|
HELLO LADIES posted:What about it specifically made it different from a horror movie that they didn't edit to make it look like a horror movie? Or, what about the scene/how it was shot meant you could safely rule out a combination of good acting, CGI/VFX, and propaganda? which aspect would you like to discredit first? I’m not saying it was specifically a Falun Gong prisoner in China getting organ harvested because of religious persecution (this was only alleged and there is no way to actually know that) but it was 100% a real person having something removed against their will
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 12:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Children are not sold by publicly traded companies on publicly accessible websites. I will keep saying it for as long as I need to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 13:02
|
|
|
So have we seen ghislaine on video yet or just a bunch of people asserting she's in custody
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 13:41
|
|
|
Deepfakes are pretty good now. Just saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
has anyone ever actually used the names on those furniture pieces to refer to them directly in normal conversation? who here has rolled up to an Ikea and was like "hey I saw a nice looking Sobibor at my best friend's dinner party last week, do you still have any more of those? It'd go great with my Bergen-Belsen"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
On a TrueAnon episode they talked about how "sources close to Ghislaine Maxwell" said she was living in New Hampshire with her boyfriend, I want to say this was from September 2019? I don't remember the # of the episode.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
Loucks posted:Deepfakes are pretty good now. Just saying. They are alright but I have a lovely tv so they are usually really jarring like the random bad guy in the star wars movie or the Biden videos. I think that cgi star wars tarkin guy was one of the first big tests
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
COMPAGNIE TOMMY posted:which aspect would you like to discredit first? I’m not saying it was specifically a Falun Gong prisoner in China getting organ harvested because of religious persecution (this was only alleged and there is no way to actually know that) but it was 100% a real person having something removed against their will What was it about this particular video that made you find it reasonable to rule out a convincing fake, "100%"? I mean, this is national security stuff here, even if you're an expert in some technical field associated with propaganda (like, you do VFX for a living)? Obviously at the very least we know that the US has an enormous black budget for spook type poo poo, and they can pirate freely from industry/academic researcher but not vice versa, even if you are an expert in something-or-another, why are you comfortable ruling out the idea that there could be secretly developed tech that you don't know about? At least walk us through your thought process here. Harry Potter on Ice posted:They are alright but I have a lovely tv so they are usually really jarring like the random bad guy in the star wars movie or the Biden videos. I think that cgi star wars tarkin guy was one of the first big tests Unless there was an ultra closeup on the victim's face and viscera, we get "fooled" by screams, cries of anguish, convincing thrashing all the time. Making a CGI person who can convincingly talk and have human facial expressions is incredibly hard. It could be a secretly solved problem, but even if it remains unsolved, that's a whole different problem than just faking gore. We don't even have a description of how this supposed snuff porn/intimidation propaganda was shot and set up, to set up a minimal baseline of like "okay, what would you need to see in a video that would be effectively impossible to fake with current known technology, but trivial to do it was genuine?" HELLO LADIES has issued a correction as of 16:57 on Jul 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
COMPAGNIE TOMMY posted:On a TrueAnon episode they talked about how "sources close to Ghislaine Maxwell" said she was living in New Hampshire with her boyfriend, I want to say this was from September 2019? I don't remember the # of the episode. it was Massachusetts with a tech dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:This is absolutist logic though. Russia Today can say poo poo that's 100% true about American empire that won't be reported here. Propaganda only works effectively if there's at least some small hint of truth to it im basically saying that be very suspicious of any "news" about designated US enemies for domestic consumption. RT is created for the US audience so they have to obtain credibility by having real journalists (Chris Hedges etc). US media reports about foreign powers has an incredibly low cost for being inaccurate as long as its sensationalist and gets clicks. North Korea executing some general by artillery shell is always a great example. There are exceptions such as the bloomberg article about the wealth of corrupt CCP family members, but its rare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:The US Embassy in Beijing's sitreps regarding Tianenmen Square, available on Wikileaks, give a really good account of what happened. They don't describe the same scene US media does today. this is also a good additional source https://www.qiaocollective.com/resources/tiananmenreadinglist
