Contradictions To The Theory

PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: Contradictions To The Theory

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

It's a good catch though, I'm not sure what those things are, it looks stranger than what I have in mind for a skin suit.
ph4.png
Nevermind it moves.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Contradictions To The Theory

Unread post by rachel »

I know what I'm looking at, I've worked with wireless mics. Paris appears to be using two mics, a handheld and a lavalier. It's not unusual for there to be a backup in case one fails. But what remains, what we think we are looking at isn't actually what we are looking at.

The mic has a profile something like this.

ScreenShot-VideoID-tXb7Ov-S6dc-TimeS-192.png

It is definitely disappearing into her back.

ph1.jpg
ph1.jpg (34.56 KiB) Viewed 7140 times

And we see the outline of the wireless transmitter under her dress.

ph2.jpg

And if we check the front, there is a good chance the mic is sitting between that fold.

ph3.jpg

7 Ways to Hide a Lavalier Microphone
PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: Contradictions To The Theory

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

I don't think it goes into her back it looks like an antenna
ph6.png
ph7.png
71WYIaq0TTL.jpg
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Contradictions To The Theory

Unread post by rachel »

In the grand scheme of things, Paris Hilton doesn't bother me. We see an individual creating a character which is larger than life. I haven't that many examples of body prosthetics because behind it lies a massive fraud, but I know enough from faces to have an idea what to look for. And once I've spotted one positive, then any idea that this person has had surgery goes out of the window, because if the person is using prosthetics to fake one aspect of their appearance then they'd be an absolute idiot to decide to have surgery for another when they can just use more prosthetic fakery.

Here's a set of legs wearing fat prosthetics. Notice the circles around the knees.

ins01.jpg

Next Paris Hilton. Top arrow, this shows where the leg has been built out with a fillet to create the female shape. Because that area is firmer and less flexible than real skin it can standout with an apparent ridge. Bottom arrow, in order to have full movement and not risk ripping a hole in your skin textured leggings, you don't want to cover the knees or elbows, hence this is an area to look for a ring shaped hole. Check.

paris-h.png

I'll give you a better example where it actually does matter. And doesn't is say a lot about why men, seemingly all of a sudden, can compete in women's sports with the full blessing from the relevant sports associations.

flo-jo.png
florence-griffith-joyner-flo-jo.jpg

Ever wondered why Florence Griffith Joyner suddenly dropped dead after retiring? Well...what's the point of continuing in pretending to be a woman when the thing you were pretending to be a woman for has ended?

Olympic runner Flo-Jo dies of heart seizure aged 38
Tue Sep 22 1998
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/olympic ... 8-1.195652
Florence Griffith Joyner, the legendary American sprinter nicknamed "Flo-Jo", has died at the age of 38 from a heart seizure.

USA Track and Field spokesman, Pete Cava, confirmed the death of the sprinter who won four medals at the 1988 Seoul Games, equalling the women's Olympic record.

Griffith-Joyner first captured the headlines with her amazing series of runs in the US trials 10 years ago, which included a world record of 10.49 seconds in the quarter-final of the 100 metres.

She showed brilliant form at the Olympics in South Korea, where she won the 100m in a wind-assisted 10.54 seconds, then set two world records at the 200m, 21.56 in the semi-final and 21.34 in the final.

The runner, known for her extravagant, self-designed running uniforms and long fingernails, completed a triple gold in the sprint relay, then earned a silver medal in the 4x400m relay.

She retired immediately after the 1988 games, with many critics claiming her astonishing rise to prominence had been achieved on the back of performance-enhancing substances - accusations which she always denied.

Griffith-Joyner, who married 1984 Olympic triple-jump gold medallist, Al Joyner, in October 1987, also won a 1984 Olympic silver medal in the heptathlon and 1992 bronze medal in the long jump.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Contradictions To The Theory

Unread post by rachel »

PotatoFieldsForever wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 4:11 pm I don't think it goes into her back it looks like an antenna
Ok, I see what you are saying.
PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: Contradictions To The Theory

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

Here is another footage of the 2019 show.
ph8.png


100% tranny for me + all the lgbt clues.
PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: Contradictions To The Theory

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

I don't know if she's using prosthetics for her legs but she could use some for her torso then because it is not very feminine.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Contradictions To The Theory

Unread post by rachel »

I spell out my thinking here. It seems clear to me the following.

