper, its purpose is to break up the outline so we can’t see where his hips begin. Steve Jobs now has a longer body, but because we’ve been trained in how to recognise him, the constant use of turtleneck and jeans, instead of seeing a taller Jobs, we see a thinner Jobs.
We can see how effective the illusion is in this shot… The black and blue is the same radio as it ever was. The only tell is the elbow height, this indicates the true waist height.
Finally, prosthetics are added to fingers, wrist bones and elbows to give a bony look.
UNreal, that’s fine, sometimes I’m not that coherent.
Based on what Dr Woods said about himself I try to imagine his specialism fitting into a saleable course module. From my experience, since universities have all gone pay, that appears to be the most important thing, and my disconnect.
It’s curious. I worked in a university for over a decade and I find a total disconnect between the academics I worked with an the media presentation of what academics are.
This story seems more of a reality to me:
Outspoken Mail on Sunday journalist gives talk on street after refusing Liverpool Uni terms
Hello xileffilex, nice to interact.
I’ve got to say, having worked in a university responsible for setting up video conference interviews and interacting with a lot of real lecturers, I have a hard time believing of a shortlist of say eight people, this person got the job.
Since the £9000 tuition fees were introduced in England, university’s main focus is bums on seats. I can’t imagine this subject ever being discussed as per video, and I had a stint in Comms and Media.
So continuing… COX v MUSK
Brian Cox’s top lip appears thicker, but if we look carefully he fills it out with lip pencil. In proposing they are characters played by the same actor what I’m looking at is the underlying bone structure, the expression, the tension in the jaw, whether the corners of the eyes, nostrils and mouth sync when I proportionally resize the eyes to match. I’m not trying to force a fit, I just want to see if there is one from pictures we are presented with in the media.
Musk has a chunkier jaw and shorter neck. Might he be wearing something like this?
As mentioned before, if faking something complicated, having one actor playing two parts means they will always sound consistent, they can back each other up, they give us the impression of two witnesses for the cost of one. It might appear impractical to go to the lengths pictured above, but how long do we see Cox or Musk for on air per month? I can well imagine this scenario:
The actor gets Cox’s script, that’s all segments he’s due to appear in for the next month. The actor then spends time learning the lines, then doing read throughs, then rehearsals, maybe four days. Finally the day of recording, four hours in makeup, eight hours in front of the camera and green screen recording all the different talking heads, interviews and debates in one session, changing costume between each. Then this video is cut into the different shows Cox will appear in. Repeat the following week for Musk. Mix in odd specials where there is audience participation – this would be where the need for consistency comes in to play.
When Brian Cox first appeared he was a member of the band D:Ream, his prosthetics weren’t that important. Then he appeared on a BBC series about the stars, still not that important. But when he started to be push as a real scientist and linked to the Large Hadron Collider, I suggest that’s when he got an upgrade, better teeth, etc.
So what about the eyes, Cox has large dark brown eyes and Musk has blue with smaller irises. How would I explain this?
From this picture we can see Cox’s eyes are either digitally darkened or he wears coloured contact lenses. Given there are numerous videos with the dark eyes, contacts are a better bet. Could the actor’s real eye colour be the lighter brown, could blue contacts with white rims explain Musk’s eyes?
In some pictures of Musk, his eyes are completely blue, no brown, I’m going to discount these for the time being because I have an idea about them. Here we can see some brown inside the blue around the pupil. Could this be the actor’s real eye colour showing through under a large contact lens?
Take it or leave it. Do I know Cox is Musk? Nope. But it wouldn’t surprise me, and given my other research, I’d actually be more surprised if he wasn’t.
Elon Musk – Onle Skum (e=i/y phonetically) : ‘Only Skum’ closely match ‘Dickhead’ in the narrative that both these individuals share.
Two for the price of one then… Actually I’d disagree with it needing to hit home. It’s more to do with the truth being hidden in plain sight. It’s for those who have eyes to see, and always has been. If Cox and Musk are played by the same person, then we’ve got SUK LEMON DICKHEAD! Which I actually find quite amusing.
Eric Dubay – Rik Clay. Interesting. They do have similar facial features, and their names have a similar ring. That would suggest an intentional subliminal link. I wouldn’t discount it at all. I think Nathan Stolpman and Bob from Globebusters are the same person. Nathan makes no bones about once being an actor, he apparently sold Teslas and met Elon Musk, and he also hosted a livestream for a bit with Globebusters Jeran. Oh and ‘Nathan Stolpman’ has A MASON PLANT hidden in the name. Just saying.
- This reply was modified 2 years, 11 months ago by rachel.
When I came across the EGI thing I took on board what people were saying. If it wasn’t for my interest in UK politics, particularly cartoons by Steve Bell, the penny probably wouldn’t have dropped.
CONDOM HEAD = LATEX MASK (and Cameron doesn’t appear to have a manhood)
I’m just here to share my info. UNreal isn’t wrong about men playing women and women playing men. EGI might be a thing, but everything I’ve researched, I don’t think so.
I haven’t watch tv in over a year so when I do catch it, it’s like watching The Muppet Show. Everyone has HUGE features. To me, Jon Bernthal’s jaw has been built up to give him more of a chiselled look, and as you say, nose and brow-ridge are very prominent.
I was continuing to look at Brian Cox. He’s had a tooth upgrade. The second set looks to have ten teeth as opposed to six, you wouldn’t tell if it wasn’t for the first set. The third picture is Elon Musk’s mouth. More false teeth, the back ones not dissimilar to Cox’s. In fact the whole mouth is very similar. Cox appears to have thicker lips, but in the first picture we can see where they’ve used lip pencil to fill them out.
The bottom teeth are also similar, those points on Musk’s could just be caps. I think that sort of thing is used more than creating a full set.
If Musk and Cox are characters, like Alan Partridge, then it makes sense why they might be played by the same person. Talking about fake space, they’re not going to accidentally contradict each other. I’ve checked and there are no videos with them sharing the same platform.
Also, I always look for anagrams or plays on words in names. One of each in these two…
Elon Musk = SUK LEMON
Brian Cox = brain cock = head dick = DICKHEAD