It's The Muppet Show!

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1313 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

This is where we can judge if a politician serves the Party or serves the people. If on a difficult political race question related to white people they go straight for the low hanging fruit of Justin Trudeau's blackface to deflect from answering honestly, they are using a narrative that was created specifically for this purpose. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

It is also very interesting when it comes to asking a politician what a woman is. If they are part of the WEF clique they will have no answer, because their truthful answer would be something like... "Male actors can pretend to be female politicians and female actors can pretend to be male politicians and we will go along with it 100% and treat these people as if they are what they are pretending to be. We have and will pass broad laws with the aim to specifically protect actors from prosecution by use of the "legal person" and normalise the activity no matter what the consequences for wider society and the damage to girls and boys. We do this because protecting our members is our number one priority, even if it means driving an agenda that will lead young people to self harm and suicide."

Keir Starmer - 'Only women have a cervix' 'should not be said'

The trans community are the most marginalised and abused of many many communities and we need to make progress on the gender recognition act.
Starmer cannot say, "the Labour Party wants to pass laws to protect actors infiltrating all areas of real life and pretend to be something they are not", instead he uses the notion of the "trans community" being persecuted because he cannot spill the beans about his real reasons, understand this and you will begin to see why this is the single biggest issue for the left of politics who invariably come from the performing arts.

Lib Dem manifesto pledges Gender Recognition Act reform

If anyone can self-identify as a woman, they can then inhabit spaces that are meant for women only. You are happy with that?
An interview with Liberal MP Dr Sarah Wollaston this time. Yes, of course, the whole point of the UK Gender Recognition Act is so men who pretend to be women and women who pretend to be men can go into women-only or men-only spaces without question. Repeat, so actors are not prosecuted for pretending to be something they are not. When you have that fact in your head, you realise exactly why these people answer the way they do. It isn't about some notional man in a dress in a Brighton pub wanting to take a slash in the Ladies toilets, it's about an actor getting a job to play a politician and in order for them to be unaccountable they want to take up a full-proof disguise, and if that means a woman pretending to be a man, then that woman must be allowed to enter into any area that is for men only without consequences.

It is all part of the control system. How do Labour currently nobble a seemingly democratic internal election? They create "women only shortlists" and "black and minority only shortlists", because most people who want to lead are shock horror, white men. Labour has effectively removed all political competition from the vote before a ballot has been cast and placed their person via a seemingly democratic process. Even better now if a man identifying as a woman gets the nomination because it's a "woman only shortlist", and aren't we just seeing this in action with the "Woman of the Year" is a man.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1313 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

I focused on politicians in my last comment, but this area includes non-elected Government advisers and NGOs. This set of people totally sidestep the charade of internal party elections, they appear from nowhere and are used to circumvent any semblance of democracy.

I will give an example, Chris Whitty; I am convinced there is evidence of a disguise being used. This is curious because there is an agreement from vaxxers and anti-vaxxers he is a real person, for one, Mike Yeadon has talked about him. Pooanon has an entry on his Darkside Papers on Dr Michael Yeadon, I don't disagree with any of its content and Yeadon himself has spent time addressing the accusations. I've watched just about everything Yeadon has put out since putting himself forward against the COVID vaccine. He strikes me as real, and when discussing Whitty, he confirms he has never met him, but made a point of stating given his and Whitty's similar education and background, he can understand the reasons why Whitty came to the decisions he did.

Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty speaking at a Downing Street COVID briefing
Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty speaking at a Downing Street COVID briefing

So was Mike Yeadon put out to give backing to Chris Whitty's credentials and push the vaccine agenda in a particular direction? - I'm not on that boat yet, Yeadon seems paranoid enough to me to be someone who has realised he's not part of the club. It is interesting he decided to make a point of saying that while he was aware of Chris Whitty's name during his career, they have never met. This might be a quite innocent comment, but gives us a possible insight on how the trick is performed. What I know from other reports, Whitty does not have a wife or family and is generally anti-social with regards to colleagues.

What I put forward next is for the reader to decide. There is no doubt you will agree there is something not right about this person, but you might conclude it is something different to my thoughts. That's fine.

A loose collar, suit too big, a scrawny neck, odd shaped head
A loose collar, suit too big, a scrawny neck, odd shaped head

A set of trousers riding very low, small head
A set of trousers riding very low, small head

We'll start with the last picture. Look at Sir Patrick Vallance in the background then back to Chris Whitty in front, do this a couple of times. If you are seeing anything like the magic eye I saw, there is something altogether weird about Whitty. What dawned on me is the proportions. We instinctively know, even though out of focus, Vallance is a man. Now switch thinking Chris Whitty is a man to Chris Whitty is a woman dressed in such a way to make me believe she is a man, now look at him again. Do you see a man or woman? Look at the other pictures, what do you see?

I find I can no longer look at Chris Whitty and see a man. I see a woman in disguise.