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:What was it about this particular video that made you find it reasonable to rule out a convincing fake, "100%"? I mean, this is national security stuff here, even if you're an expert in some technical field associated with propaganda (like, you do VFX for a living)? Obviously at the very least we know that the US has an enormous black budget for spook type poo poo, and they can pirate freely from industry/academic researcher but not vice versa, even if you are an expert in something-or-another, why are you comfortable ruling out the idea that there could be secretly developed tech that you don't know about? At least walk us through your thought process here. We've come a long way from the CIA having the Indonesian president played by a Mexican porn actor in a mask
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:Well, if she wasn't supposed to, why did she? She lost because of a simple miscalculation on their part. No one's perfect and there's no perfect plan. You come at any plan with a few angles of attack but they just didn't pan out. She was too unpopular and Trump had a lot more friends and pull than people realized. I'm not sure if the media circus boosting Trump endlessly while ostensibly attacking him was Trump's doing or their mistake. In terms of big pushes you have a candidate that you've been grooming, that's been getting media play, that will get popular support. They did an excellent job with Obama and they're running the same gambit in AOC. I think it'll work but they might've pushed AOC into a national spotlight too quickly (remember how unknown Obama was when he was tapped?) and shot themselves in the foot if her cloak and dagger starts to show. You also, yes, spend money on campaign (although where you spend your money is more important than how much; see Biden's win in the primaries this year and Hillary's defeat in the rust belt in 2016.) You also pay off electorates. You also tamper with the voting machines. I think really they just got complacent with Trump, they just didn't think he could win practically no matter what and they thought they'd save a few dollars or something I don't know. Look I'm not going to provide a receipt - I have one but it would tie this pseudonym to a different pseudonym on another message board and I try to keep some measure of identity security given my positions - but I said in Q1 2017 that Biden would get the nomination and lose. We'll see if the second half pans out but I'm rather confident. They need a candidate that looks as though they're taking it at least a little seriously as well as one that doesn't shift the national conversation at all and which provides a backdrop for "progressives" within the Democratic party. He can play the foil to the Justice Dems, to AOC, and Sanders, all while guaranteeing that there's no "progressive" candidate from without the Democratic party. The faux-left policies which the Justice Dems will forward, that will have a patina of progressiveness but be entirely regressive, simply haven't (and in some cases hadn't) been constructed yet. Maybe they didn't realize they needed to have them ready as early as 2016 and that's why Hillary lost as well. By the way this year is nearly the same thing as what played out in 2004. So that's what the theatre is aimed at, creating a platform for a "progressive" "split" that's within and managed by the Democratic party. AOC is entirely managed and actually if her presidential campaign doesn't materialize or fails she's already accomplished a great feat for the Democrats - she killed M4A. Crowley was one of the bigger M4A proponents alongside Barbara Lee. AOC unseats Crowley, who would've supported Lee for Speaker, and then goes on to support virulently anti-M4A Pelosi. You might remember that because she called Pelosi a "radical" of all things. Earlier this year AOC was going around saying oh actually we don't really know how to pay for M4A and we're going to need to thoroughly investigate it. It's a total con, she says she's pro-M4A and kills it at every turn. Her Oversight Committee has accomplished nothing other than giving ICE more money and created a nice photo op for her as well. She's the so-called populist who as late as 2019, at least (I'm looking to see if she has since then but it's not going to be widely reported on anyway), still hadn't open a congressional office in her district. Mind you she made that a plank of hers, that her constituents would have practically unfettered access to her. But no office. And good luck getting into one of those Town Halls, they're invite only and they're not going to answer your live stream questions either. Her chances are still pretty good. For Sanders well I'll just ask, how genuine do you reckon his positions are if he will so readily concede to and then support candidates whose positions are almost entirely counter to his (stated) own? Warren is surely sincere but she's not a progressive in any real sense and is fairly firm along the Democrats major lines. She also helped provide a bit of theatre, certainly her campaign was never genuine in that she thought she'd win. She was like a sensible-progressive foil to Sanders if I remember correctly. I was paying a bit more attention at the time to how the whole AOC-Sanders-Warren "progressive" block "infighting" was being managed and portrayed but it's not terribly important and I've forgotten a lot of it. This is the first I'm hearing of Steve Bullock and you'll have to forgive me, I only half pay attention to the bourgeois "democratic process" because it's really almost entirely theatre. So on that I can't say. Biden probably picks Klobuchar but it doesn't matter much anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:You can entertain an idea without believing it. Everyone here was pretty incredulous throughout and mostly were just having a laugh. Are