The illusory Air Force One


The (heavily Photoshopped) images above are making the rounds on Facebook. The election on Tuesday must have some otherworldly esoteric significance to the people with real power, as agitprop is all about us, Pittsburgh and Tallahassee, and supposed rallies as the one above. [Note: To be clear, I suspect there really was a staged rally and that a lot of people attended. I am only saying the photos have been  subjected to a lot of monkey business. Even the sunset is too convenitent.]

But set all of that aside. It is understood (by our readers and writers here anyway) that voting is of no importance, but the idea that voting matters is very important.

As I viewed these images this morning, it suddenly dawned on me that Air Force One, a 747 replete with 1950s technology, is just a prop. The president, though his job is merely ribbon cutting, is transported by other means, probably military, perhaps far more advanced technology than this. They are not so foolish as to move him about in such a garish and outlandish public vehicle, easily spotted and tracked. It’s like a Popemobile.

This is not a new realization, of course. Back when I lived in Billings, Montana, President Clinton visited, and as his motorcade went up North 27th Street towards the airport, Billings’ finest, roly-poly cops barely able to walk upright, ran alongside, their bellies bouncing like jello. I laughed with the realization that Clinton was not in that vehicle. It is distraction, and he either went to the airport in another obscure vehicle, or perhaps in a helicopter. That is how security is done, misdirection … look here, not there. That is why famous people have body doubles.

Anyway, look at the photos and see what jumped out at me. I will insert them again just to keep you from having to scroll up and down the page.


First, I have to wonder, is Air Force One even there? It is meant to be the centerpiece of the photo. In one image it is floodlit, in the other, darkened. Maybe it is just Photoshopped it in. I can’t tell, but the framing, center stage and offset by two buildings, suggests so.  I cannot imagine that they fly it around the country just for photo ops, but maybe they do. I have never seen it take off or land, however. I know when Clinton came to Billings, the only aircraft I remember seeing was a huge transport vehicle, perhaps a Lockheed Galaxy. If Air Force One was there, well, then, it was used as a prop, and Clinton used other means to come and go. That’s my take.

Secondly, look at the lighting, not just of the 747, but also the crowd. See how they are illuminated in front and behind the podium, but shaded for the rest. This could be floodlighting, but the lines are so sharp! Notice how the sign, “Promised Made, Promises Kept, is intended for the photographer and not for the audience around the man holding it. It was either held up on cue, or was also Photoshopped in. I cannot tell. In the lower image the sign is not there, but that doesn’t mean it was not lowered at the time of the photo.

Finally, we have what I think of as the “Let’s get small” phenomenon. That’s a not-very-funny comedy routine done long ago by Steve Martin. It describes the perspective in the photos above wherein people in the foreground look real and present, but as our eyes move into the photo, they grow smaller by too much to be real. In the top photo specifically, notice how there are two kinds of people, big ones in the foreground, and small ones in the backdrop. I would guess that the people in the foreground were photographed at some staging event, and that if we looked at all of the photos around this campaign, they might appear more than once. The far-away crowd could also be pasted in. The lower photo has better perspective, but the lighting is odd and lines are apparent. I am not an expert, but these photos seem hokey.


I first noticed this problem that photo fakers have with perspective in the one above, the supposed march of American troops through and around Arc de Triomphe and down Champs-Élysées. Notice the periphery, the people on the sidewalk, neither excited nor numerous, and also notice how small they are in comparison to the troops.

That photo had to be manufactured in a darkroom, and I give credit to the artisans of that time – this is very good work, painstaking and detailed. But it is fake. My conclusion: Americans did not march into Paris. More likely, they trickled in from the surrounding areas, the people of Paris no more aware or concerned about them than the Germans before them.


I was watching Jeopardy one night, as senior citizens do while ingesting our Muslix, when this photo jumped off the screen at me. Same phenomenon, big in the foreground, a banner used to separate and hide the pasting, and small behind with no in-between, no perspective. My conclusion: The famous march in Selma consisted of maybe sixteen people, those visible in the foreground. Everyone behind was pasted in. The Selma march was a news media event, fake.

These days, with Photoshop and tools far more elaborate than available to the general  public, photo fakery is so easy that any clown can do it. There is so much of it! Look closely at every news photo you see.

  1. Place yourself in the shoes of the photographer. Where is he standing?
  2. See the quality of the photo – depth of field, lighting, clarity, staging. Judge whether or not that a supposedly spontaneous photo, such as the one below, could really be taken on short notice. Napalm Girl has the photographer standing in the middle of a paved road in rural Vietnam with perfect focus and depth of field. What a lucky shot!NG
  3. Try to understand the propaganda value of the photo. The image above was used as a divide-and-conquer device, forcing Americans to be on one side or the other of the Vietnam War. It did not matter which side we were on, only that we chose sides.
  4. And always, always look for real tears. The photo below is from yesterday, the fake yoga massacre in Tallahassee. Jesus! Would it kill them to invest in a bottle of Visine?No tears again