Paris Hilton is a legal person in the same way Kermit the Frog is a legal person. Someone moves Kermit the Frog and brings him to life, but that individual is not Kermit the Frog. Someone moves Paris Hilton and brings her to life, but that individual is not Paris Hilton. I agree with you that the performer who brings Paris Hilton to life is male, and for him to be able to do that, he has to keep himself in very good shape. But whether the performer we see being Paris Hilton actually owns Paris Hilton is another question.

I personally think most successful performers don't own the characters they play. Certain personalities get huge exposure because they are owned by a big corporation such as Sony. Therefore it is the corporation that decides what the character advertises; like "get the vaccine". I think most of the famous people who died suddenly before or during COVID, but maybe not of covid, told the corporation they wouldn't promote the vaccine, hence the character was liquidated.

Similar is seen with Paul McCartney who didn't own any of the Beatles songs until only relatively recently when he was able to issue copyright claims against Sony as the writer and performer.


Sir Paul McCartney and Sony 'reach deal' on The Beatles song rights
30 June 2017
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40457703
Sir Paul McCartney and Sony have a reached a deal in a battle over who owns publishing rights to The Beatles' songs, The Hollywood Reporter says.

The musician had gone to a US court, seeking to regain the rights to 267 of the band's classic tracks.

He has been trying to get them back since the 1980s, when Michael Jackson famously out-bid him for the rights.

Jackson's debt-ridden estate sold the songs to Sony last year, along with others including New York, New York.

Sir Paul's legal case, filed in a Manhattan court in January, was over what is known as copyright termination - the right of authors to reclaim ownership of their works from music publishers after a specific length of time has passed.

He claimed that he was set to reacquire the Beatles songs in 2018, but said Sony had not confirmed that it would transfer the copyrights to him.

"The parties have resolved this matter by entering into a confidential settlement agreement," Sir Paul's attorney Michael Jacobs wrote in a letter to US District Judge Edgardo Ramos.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Contradictions To The Theory

Unread post by rachel »

It's funny, there is not much I disagree with when thinking about MrE's content. And even the satanic part, it's just where as today very few people seem to know what Christianity is, equally, very few people appear to appreciate what satanism is.

I'm going to use the word "you" in the next section, but it is not aimed at anyone. It's just the easiest way to word what I'm saying.

I don't think satanism is about performing certain rituals, though that might make up part of the higher circles. Let's get back to fundamentals, God gave the Israelites the ten commandments on Mount Sinai, and in them we have a written yardstick on which we can contemplate. While Grace treats us, who are in Christ, differently; the commandments aren't done away with. For a fair amount of time I contemplated the idea of "a noble lie", is there such a thing?

Then it dawned on me. There are God's rules, the way He wants us to live, and there are the inverse, satan's rules. A noble lie is still a lie, just one you somehow justify to yourself. The commandment say, do not bear false witness. If you make up stories or characters to deceive people, to try to force them into the choice you want to impose on them, who's rules are are you following? Christ came to earth to reestablish our choice to follow Him or follow our own will. He extended that choice to everyone. If you try to take that God given choice away, you do not serve the Father, you serve the father of disobedience. You will be numbered with satan because you have picked a side.

Matthew 7:15-23
Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’

Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Contradictions To The Theory

Unread post by rachel »

Thinking about Florence Griffith Joyner. When I was in school, boys did football and cricket, and girls did hockey and netball; in summer both sexes did athletics. I use to wonder why the sports were different for boys and girls, and then opening that up, why it was only ever men's sports that were professional. What I realise having watched and contemplated the things that have happened over say the last decade or so. The reasons for the former order were well thought out even though not expressed.

We have amateur and professional definitions. Amateur means unpaid, it is something you do not earn your living from. It doesn't mean unskilled, although in the type of society we live in, that is what it has come to mean. Likewise, professional doesn't necessarily mean skilled, but rather a specific occupation that a person is paid to perform.

https://web.archive.org/web/20211029230 ... equirement
Why did the Olympics ditch their amateur-athlete requirement?
And why weren’t the games professional from the start?