you upset that people may ruin the good name of Wayfair or something? I get the sense some folks here genuinely believed it for a minute and are now covering for falling for it. I also don't really get the sense that Biden is supposed to lose, I just think the Dems are generally bad at hiding their hand. They genuinely saw Bernie as a threat just as they were genuinely shocked by AOC's victory, just because they've found ways to get both of them to play ball does not mean there was never a period where they were authentic. I think Bernie honestly believes it when he says Trump is a uniquely dangerous President and is willing to sell out his beliefs to get a generic Dem in there (plus, we know, him and Biden have always been friendly). I think AOC got to Washington and quickly realized how easy it is to make her completely inert if she decides to antagonize and so she's started sucking up to Pelosi to stay in the party's good graces and lo and behold suddenly day by day she starts getting sucked into the party machine. Biden's not going to pick Klobuchar, Klob has already pulled out of the running for VP and the party knows they'll get pounced on for her role in literally absolving whatshisname Chauvin who killed George Floyd. Just because the Dems are really, really loving bad at this game doesn't mean they're deliberately trying to lose. If they were they wouldn't be hiding Biden in his Delaware bunker and would just let him go out and say whatever he wants off script. edit: Like, what is Lib Brain all about? It's thinking that your intelligence will reward you. They thought the GOP was dead and they could just win the executive branch forever in perpetuity so they designated Hillary, deliberately boosted Trump, and were shocked that the country would actually despise Hillary enough that they go for Trump. But they do know that they'd rather get four more years of Trump than allow Bernie to get the Presidency so they rallied behind Biden, in a pathetic attempt to keep doing the same thing again and again forever. They just got lucky that Trump is self-destructing as the race heats up, and obviously there's time for the tide to turn. I just don't think they're trying to throw it is all. TrixRabbi has issued a correction as of 17:07 on Jul 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
No, AOC's initial bid was supported through a lot of billionaire contributions that were hidden. "Supposed to" is a little stronger than what I'm saying. I'm saying it makes no difference to them whether he wins or loses and he will lose as a consequence. I have no strong conviction about Klobuchar getting the pick, but I will say that the optics of supporting her despite Chauvin isn't exactly counter to the DNC's overall strategy. Biden is unapologetically White and surely they don't mind courting a sizable chunk of Blue white supremacists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:No, AOC's initial bid was supported through a lot of billionaire contributions that were hidden. Is this what you were referring to about the receipts or do you have some links on this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:This is the first I'm hearing of Steve Bullock and you'll have to forgive me, I only half pay attention to the bourgeois "democratic process" because it's really almost entirely theatre. So on that I can't say. Well, either you're about to get a real "crack ping" for your own sense of judgement, your personality disorder is completely genuine and at the moment effectively incurable, or you're a state actor. You might specifically want to watch the Stephen Colbert video about him when he was left off of the primary. I get to the average goon he'd be odious politically, sure, but that's not even the point. TrixRabbi posted:I also don't really get the sense that Biden is supposed to lose, I just think the Dems are generally bad at hiding their hand. They genuinely saw Bernie as a threat just as they were genuinely shocked by AOC's victory, just because they've found ways to get both of them to play ball does not mean there was never a period where they were authentic. They're great at hiding their hand, it seems to me. You're just looking at the wrong one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1281983764684574721?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:Is this what you were referring to about the receipts or do you have some links on this? No it wasn't, I was talking about my Q1 2017 Biden nom and subsequent loss prediction. Well I mentioned her initial bid so let's stick to that here for a second. Read this first: https://nlpc.org/2019/03/04/fec-complaint-filed-against-rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-for-extensive-off-the-books-campaign/ This PAC money becomes a rather tangled web of pass-throughs. There's a few important players and entities: Brand New Congress PAC, Justice Democrats PAC, Real Justice PAC, Cari Tuna, Bernal Alto LLC, and Middle Seat Consulting. Cari Tuna, Facebook multi-billionaire, gives money to Real Justice PAC (this is Shaun King's PAC, by the way):  Real Justice PAC gives money to Bernal Alto LLC (good luck finding much of any information on this one) and Middle Seating Consulting (ditto):   Bernal Alto LLC, AOC's campaign itself, and Middle Seat Consulting in turn give money to the Justice Democrats PAC:  All images from here: https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/ It's a web of consulting firms, campaigns, PACs, and billionaire money. And to further bolster this it's very easy to note AOC's absurd media presence. Vanity Fair, Teen Vogue, Time, Rolling Stone, HBO, blah blah blah and so on. Those media firms are owned by billionaires but she's getting top billing!