PDA

View Full Version : Official Photo of Queen and Mysterious Controller


Pages : [1] 2 3

size_of_light
15-05-2013, 07:36 AM
The poster sugarray first discovered this strange figure in one of the four official 2007 portraits of the Queen by Annie Leibovitz (from post #65 onwards here: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=205473.)

The implications are startling when you reflect logically on the issue, so I thought it was time it had its own thread.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2vl0ak5.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/2us97dc.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/4hta4p.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/311uhdg.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/2641dua.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/15qw8ia.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/6oo56r.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/153xy11.jpg



http://i39.tinypic.com/311uhdg.jpg

"There are dark forces operating in this country which we know nothing about."

- Queen to Paul Burrell

whale
15-05-2013, 09:03 AM
You've posted a close up of a chandellier then you've drawn two blotchy black circles in it.

And you want us to think what? That it's an alien face?

Like I say, is something wrong with you?

ad hominem, I can't see anything but I'm not psychic, like you, so how the hell do you know she is ill for posting that?

edelweiss pirate
15-05-2013, 09:19 AM
ad hominem, I can't see anything but I'm not psychic, like you, so how the hell do you know she is ill for posting that?


I'm sick of this forum being used as a dumping ground for worthless rubbish.

Next time people call you a kook or a weirdo 'conspiracy theorist' because you believe 9-11 was an inside job you can thank people like the OP who discredit the whole area with crazy looney talk.



Some of this stuff is actually trolls and cointel-pro agents at work by the way..... It's the turd in the punch-bowl approach.

turquoisefire777
15-05-2013, 09:24 AM
The poster sugarray first discovered this strange figure in one of the four official 2007 portraits of the Queen by Annie Liebovitz (from post #65 onwards here: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=205473.)

The implications are startling when you reflect logically on the issue, so I thought it was time it had its own thread.



http://i39.tinypic.com/311uhdg.jpg

"There are dark forces operating in this country which we know nothing about."

- Queen to Paul Burrell


creepy. yet blatantly in the background.


and if the quote about what the queen said to burrel is true, then.......

edelweiss pirate
15-05-2013, 09:28 AM
creepy. yet blatantly in the background.


and if the quote about what the queen said to burrel is true, then.......


What? What are you seeing?


There's a bloke with the Queen while she's having her photo taken.

Either an assistant to the photographer or an assistant to the queen.

And there's a chandelier which obscures the man's head but someone has doodled two black splodges onto so they look like eyes.

That's what I can see because that's what's there.


This is idiotic and embarrassing.

size_of_light
15-05-2013, 09:33 AM
This is idiotic and embarrassing.

Yet you find it profoundly disturbing.

http://i40.tinypic.com/14j8bwj.jpg
Annie Leibovitz

edelweiss pirate
15-05-2013, 09:57 AM
Yet you find it profoundly disturbing.

http://i40.tinypic.com/14j8bwj.jpg
Annie Liebovitz


No, I don't find it disturbing, I find it idiotic and embarrassing.

It's a chandelier. Not an alien.

Are you paid to post this rubbish here?

Infinite I
15-05-2013, 10:12 AM
Does look like a reptilian head, just sayin lol

size_of_light
15-05-2013, 10:21 AM
No, I don't find it disturbing, I find it idiotic and embarrassing.

It's a chandelier. Not an alien.

Are you paid to post this rubbish here?

Quit your reflexive mithering, and try thinking a little before you speak.

It should be a no-brainer to anyone that an official royal portrait like this would be carefully and meticulously composed and then visually scrutinised with a fine-tooth comb before being approved, which renders the argument that the figure's presence is merely an accidental reflection absolutely ridiculous.

But for the benefit of the few with their heads so firmly up their own asses that they can't appreciate this simple reality, here's some quotes to ponder...

'For her portraits, Leibovitz—who viewed her photographic sessions as collaborations—typically spent days observing her subjects’ daily lives and worked to make her portraits of them unique and witty, each a technically exquisite distillation. Her commercial images were dramatic and staged rather than casual.'

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/335335/Annie-Leibovitz

'Leibovitz’s perfectionism in her work (budgets were exploded, and no expense was spared)...'

