Brian Cates has gone all in frens.đ¸
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (79)
sorted by:
Here's my hot take: Anons are right, but the mask thing is just like flat earth or reptilian overlords. Ots another CIA psyop to make us look dumb.
Only look dumb to people who donât understand that we have 30-60 years of proof that they can make damn near any image they want show up on our scrying glasses, and theyâve done nothing but get better at making it convincing.
Could they fake an actor in real time? Are the videos we keep seeing prerecorded? Are any of us interacting with the people in question? Could they fake that? Whoâs read in on what?
âBut they couldnât make a conspiracy be that big!â
Huge portions of Europe, North America, Asia, South America, and Australia have all gone nuts from different things all at once. Someone is conspiring something big.
Frankly I donât care if I look dumb to them. They look infinitely dumber to me when they think they actually know anything. Socrates got it right thousands of years ago. All my claims are couched behind the fact that theyâre just what I suspect, and in truth I have no clue whatâs actually happening.
Sure, they can make any image appear digitally. But not physically. You ask if they could pre-record events. Sure they can. But not all of them. Meaning some event are public, some events biden for example is seen up close. By the average citizen and many times filmed by an average persons phone. They could make a conspiracy big, but again, at some point they are seen publicly.
Yeah, Iâve been wondering how they would get past that myself, of course.
Itâs just so weird that just because I donât have any explanation for it, I still canât believe they didnât.
There are two practical approaches that can be taken:
Except for when you can SEE the edges of the mask clearly. Then it isn't a psy op.
In my experience most who comment about silicone masks being tinfoil hattery have never seen video of just how incredibly perfect silicone masks can be made nowadays. No matter how close you get, you can't tell. It is mind blowing. They place individual hairs, paint individual moles and freckles, etc. The masks move with the mouth and face muscles perfectly. It's totally plausible that many are wearing these in public, and no one can tell.
This masking technique does not pass the standards of forensic facial wrinkle mapping tests, and does not address the audio forensics aspect of the issue.
It is important to note that digital manipulation may not be a concern, but rather the accuracy of the appearance in real-life situations. This is the crux.
It is essential to consider that silicone, while commonly used in masks, does not possess the same qualities as human skin. Claims suggesting otherwise are inaccurate. Close observation of silicone masks can reveal differences in texture and appearance compared to real skin. The intricacies of human facial features, such as fine wrinkles and natural folds, are not accurately replicated with silicone. Achieving a truly realistic human likeness with flexible materials remains a challenge due to limitations in texture, flexibility, and detail. The effectiveness of combining makeup and silicone to create a generic appearance diminishes upon closer inspection and lacks the authenticity required to pass facial wrinkle mapping tests.
Ultimately, one can choose between obtaining a precise and authentic representation of a person's face, akin to a wax figure, or settling for an inaccurate but partially realistic and flexible depiction. It is not possible to achieve both simultaneously.
Let's use reason, and logic to determine what is more plausible given evidence that his audio and his wrinkle mapping both pass forensics tests. Is it more likely that he is utilizing completely new and advanced technology to look real, while at the same time not the same? or is it more logical that he passes these tests because he is the same human?
What benefits are derived from utilizing an actor to portray a negative character, inciting conflicts, and deaths? If the actor is under the control of the white hats, who ultimately bears responsibility for the resulting bloodshed? Is it acceptable to justify acts of violence, border incursions, and prolonged detainment of individuals involved in the January 6th events as long as they are orchestrated by the white hats? Do the ends truly justify the means? Alternatively, is it possible that while the white hats possess necessary information and control similar to a skilled chess player, the true perpetrators of atrocities remain the true culprits regardless of manipulation? What makes more sense?
By the same note that we canât know he isnât fake, we canât know he definitively is fake, either, and both positions were true both before and after this thread.
Counter-downdoot given, and excellent work.