Jul 20th 2021
WHEN BARON PIERRE DE COUBERTIN had the idea of reviving the Olympic games of ancient Greece, he envisaged a strictly amateur affair. The Frenchman was deeply influenced by British attitudes to sport, or at least those of the British upper classes. These saw athletic pursuit in classical terms. That meant noble amateurism, underpinned by values such as fair play, stoicism and self-improvement for self-improvement’s sake (all infused, no doubt, with a snobbish disdain for working-class professional footballers, cricketers and the like). De Coubertin thought this attitude, drummed into the ruling class in Britain’s posh boarding schools, was the pillar on which its empire was built. He wanted his Olympic games to spread that ideal.

The early modern games—the first of which were held in Athens in 1896—reflected this. The rules stated that participants must never have competed for money nor, indeed, ever would. Jim Thorpe, one of America’s most famous athletes at the time, was stripped of his decathlon and pentathlon gold medals, won in 1912 in Stockholm, after it was discovered he had been paid (a pittance) for playing semi-professional baseball while he was in college. Yet from the start, as Matthew Llewellyn and John Gleaves describe in their book, “The Rise and Fall of Olympic Amateurism”, the Olympic committee was accused of hypocrisy. Some of the early games, such as in Paris in 1900, were attached to world trade fairs, shrines to capitalism not classicism. And the winners in some of the more aristocratic sports, including automobile racing, equestrianism and motor-boat racing, were in fact awarded prizes of money or objets d’art. What is more, the Olympics aimed to be open to all and judged on ability. But amateurism meant that the games were open only to those of independent wealth.

When the Olympic movement began spreading around the world, it was left to national Olympic committees and individual sporting federations to define what amateurism meant. As governments started to see Olympic success as a gauge of national prowess, the rules became stretched. In an early example, the “Flying Finns”—Finnish runners who gobbled up long- and middle-distance medals in the 1920 Games—had been given cushy jobs in factories and allowed plenty of leave to train. Other athletes were rewarded for personal appearances or for writing newspaper columns. Such “shamateurs” may not have been paid to compete, but they were making a living from their sports nonetheless. But it was authoritarian regimes that saw the biggest opportunity to prove their superiority to the world. Communist Bloc countries, for example, pushed “state amateurism” to its limit. Athletes behind the Iron Curtain were nurtured from a young age, given spurious jobs, allocated full-time coaches, and were prepared under the direction of state scientists (who were not averse to doping). Ever more people came to believe that amateurism had run its course.

By the 1960s, television companies—able to broadcast live and in colour—were shelling out large sums to screen the games. Athletes, understandably, wanted their share. Sportswear brands such as Adidas and Puma began paying competitors to wear their goods. Western countries saw ending amateurism as a way to nullify the methods of Eastern Bloc regimes. (The Economist argued, in August 1980, that only full professionalisation would stop sport from falling “into communist hands”.)

And so, in the late 1980s, having spent decades ignoring de facto professionalism, IOC federations began dropping their formal amateur requirements, letting the governing bodies of each sport decide who could compete. Professionalism, they reasoned, would help to attract the world’s biggest stars, and thus improve the Olympics’ commercial prospects. Tennis, for example, had sat out the games since 1924 because of the ban on professional players. When it fully returned in 1988 Steffi Graf, who had just won all four grand slams, prevailed. (Other sports saw the relaxed rules as a threat. Football’s governing body, for example, worried that a star-studded Olympic tournament might eclipse its own World Cup, and so allowed only under-23s to participate.) The symbolic end of the amateur era came in 1992 in Barcelona, when a “Dream Team” of American basketballing superstars (pictured), including Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson, captured the world’s affection and, inevitably, the gold medal.

Today, athletes are still not directly paid by the organisers of the games to compete. But even that last vestige of amateurism is easily got around, as individual countries reward success. Amateurism had tied the IOC in knots for decades. When it was resolved, the public barely raised an eyebrow.
It's kind of obvious why the increasing professionalism in sport goes hand-in-hand with the widening definition of what a woman is. And also why the British originally came to the conclusion women's sports should remain amateur. Because as soon as you turn women's sports professional in the same way as men's sports, you are effectively creating, professional men's sports, and slightly shitter professional men's sports. Because the market will ultimately dictate who runs.
Post Reply