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/335335/Annie-Leibovitz

'Obsession With Perfectionism

Lighting: dramatic. Scene: Perfectly composed. Celebrity: The perfect expression. Post-production: incredibly refined with hours of touching up and digital painting. One thing is sure, Leibovitz is a perfectionist. ”I’m more interested in being good than being famous.” All her photographs triumph in this area, and it is her ability to refine past a line most others can’t even see which makes her such a strong photographer. Her unwavering consistency in their area is one of the things which gained her such a strong fan following.'
http://blog.latitu.de/people-brands-annie-leibovitz/

'The first woman ever to have her work exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., Leibovitz is “a perfectionist,” says Graydon Carter, editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair. “And she’s the greatest portrait photographer in the world.”
http://www.glamour.com/inspired/women-of-the-year/2012/annie-leibovitz

et al.

turquoisefire777
15-05-2013, 10:24 AM
the picture is open to discussion. it could simply mean the queen is either under threat, or is backed up...


i'm thinking it's a bit of both....


just my opinion.

size_of_light
15-05-2013, 10:29 AM
Does look like a reptilian head, just sayin lol

Haha, yep, it's like Gorn threw on a suit.

http://i39.tinypic.com/302m81x.jpg

Lucky I decided not to post the above comparison in the OP or edelwhatever would have blown a bloodtube. :eek:

edelweiss pirate
15-05-2013, 10:39 AM
Lucky I decided not to post the above comparison in the OP or edelwhatever would have blown a bloodtube. :eek:

Worthless.

size_of_light
15-05-2013, 10:40 AM
the picture is open to discussion. it could simply mean the queen is either under threat, or is backed up...


i'm thinking it's a bit of both....


just my opinion.

I agree.

And to clarify: I don't think this is some real 'creature' that showed up for Annie Leibovitz's photoshoot at Windsor Castle - it's a carefully constructed illusion intended to depict and symbolise a bizarre and menacing figure watching over the Queen (who is glancing pensively over her shoulder to denote awareness of its presence).

I'm wondering whether this illusion might have been created in post-production and the reflection in the mirror added digitally.

The below portrait from the same Leibovitz shoot is a composite; the Queen was photographed indoors and interposed on the scenery.

http://i43.tinypic.com/70c8oz.jpg

edelweiss pirate
15-05-2013, 10:41 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTECfGfoMI


The guy in the dark suit is not an alien.

Mystery solved and more Size of Light bullshit has been put to bed.

size_of_light
15-05-2013, 10:55 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTECfGfoMI


The guy in the dark suit is not an alien.

Mystery solved and more Size of Light bullshit has been put to bed.

You're just not comprehending any of this properly, are you?

I've already watched that clip multiple times.

What do you think it shows that proves that the portrait in question wasn't deliberately composed?

I'll be very interested to read your explanation on how a composed photograph wasn't composed. :rolleyes:

Kelsahng
15-05-2013, 12:34 PM
At first all I could see is (above where you drew an outline of a head) a cartoon cat smoking a fag.
but after staring at it for a while I noticed the black suit.

If you look how high the mirror is on the wall, a person would have to be really tall to be seen in the reflection.
Is it possible that it could be reflecting another picture on the rear wall?

The face you're seeing does look like it's just part of the chandelier.

Oh, as a suggestion could you not lighten the 'suit area' up to get a clearer look?

size_of_light
15-05-2013, 01:42 PM
At first all I could see is (above where you drew an outline of a head) a cartoon cat smoking a fag.
but after staring at it for a while I noticed the black suit.

If you look how high the mirror is on the wall, a person would have to be really tall to be seen in the reflection.
Is it possible that it could be reflecting another picture on the rear wall?

The face you're seeing does look like it's just part of the chandelier.

Oh, as a suggestion could you not lighten the 'suit area' up to get a clearer look?

If anyone wants to challenge the accuracy of anything below, I can show my workings in more detail later on.

This photo shows the reverse wall, where the figure seen in the mirror would have been standing....

http://i41.tinypic.com/34q1cpe.jpg

Below, I've reversed the figure and inset him in the yellow panel on the right, to provide a side by side comparison...

http://i40.tinypic.com/35bv69h.jpg

The horizontal red line in the image below distinguishes the real chandelier (upper) from the infinite reflection (lower)
of the same chandelier bouncing back and forth between the two mirrors at opposite ends of the room...

http://i42.tinypic.com/33aqx37.jpg

This can be established by matching the portrait with a stillframe from the documentary covering the photoshoot
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTECfGfoMI ), which reveals there is only one chandelier hanging from
the ceiling between the Queen and the mirror behind her...

http://i44.tinypic.com/4hboli.jpg

Therefore, for the chandelier to be creating the illusion of a 'head' manifesting directly above an empty coat
- inexplicably but most certainly strategically-placed between the mirrored mantelpiece and the couch...

http://i44.tinypic.com/195lcp.jpg

...that chandelier can only be a reflection in the mirror, behind the coat;
it's not actually present in the room and draping down in front of it.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2vif7l1.jpg

Yet the 'head' atop the coat is plainly overlapping it...

http://i44.tinypic.com/345zd09.jpg

How can this be?

