I have taken my time getting around to the work done recently by Miles Mathis on the Columbine event. I did a run-through this morning. I am going to offer a couple of very general observations, not intended to be criticisms, and with caveats:
I respect Miles and his work. This will not be a take-down by any means. From reading him I learned how to analyze photos, and these days watch them easily disassemble before my eyes. Even these days with so much AI all about, there is a too-smooth quality about fake photos. AI is going to get better at this stuff, and will soon learn to match the graininess, lighting and lines in earlier work. In the future, it will be nearly impossible to tell reality from fiction in photos. But when I did my work on Columbine, it was very easy. I first noticed that the supposed victims and grievers were actors, shedding no tears. They only grimaced for the cameras. Ah, amateurs! Then I noticed that the shots of kids (victims) were obviously staged, asking myself “Why was the photographer in that place at that time?” In other words, photos were done by professional photographers brought to the scene to record fake as real.
We saw film shot of the school cafeteria, with the janitor in charge failing to catch the boys planting propane tanks there. Unasked, but critical to understanding the fake nature of this event is this: The cameras were placed there, supposedly, to catch kids acting up during lunch, a complete waste of money! In later years cameras would come into use, and are everywhere now in schools. They are not there to document food fights, but to record comings and goings and strangers on the premises. That might be a more legitimate use, in a surveillance state such as ours. However do understand that the camera was placed in the cafeteria in 1999 to document the students’ reaction to the supposed shooters AND to record the ghosts, Klebold and Harris, walking through carrying guns. The footage was shot the June before, when the building was abandoned due to vacations. All the participants were hired actors, faces blurred. (See photo to the left … apparently a very poor quality camera they bought!)
Then there is the Mathis focus on Jews. I have a surname that is in the Jewish registry. I don’t consider myself Jewish, but I don’t have any prejudices against them as a race or faction, whatever it is. The fact that there are so many of them in so many prominent places is not troubling to me, as I’ve known very few of them and liked the ones I met. So when Miles goes into ancestry, I agree that the names and connections are probably accurate, but not terribly important. Being Jewish, even Ashkenazi, is not in itself an indicator of guilt or evil intent. They could as well be Polish or Georgian for all it matters.
On to the differences between his work and mine:
I do facial comparisons, and Miles has always disparaged this work. He claims that photos are not reliable indicators, so that the face splits I use are not dependable. He instead relies on the practiced eyes on a professional portrait artist. I like his work, and find his paintings attractive, and know he has good eyes and instincts. In running two half-faces side by side, I don’t fudge in any way. I align the eye pupils so if they don’t align, so be it. If by chance I have two photos, and one is distorted, the other not, then they won’t align! If both are distorted, it is by the same type lens, so the distortion cancels out. That would be a big coincidence.
For myself, however, I spend more time on detail beyond the actual split. I liken this to an event in my freshman year of high school. We all, at that time, 1964, watched the same black and white TV and we had two choices, KOOK and KULR. So we all saw the same shows and advertisements. One ad that I watched on our crappy B&W TV was an advertisement featuring a demonstration of paring knives sold by Ronco or something similar. They were demonstrating how the knives were of space age steel and would never go dull, and to make this point the hands on the screen used one of the knives and sawed a nail in two. It then said “Watch now. Even after cutting that nail. this knife STILL slices a tomato!”
Then, right before my eyes, the hands flipped the knife on its other edge to slice the tomato. I saw this trick and asked my fellow students if they saw it too. None did. From that I took that I can possibly see a little more than others. I was not the brightest guy in classes, but I did see things they did not.
Facial comparisons are another story. It is relatively easy to spot discrepancies in lighting and shadows, especially in days gone by. But to take two faces and split them in two and place the two halves side by side … I have always had detractors. I regard that as natural and I pay attention to detractors. However, most times I don’t get alignment. When I see alignment, it is a rare thing, as no two people look alike. Not naturally, anyway. Practice over time taught me to be very precise in alignment, and not to overlook any discrepancies.
What follows is a diversion from the subject at hand, Columbine, but for a reason. See the face split below.
On the left is Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!. That is a lefty news show I’ve not watched for so long that it might have gone off the air or Goodman been replaced. On the right is Janis Joplin, singer who died of drugs and alcohol abuse in 1970 at the age of 27. I spent hours and days on this person and was startled to find Joplin in the flesh as Goodman. From that work learned that:
- Power of suggestion can he used to insert talent into average people doing average work. Joplin was a frenetic onstage personality, but not a good singer. She was an actress who drew rave reviews from critics whose job it is to make stars our of ordinary people doing unexceptional work. Power of suggestion is an important part of all fake events.
- This particular “Janis Joplin” had a set of teeth, surely nice and well cared-for, but we never saw them. She never smiled and showed her teeth. She was obviously shy, and hardly a frenetic stage performer.