8 thoughts on “The illusory Air Force One

  1. I think, you mixing to much things together Mark. If you’re using a wide angle, like in the first airplane pic, you’ll get this effect with big people in the foreground and small people in the background. If you’re using a zoom, like in the seconds airplane picture, the deep will appear smaller and you’ll only see the small people. Both pictures were made from different places at slightly different times, obviously. First one from within the audience, the second one from a building far away. That also explains why the airplane looks almost the same size. But on the other side, both pictures are also heavily edited if ever real. Real pictures can look similar. Crowd generation software can generate any background, I suppose. Lights and other details can also be explained away. Looking at such details can’t prove anything. People fly around the world for real, why not presidents? Why not in a certain airplane? It’s not like they are in real danger there. This entire security angle is a part of the show. The pic with the American troops in Paris can also be fake but the arrangement does not look impossible to me. Just make some pics of a crowd yourself using wide angle and some zoom to analyze the possibilities. Media use manipulated pictures all the time. I doubt if they ever use native pictures in the first place. What’s in the media that is fake and what is real, won’t appear in the media. IMO. The Napalm-girl pic was already debunked here, no? As for “real” tears, people in emotional situations can really cry “dry” trying to cry but not being able to. It is not possible. Actors on the other side can easily fake tears on command. Focusing on such unreliable details is not a good way to analyze fakes IMO.


    1. Not shedding real tears whilst crying must be rare, yet every false flag seems to have more than their fair share. I’ve known people shed tears over a sad looking puppy in the newspaper.


      1. I suppose it is possible to be cried out, but I have never cried and not shed real tears, and like everyone, I have had losses and tragedies and heartbreaks. S. Volpetti is right, with every false flag event comes dry anguish.

        B.M., thanks for your input on photos. Very useful. Yes, we have discussed napalm Girl here before. The quality of that photo was at question … and all news photos that are sold to us as incidental encounteres but are actually well staged. I agree that the president has to get around somehow, but basic security is misdirection, look here, not there. So it would come as no surprise to me if he never actually rode on Air Force One, and instead had other, faster means of transport. This is not my original idea, but the MM group, that the very wealthy have their own system of transportation and do not rely on 1950s technology. That idea has merit, in my mind.


    2. You can’t fake tears on command…Not even in Hollywood. it’s the same as recording a record…it’s a practice that’s over-dubbed. if you think about a sad event long enough…it’s bound to bring “TEARS” .


  2. An underground tunnel network probably connects all International Airports and other important strategic locations. It appears that the “rally photos” were taken inside an Airport Hanger.

    International Airports, like International Ports, are governed by International Law, not U.S. Law, State Law or City/County Ordinances. Technically, when at the Airport, you are no longer in the United States or in the State you think you are in geographically.

    Technically, WASHINGTON D.C. is also not a part of the United States, so when a PRESIDENT speaks in front of the (ANDREW) WHITE HOUSE, he is not subject to any LAW of the Land. This also applies to any MILITARY BASE or any other facility that is recognised as the PROPERTY of the U.S. GOVERNMENT, which is in fact, a FOREIGN POWER, that presides over the 50 States and other Territories but is not subject to the LAWS that GOVERN the inhabitants thereof.

    Technically, only the DEAD can fly on COMMERCIAL Flights just like only the DEAD can have a DRIVERS LICENSE and be a DRIVER.

    It derives from RULES of the LATIN CHARACTERS and is the most misunderstood concept within ROMAN/CANON/INTERNATIONAL/MARITIME/ADMIRALTY LAW and is Capitis deminutio.

    Capitis Deminutio Maxima – is when only CAPITAL LETTERS are used and the entity “NAMED” is a PERSON/CORPORATION with no rights. i.e. “A DEAD thing.

    When a person registers to VOTE in a NATIONAL ELECTION, the NAME, ADDRESS and other information, becomes SUBJECT to the DICTATES of the GOV/GOD and a LEGAL CONTRACT, be it considered TACET or not, is CREATED and the REGISTERED VOTER thereby agrees to PAY the BILL for every PROGRAM initiated by the GOVERNMENT.

    Now once registered, technically, they need you to cast your VOTE to LEGALLY keep you on the hook for PAYING the BILL, but not to worry, if you fail to show up to VOTE, a PERSON with all of your information will cast your VOTE for you, at least that is how it is done in the CITY where I was considered a RESIDENT and REGISTERED VOTER.


    1. Ah The Strawman theory or the INTERNATIONAL/MARITIME/ADMIRALTY LAW issue. While I agree that it describes our state of being and citizenship, there is no way to get out of it. The examples given to get out of taxes or a speeding ticket in a courtroom do not work. Unless one can find a way to live off the grid which is quite a hardship, we have to obey the rules and live our lives under our names and social security numbers.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for this comment. There are also people who claim that we can get out of paying taxes because the 16th amendment was never properly ratified. Good luck with that. Money, federal reserve notes, are an illusion, I realize, but I need them to live.


      2. Greg,

        While it is technically possible to “get out” I completely agree that the hardship would be enormous. You would most likely have to leave everyone and everything you’ve ever known behind as no one else is going to join you. You would be “alone” in the wilderness so to speak.

        My commentary on the subject is just an attempt to get folks to comprehend a bit of useful knowledge regarding “Capitis deminutio”. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ‘before you can begin to understand the Law in English, you must first learn French and Latin’.

        Not too long ago, I had an encounter with two POLICY/POLICE OFFICERS from two different agencies. Neither of them had ever even heard of a BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, let alone opened it, which is curious, since all of the words used in LEGAL/LAW are defined in that book!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s