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.

Continue reading “Mathis on Columbine” →

Mark brings up points that he hasn’t researched and which you, Ray, have accepted at face value. The complete lack of curiosity among the disbelievers is simply staggering. Don’t you want to check if and what the response is to this seemingly earth-shattering claim: “Hey, oils and lubricants used on earth wouldn’t work in space. Gotcha!” As I said to Mark there are responses to every seeming anomaly, OK, Ray. Any seeming anomaly you care to think of there will be a response. I defy you to put forward a seeming anomaly that doesn’t have a response to it. Sure, you may not agree with the response but you need to be able to respond to it, not simply put forward what you think are compelling facts.

Look for an explanation first before holding up something in triumph first.

I’ve decided to put this comment up for scrutiny rather than write a long response to it in the overdone comment section of the post in which it appeared.

There’s a word used, one which I seldom use: “Fact.” I made the claim that there existed on Earth no known substance that could withstand the purported conditions on the Moon, wild swings in temperatures of as much as 500°F. NASA tells us that such substances must exist … after all, they transported machinery to the inhospitable environment of the Moon, and it functioned just fine, including cameras with finely engineered moving parts that depended on those parts moving at very high speeds to open and shut shutters and heavily gloved hands to advance the film. Also, we are told, the astronauts who landed on the moon entered this environment in latex suits that kept them warm and fully functioning throughout. They were not affected by cosmic radiation, so it must not be a problem up there.

Continue reading “Looking the penis in the face” →

In my original piece on the Columbine “massacre”, September of 2017, I had stopped doing face chops, thinking them the object of ridicule among “informed” folk. Instead, I began doing opaque overlays wherein one person becomes another. Thus in the Columbine piece did I show Eric Harris morphing into Trey Parker and Dylan Klebold into Matt Stone, Parker and Stone being the alleged creators of the long running TV show South Park.

Continue reading “Additional work on Columbine” →