Former CIA Operative Explains How Spies Use Disguises | WIRED
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1313 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

If you haven't watched it, the Jonna Mendez interview is worth a minute. Do I think it is an accurate representation? Yes, I would say we are given some solid information in that set, as well as some misdirection that they hope we will swallow in the mix.
With women, you have a broader range of what you can do. You also have one extra step, that you could turn a woman into a man. I would mention that it's almost impossible to turn a man into a woman. What we do is always additive, we can make you taller, we can make you heavier, we can make you older. We can't go the other direction. You want to be the person that gets on the elevator, and then gets off and nobody really remembers that you were even there. That is a design goal.
Does this statement not stand in sharp contrast to what MrE tells us? ... Actually, not really. If you think about Mark's area of interest, it's more public figures/celebrities. These people invariably have some form of controlled access, so what is put out in the media can be more or less micromanaged. Even if you go to a speaking event or concert and see the person in person, chances are they are on stage and you are in the audience. They might look different to how you imagine, but your brain fills in what you think you see with what you expect to see. And even if you get up close and personal to say shake that person's hand, the encounter will be very short and you will likely feel a bit intimidated, possibly not the correct word, but you will not be in the frame of mind to take in anything too analytical about them.

Jonna Mendez is talking about longer more personal one-to-one meetings. While men can pass as women with certain angles and body placement, their overall size in person, things like hands, feet, body proportions will no doubt give something about them away over a prolonged period of time. Depending on what the job is, it is not a risk the likes of Mendez will want to ever take.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1313 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

Maybe this is a good point to say why I name this thread. In reading the content I invite you into a fictitious world with an alternative story to what we understand as reality. Everything here is based on demonstrable real things I have researched and I endeavour to show the proof-of-concepts I have found and fit them into a coherent narrative. But it can only be fiction, my set of pro-nouns if you will. It is up to the reader to decide whether the ideas in this thread better describe reality as opposed to the fiction the MSM tries to sell you.

When I was a child, I used to think it strange that The Muppet Show each week consisted of one real person and a mass of fictitious characters. Even at a very young age when I didn't understand any concepts relating to the idea of fictions, I understood this...



The particular episode that always springs to mind when thinking about The Muppet Show is the one that starred Peter Sellers...



The thing is, I was wrong about why the 'one of these things' did not belong, it wasn't because Peter Sellers was real and all the others were make believe, it was because one is covered in latex and the others are covered in cloth.

peter_sellers_13.jpg
peter_sellers_09.jpg
peter_sellers_06.jpg

I find I'm still playing 'one of these thing just doesn't belong here', hey Mr Whitty.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1313 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

Earlier in this thread I detailed an area each side of Kamala's face that appears to show an appliance designed to change the shape of her jawline...
rachel wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:23 am I've used green arrows in the detail to point out the thick area that isn't sitting happily on Kamala's face as she tenses her jaw. The pink arrows show evidence of a slightly thinner part also pulling on the skin around her chin.


Image
The reason I am quite happy that I am seeing what I think I'm seeing is because this isn't the first time I've seen this effect. It is clearly used to strengthen the jaw and give an "All American" look. The thing with it, I've only previously observed it on men, Robert Redford and Brad Pitt spring to mind.

Brad Pitt... It's interesting regarding him, when I first saw him in a film I thought he had a completely forgettable face, I couldn't quite understand why so many people raved over him. But no, I was clearly wrong about that, because strangely enough, I've spotted his face on someone else, so it can't be that forgettable. I wouldn't normally go after someone like him on this thread, but it's more about the company the actor keeps that makes him a target; and to be fair, maybe the stepping back of the next character up is really Brad saying 'enough-is-enough'.

A13-20a.jpg

Ever the professional, Brad tends to keep his face straight, so it is not so easy to point out what I did with Kamala. But there appears to be two visible shadows and I think the lower is the more solid area that is built up and the upper is maybe a connecting line between to sections of skin. If you look at his lips in the complete picture below, they have that chapped appearance that indicates he is wearing a full mask that extends onto his lips; if so, his facial hair would most likely also be fake. I will show examples of this at a later point.

image.jpg

I realise this all seems hard to believe; when I first started looking at this topic, I had no clue if what I thought I could see really existed. All I remember is the following clip from Mission Impossible, it amused me to think it might be true, but it turns out reality is more mind boggling than fiction.

face.png
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1313 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

I've discussed this next idea before on Discord and that's why I brought up the man who inhabits the persona of Brad Pitt.

One-dollar salary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary

US_one_dollar_bill,_reverse,_series_2009.jpg
A number of top executives in large businesses and governments have worked for a one-dollar salary. One-dollar salaries are used in situations where an executive wishes to work without direct compensation, but for legal reasons must receive a payment above zero, so as to distinguish them from a volunteer. The concept first emerged in the early 1900s, where various leaders of industry in the United States offered their services to the government during times of war. Later, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, many business executives began accepting one-dollar salaries—often in the case of struggling companies or startups—with the potential for further indirect earnings as the result of their ownership of stock.
Given the names on the list and the Masonic nature of the One dollar bill, I do wonder if a One-dollar salary denotes something else entirely as corporate persons cannot be employees of other corporations.