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:Well, either you're about to get a real "crack ping" for your own sense of judgement, your personality disorder is completely genuine and at the moment effectively incurable, or you're a state actor. You might specifically want to watch the Stephen Colbert video about him when he was left off of the primary. I get to the average goon he'd be odious politically, sure, but that's not even the point. You'll need to be a little more specific than all this ad hominem junk. Do you like Bullock or what? I don't know why I'm supposed to care about him and I'm not going to start caring about him all of a sudden on your and Stephen Colbert's word. Actually I'm all the more incredulous about whatever supposed bonafides he has if he's getting 5-minute segments on CBS primetime ffs. Perry Mason Jar has issued a correction as of 17:54 on Jul 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
AOC is a succdem launderer who steals immigrant valor and it's pathetic how many goons simp for her. She's part of the problem whether or not she's an op.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
night danger posted:AOC is a succdem launderer who steals immigrant valor and it's pathetic how many goons simp for her. She's part of the problem whether or not she's an op. looking at AOC’s husband and saying ya she’s like us
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
HANG ON WE ARE COMING TO RESCUE YOU!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:No it wasn't, I was talking about my Q1 2017 Biden nom and subsequent loss prediction. hell yeah give me more of that intra-class conflict among the capitalists. i love it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:We've come a long way from the CIA having the Indonesian president played by a Mexican porn actor in a mask Hahahahahahahahaha holy poo poo that's right! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:You'll need to be a little more specific than all this ad hominem junk. Do you like Bullock or what? I don't know why I'm supposed to care about him and I'm not going to start caring about him all of a sudden on your and Stephen Colbert's word. Actually I'm all the more incredulous about whatever supposed bonafides he has if he's getting 5-minute segments on CBS primetime ffs. Whether I like Bullock or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that he fills every supposed strength that Biden is supposed to have, is marginally less economically populist at the expense of being orders of magnitude less woke, and a pro-choice Governor in a traditionally Red state who managed to get re-elected in 2016 in a state that went for Trump by 20%. Twelve years seems like an awfully short time to go from Obama being a Senator as opposed to a Governor being widely seen and talked about as a liability, to practically being a job requirement for the "serious" candidates. Even by your chosen paradigm of Big Oil/Little Oil, the entire primary amounts to the entire thing being staged by transparently Big Oil interests, in a Big Oil way, doing literally everything they could to keep Little Oil off the actual stage. The Colbert thing wasn't an advertisement, it was a punchline. "This loser couldn't even make it onto the debate!" for succdems, "why should I care about this guy, and also since I have no idea who he is and he was on Colbert I'm going to assume he's both poo poo and being boosted" for folks like you, and "holy poo poo the Democrats are completely incompetent electorally" to anyone even resembling a swing voter. Plus the whole thing amounted to a sustained propaganda campaign against every idea that was supposedly being presented as good, even "diversity" itself, because in the end the supposedly big tent party collapsed under one banner and collapsed the Overton window down into a tiny space. That's my point with the ad hominems: the way it plays out overall is fantastic evidence taken overall for the Big Oil/Little Oil thesis, and practically a smoking gun for "they are planning on throwing, Biden is the throw candidate, and the opposite of what he's being presented as", that's why it's glaring you missed it. That it was rigged for Biden is actually transparently obvious to anyone who is even remotely committed to sincere reform from the left. I'm not saying that you should be, just that lots of people are/believe themselves to be, especially Democratic primary voters, and they're now left with an (accurate) perception that it was rigged. The kicker is just that it was rigged against Bullock. Bernie may or may not be sincere, but he was there to provide a distraction, as were all the other candidates anyone with a brain knew weren't going to make it to the final rounds. In fact, the final rounds basically consisted of a bunch of people who were seemingly very carefully selected to have easily influenced "teaching moments" for certain segments of the population, that they might not have even known they were delivering. Overall, Bullock's exclusion and the absolute dog-and-pony show with a foregone conclusion are extremely strong evidence for everything you're saying. Everything about him screams Little Oil. I just think it's better evidence, when you combine it with a bunch of factors that anyone who sincerely believes in "sides" of any kind doesn't even bring up when put together, that it's more a good cop/bad cop routine aimed at external state actors or alliances who have real power, and America is very well under control of a unified front. HELLO LADIES has issued a correction as of 19:54 on Jul 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 19:49
|
|
nut posted:looking at AOC’s husband and saying ya she’s like us Didn’t know AOC was into neckbearded goons lol 