- Another “Janis Joplin” was the actual on-stage performer. They are twins, it appears, though she not only does not look like her sister, but has a different persona, a lively one.
My point? Face chops are useful, and offer useful information. By using them I concluded that musical talent can be faked, and that use of big glasses and big hair can disguise two different people using the same name. Beyond that, it showed me that Democracy Now! is an enterprise backed by CIA, or whatever alphabetical entity controls our media. It is at the far left end of “news”. With other work we showed that singer Bobby Fuller, who faked his death in 1966, went on to become Bill O’Reilly, host and pundit for FOX News. That would be the “right.” We have a false dichotomy designed to trap us into the center of two false extremes. The larger picture is this: The entire news spectrum, right to left, is controlled by Intel, and is fake, fake, fake. That is what face splitting thought me.
That, to me is the revelatory value of my facial work. For Columbine, I used it to show that the yearbook photos of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were actually Trey Parker and Matt Stone, creators of South Park. I stand by my work. It has value. Miles disagrees. In his post he does not spend a lot of time on the photos – at least not as much as Jewish backgrounds. He does not speak of my work, but I know he read my piece, otherwise he would not know what to ignore. (Take note: Passive aggressive shot taken!)
For Columbine, I showed, using face chops, that the yearbook photos of Klebold and Harris were actually those of Parker and Stone. They were of different ages, but with my techniques, age beyond 18 does not matter. (Parker and Stone, by the way, did not participate in the fake massacre beyond allowing (or acceding to) use of their photos.)
Miles uses the above two images above of Klebold (left) and Harris (right) next to images of Hitler as he went through his staged wild gyrations back then. These two photos achieve the same purpose, I agree, but they also achieve another, to make it impossible to distinguish the yearbook photos of Klebold and Harris (Parker and Stone) below from these two actors.
Can you see that the two crazed photos and the two yearbook photos are deliberately so messed up and apart that there is no way that anyone, even me, could compare them and say they are or are not or are not the same persons? (They are not). But I wonder, did I not read close enough? Does Miles not see that the two are ghosts? There were 1,900 students in Columbine at that time. I would bet by power of suggestion that kids of that time now remember the two as real, perhaps even being in class (though not bowling) with them.
By the way, the two photos above of Klebold show enough resemblance that one could say they are the same. But not so for Harris. Ergo, the shot below, the death scene, has the face of Harris hidden.
Enough of that. With photos, face splits, fakes and paste ups and all of that, you either see it or not, and no amount of dwelling on the topic will change your mind.
I also took time in my piece of emphasize the role of Michael Moore and his film, Bowling for Columbine***, to show that Hollywood went to great lengths to legitimize the event. From this I learned that Moore is fake, and so look at all of his work over the years as suspect. Miles does not mention that. I went on at great length, showing how appearances by Charlton Heston and Dick Clark in that movie were staged. As members of SAG, they had to 1) give approval for use of their images in a movie, and 2) be paid for it. Clark, on camera, pretended to be objecting to being filmed.
Miles concludes:
Wikipedia has a section on conspiracy theories for this event, but it is very short, most of it about Falwell and Phelps claiming the boys were gay. They admit Alex Jones has called it “a 100% false flag”. So why wasn’t he sued for a trillion by victims’ parents? We aren’t sure, other than that there aren’t any victims or victims’ parents, though that didn’t stop them for faking Jones’ Sandy Hook trials. At any rate, Wikipedia has nothing to say against any conspiracy theories, simply giving them one sentence reports with no effort at rebuttal. They certainly don’t nip in the bud anything I have reported here, and how could they since they gifted me most of this evidence themselves. I hardly had to leave their pages. This fraud falls apart at a glance from someone like me and doesn’t even require deep research. I destroyed it in a single day. I could go on for many more hours, but it isn’t really worth it. Those photos should have destroyed it by themselves.
I tend to place far more importance on it. It is the seminal school shooting event of our time. It was and is used to scare kids and keep the in that state of fear. It is part of our overall tending as members of the herd, to be afraid and stay afraid. It is hard for all of us to be afraid and to think properly at once. As such, the event had elaborate staging and production values, advance planning and a major motion picture follow-up.
From that, I conclude that it was important.
_________________
**I put “creators” of South Park in quotes, as I am not convinced that these two guys are the driving force of that topical and funny cartoon … it’s just too good and has carried on for too long to be that. It is the work of many hands, changing over time I suppose, new ones brought in (others wrote The Book of Mormon). It appears a committee project, as with any comedy undertaking.
***Moore, in his film, had to place the two boys in a 6AM bowling class and hire two actresses to say they were there too … they could not recruit real kids who took classes with the boys. There were none!