Conclusion: It has to be a digitally-altered figure, or a real figure - with a real and bizarre-looking head - intentionally positioned where it is so that it appears reflected in the mirror in the photograph.

Kelsahng
15-05-2013, 02:01 PM
Came across this on Wiki regarding the painter;

"Leibovitz was the last person to professionally photograph Lennon—he was shot and killed..."

There's your answer....

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPZiDNxo3uRckmNvsrydSJuAzGhg2f1 MTHS36e9x_25YQ-l1OA

belch
15-05-2013, 02:12 PM
Haha , Threads like this is why i love this forum.

But threads like this also show.







That we have No Hope.

Did you know that the Queens stables are full of Unicorns ?

size_of_light
15-05-2013, 02:15 PM
Conclusion: It has to be a digitally-altered figure, or a real figure - with a real and bizarre-looking head - intentionally positioned to appear in the way that in does in the final image.

From the narration of the documentary ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhjEQpEGvaQ )

"Annie Liebovitz and her 11 assistants have spent three weeks preparing for the half hour shoot."

Leibovitz is seen taking various preparatory shots in rooms around the palace, and is clearly playing around with the idea of using reflected figures for the portraits as evidenced at 2:11 below...

http://i42.tinypic.com/2vltvs2.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhjEQpEGvaQ

size_of_light
15-05-2013, 02:26 PM
Came across this on Wiki regarding the painter;

"Leibovitz was the last person to professionally photograph Lennon—he was shot and killed..."

There's your answer....

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPZiDNxo3uRckmNvsrydSJuAzGhg2f1 MTHS36e9x_25YQ-l1OA

Yeah, he was murdered several hours after the photo was taken.

http://i43.tinypic.com/oh7lg2.jpg

Wasn't Yoko alleged to have been Lennon's handler?

Nice symbolism with this image if that was the case, since Lennon is depicted here in a state of embryonic dependence on Ono.

Kelsahng
15-05-2013, 02:41 PM
This may get your mind going down another path....

http://www.aseekersthoughts.com/2010/06/mirror-symbol-of-reflection.html

But we're not really saying it was the Grim reaper are we :confused:

klara
15-05-2013, 02:47 PM
http://jimhillmedia.com/mb/images/upload/snow-white-magic-mirror-web.jpg

http://www.forgottentreasurez.com/catalog/Change%20listing%20to%20this%20picture%20ASAP.jpg

size_of_light
15-05-2013, 03:00 PM
This may get your mind going down another path....

http://www.aseekersthoughts.com/2010/06/mirror-symbol-of-reflection.html

But we're not really saying it was the Grim reaper are we :confused:

http://jimhillmedia.com/mb/images/upload/snow-white-magic-mirror-web.jpg

http://www.forgottentreasurez.com/catalog/Change%20listing%20to%20this%20picture%20ASAP.jpg



By Annie Leibovitz:



http://i40.tinypic.com/1znwo7t.jpg

http://www.igeektrooper.com/2011/03/disney-annie-leibovitz/





http://i43.tinypic.com/2vbqxdv.jpg

The yellow flowers on the Queen's mantelpiece create a burst of 'fiery' colour within the mirror similar to the flames in the Snow White portal.

size_of_light
16-05-2013, 01:27 AM
In 2003, four years before she photographed the Queen, Leibovitz created an Alice in Wonderland series for Vogue Magazine ( http://trendland.com/alice-in-wonderland-by-annie-leibovitz/alice-in-wonderland-by-annie-leibovitz-12 ).
'
Once again, the 'mirror as portal' theme surfaces, with the room selected bearing a strikingly similar design to the one in Windsor Palace...

http://i39.tinypic.com/300dx93.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2vjyfxc.jpg

For what it's worth, the below shot from the same series gives me a sense that there's some sick subtext at play in the paraphrased Lewis Carroll quote, particularly given the addition of uber-creepy 'royal' Karl Lagerfeld...

http://i41.tinypic.com/2nbf3eo.jpg

As visiting royal Karl Lagerfeld looked on, Alice caught the baby, which
grunted violently. "If you're going to turn into a pig,"she declared, "I'll have nothing more to do with you."