Some interesting names:
Donald Trump (former President of the United States)
Elon Musk (Tesla Motors, SpaceX)
Jack Dorsey (Twitter)
John F. Kennedy (former President of the United States)
Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)
Steve Jobs (Apple)

Jack Dorsey (Twitter)
I've got to say I had no idea who owned Twitter or what he looked like until the video of Jack Dorsey looking like a drug addict with a false beard did the rounds saying he was stepping down as chief executive of Twitter.

OIP.jpg
OIP.jpg (11.52 KiB) Viewed 11678 times

Straight away in my mind I had, I know that face and then I didn't think any more about it. Then guess what happened the other day, a picture of Brad Pitt turned up in my feed and well...

A13-16.jpg

I've gone to the trouble to try to size them as similarly as possible. I'm guessing most people are going to be unconvinced by this one, but in the next post or two we are going to play a game of let's pretend...
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1313 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

Let's say for argument's sake we have an actor, and he plays both the roles of A-list celebrity Brad Pitt and Twitter's ex-CEO Jack Dorsey, using the details provided, where might you, a Hollywood makeup artist, put prosthetics to firstly create an all-American hero, and then to create a soy-loving geek head? One of the constraints, at the end of the process, they must look sufficiently different so people who are not in the know think they are two different people.

Clearly I can't do an interactive activity, and the two pictures are not exactly the same angle, the camera is at a slightly lower position on Jack, but the idea, what parts of the face need to be faked on each for these two people to be the same guy? It's an interesting exercise even if it turns out I'm wrong, I'll put up what I think later.

A13-17.jpg

A13-19.jpg
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1313 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

These are the areas I think have been built up or have a tell.

A13-17 copy.jpg

A13-19 copy.jpg

Does this fit with the following Truthstream Media report?

Flashback: “We’ll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False.
http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/01/13/ ... -is-false/

1gza4w.jpg
“I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration. The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the ‘intelligence’ that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines. As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public.”
— Barbara Honegger
Interesting section about Colonel Gadaffi, I have a bit more conjecture on that, but it would require me posting stills from his apparent death videos. It's not particularly in good taste, yet that didn't stop the entire MSM at the time. A bit like the exploding JFK head, or all those souls lost as the second plane slammed into the South Tower.
The year 1981 was an interesting one for Director Casey. He just so happened to be under investigation and fighting to keep his new job over various seedy dealings that came to light; among them were claims he approved a plan to overthrow Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi to instill a shadow government. (Oh I know, our government would never do that, would they?)
Helena
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:31 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by Helena »

Fascinating stuff. I remember Mark at PieceofMindful doing quite a lot of work on ‘batches’ of lookalikes in Hollywood, Matt Damon mainly, and how many actors resembled him. Jack Nicholson being one. A commenter posted a link to this site https://www.goldennumber.net/face/ which made me wonder if that’s what Hollyweird are trying to accomplish - the ‘perfect’ face according to them.

When I look at Brad Pitt’s face I see someone who would appear not to be able age. Strange.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1313 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

I just became aware of the following yesterday, and I must admit it amused me no end. I haven't read the story, why would I? But let's pull up the headline in all its glory anyway.

https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/3 ... lightyear/
tim-a.jpg

Hmm... I wonder what Tim is actually doing that means he's too busy to voice his character Buzz Lightyear in the new Toy Story? Even more fascinating, why does the rag known as The Sun need to answer the question we didn't ask?

Thinking...
rachel wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:19 pm I mentioned in an earlier post I have an idea who the second Joe Biden is, the one I've been featuring in the above posts, so I'll lay it on the table.

JOE BIDEN meet TIM ALLEN, kind of makes sense doesn't it.

Image

Now you know what I was going on about with regards to Biden wearing a hat that is his thinning hair. Well, I've tried as best as I can to eyeball the same face sizes, But look at Tim's head, where it stops. I know he has his hair styled upwards to give it a bit of height, but can you see you could fit Joe's skull over Tim's head? See how it's higher and wider.

So what else, well I can tell you Tim is wearing false teeth, probably over his own real ones. I can just tell by the gum line. Look at the shape of the mouth on both, its length and lopsidedness, And look at the dints each side of the top lip. I imagine they are as a result of his false teeth which pushes his top lip up and stretches it into the Joker grin. They both have squinty eyes with slightly different shapes, same colour too. If you were to ask me, judging by the mouth, eyes and ears, I would say one of the images above has been mirrored. I was tempted to switch it around, but I don't want to add manipulation to try to prove a point, Either you see what I am going on about or you don't; and if you don't, that's fine. I also think there is something false going on with both nose tips, but if you see early pictures of Tim, his nose is much more like Joe's anyway. In fact...

Image

I didn't really attempt to size the faces to match, but look at the nose... Again, do you see the extra width at the top of Biden's head, and the extra height is equivalent to Tim's hair, not his skull.

But it is this following one that convinces me; it's a poor quality grab from a video, it shows Joe uncontrollably laughing, I forget what it was, some time not long after he took office he was on a video call and the other person was really taking the piss while pretending to be straight face serious. As he watches he corpses and cracks up laughing uncontrollably.

Image

It's the same grin, and he holds his body as he laughs the exact same way.

The Sun might just be trolling me though. :D
Post Reply