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
perry mason jars posts loving own, i always had suspicions about AOC
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
Why do these magazines and organizations keep putting an attractive woman on TV, it must be a conspiracy
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:Whether I like Bullock or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that he fills every supposed strength that Biden is supposed to have, is marginally less economically populist at the expense of being orders of magnitude less woke, and a pro-choice Governor in a traditionally Red state who managed to get re-elected in 2016 in a state that went for Trump by 20%. Twelve years seems like an awfully short time to go from Obama being a Senator as opposed to a Governor being widely seen and talked about as a liability, to practically being a job requirement for the "serious" candidates. I see. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
Young woke online candidate gets lobbied to by media companies trying to market themselves as young woke and online! She very publicly acts for the poo poo I do like and that's enough to simp right now in concentration camps for Latinos, so I'm defensive of anyone right now in government advocating for us. It looks more like Shaun King is the problem being a rich white techbro confidence man. Bernal was chaired by his associates. He's not spoken for a lot of money, and is suspect with poo poo like his private investigatng into himself on Medium. I'm also skeptical when the search for more information to corroborate begins to trend heavily on articles sourcing The loving Blaze and the Daily Caller as their initial sources. Wasabi the J has issued a correction as of 20:19 on Jul 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
A4R8 posted:Didn’t know AOC was into neckbearded goons lol that's a weird pic, the bit of darkness over the guy's hair makes it look like he was inserted into the image unless he was and 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
A4R8 posted:Didn’t know AOC was into neckbearded goons lol why did someone shittily photoshop him into this picture
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:America is very well under control of a unified front. maybe the democratic primary is controlled, but the last 6 months has pretty firmly demonstrated that there's no firm center controlling US policy internally or externally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
Filthy Hans posted:that's a weird pic, the bit of darkness over the guy's hair makes it look like he was inserted into the image idk about that specific picture but aoc's SO really looks like that
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:What was it about this particular video that made you find it reasonable to rule out a convincing fake, "100%"? I mean, this is national security stuff here, even if you're an expert in some technical field associated with propaganda (like, you do VFX for a living)? Obviously at the very least we know that the US has an enormous black budget for spook type poo poo, and they can pirate freely from industry/academic researcher but not vice versa, even if you are an expert in something-or-another, why are you comfortable ruling out the idea that there could be secretly developed tech that you don't know about? At least walk us through your thought process here. I'm a VFX expert and you're falling for my industry's bluff. Deepfakes and other machine learning breakthroughs are mostly an investor racket. The capabilities are oversold and limitations omitted to make us tech shitbirds look omnipotent. At the end of the day, it's a simple statistics based approach, used on images, but limited by the usual rules in statistics--you can't extrapolate from your dataset, and if your data sucks or is not representative in the first place, then what you make will be useless. Even for the trump pisstape that went around--if that was a fake it was probably due to practical effects. Software would have been an inferior tool. No deepfake process can make a completely novel scene of humans interacting that isn't extremely limited by what's in the dataset. Those datasets are usually incredibly focused anyway... maybe if you process only faces in one pose then sure a novel face in that still pose will look great. So you'd still have to stage essentially the entire pisstape scene yourself with practical effects, and then no deepfake process is going to replicate a human's normal motions and range of Trump mannerisms even if you paste a CG face onto their head that mimics their expressions. The video quality would have to be so low to hide it that you may as well have used practical effects and similarly relied on low quality video to hide it. Don't get conned by my people, the technology is pure hype of a smaller degree than Musk projects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
what does this even mean? https://twitter.com/e_j_thom/status/1282004552787648514?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
"Stop complaining and go out and actually DO SOMETHING about the global cabal of pedophiles who have at least a 7-figure bodycount of persons smarter, stronger and more determined than yourself."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/zlingray/status/1282059214894989312?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
inferis posted:what does this even mean? we must model all of society as a frictionless sphere. when the model gives us incorrect predictions, we then know that society itself is wrong
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 22:14
|
|