Original Lewis Caroll text:

No, there were no tears. `If you're going to turn into a pig, my dear,' said Alice, seriously, `I'll have nothing more to do with you.
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/alice02.htm

jay2k
16-05-2013, 02:05 AM
strange

size_of_light
16-05-2013, 03:34 AM
strange

From earlier postings we've learned that Leibowitz is an obsessive perfectionist, that she spent 10 days preparing for this photoshoot, that her scenes are 'perfectly composed' and that post production on her photographs is:

incredibly refined with hours of touching up and digital painting.

http://blog.latitu.de/people-brands-annie-leibovitz/

This behind the scenes image from her Disney fantasy series shoot has her photographing a figure in front of an empty mirror...

http://i40.tinypic.com/30j4768.jpg

...that will later be digitally composited to include Alec Baldwin...

http://i40.tinypic.com/1znwo7t.jpg



So all the elements are in place to support the contention that the presence of the figure with the Queen



http://i39.tinypic.com/311uhdg.jpg



and its bizarre, 'reptilian' appearance



http://i42.tinypic.com/15qw8ia.jpg



is entirely intentional.



The strangest and most significant thing of all is that the final image would have to have been approved by the Royals.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2n82a3b.jpg

Meaning she wanted the public to see exactly what we're seeing.



Extraordinary.

multiversal_quiver
16-05-2013, 04:44 AM
I don't see anything except extremely creepy images.

bootneckband
16-05-2013, 03:46 PM
If anyone wants to challenge the accuracy of anything below, I can show my workings in more detail later on.

This photo shows the reverse wall, where the figure seen in the mirror would have been standing....

http://i41.tinypic.com/34q1cpe.jpg

Below, I've reversed the figure and inset him in the yellow panel on the right, to provide a side by side comparison...

http://i40.tinypic.com/35bv69h.jpg

The horizontal red line in the image below distinguishes the real chandelier (upper) from the infinite reflection (lower)
of the same chandelier bouncing back and forth between the two mirrors at opposite ends of the room...

http://i42.tinypic.com/33aqx37.jpg

This can be established by matching the portrait with a stillframe from the documentary covering the photoshoot
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTECfGfoMI ), which reveals there is only one chandelier hanging from
the ceiling between the Queen and the mirror behind her...

http://i44.tinypic.com/4hboli.jpg

Therefore, for the chandelier to be creating the illusion of a 'head' manifesting directly above an empty coat
- inexplicably but most certainly strategically-placed between the mirrored mantelpiece and the couch...

http://i44.tinypic.com/195lcp.jpg

...that chandelier can only be a reflection in the mirror, behind the coat;
it's not actually present in the room and draping down in front of it.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2vif7l1.jpg

Yet the 'head' atop the coat is plainly overlapping it...

http://i44.tinypic.com/345zd09.jpg

How can this be?

Conclusion: It has to be a digitally-altered figure, or a real figure - with a real and bizarre-looking head - intentionally positioned where it is so that it appears reflected in the mirror in the photograph.

Yep interesting they included the 'mirror-man', however size of light your pictures give you the answer.

Not to why they included him,but to the entity theory.

If you take a look at your second pic down ( 'reverse angle,yellow panelled side by side' ) the face of your man is simply the bottom of the chandelier.

But your correct its all rather creepy :cool:

amazing
16-05-2013, 09:36 PM
I think those are beautiful photos. I just think the chandelier is covering one of her body guards faces or something.

peabrain
16-05-2013, 09:59 PM
Yeah, he was murdered several hours after the photo was taken.

http://i43.tinypic.com/oh7lg2.jpg

Wasn't Yoko alleged to have been Lennon's handler?

Nice symbolism with this image if that was the case, since Lennon is depicted here in a state of embryonic dependence on Ono.

Maybe he had no loo roll that day, or his arse was itchy:D

peabrain
16-05-2013, 10:03 PM
I don't see anything except extremely creepy images.

The obscene display of wealth of empire is indeed creepy.

Anachronistic looking to boot.

size_of_light
17-05-2013, 02:14 AM
I think those are beautiful photos. I just think the chandelier is covering one of her body guards faces or something.

Yep interesting they included the 'mirror-man', however size of light your pictures give you the answer.

Not to why they included him,but to the entity theory.

If you take a look at your second pic down ( 'reverse angle,yellow panelled side by side' ) the face of your man is simply the bottom of the chandelier.


That was from post #20, and I didn't explain myself very well in it, so I'll go again.

Here's that comparison pic you mentioned, this time in better quality...

http://i43.tinypic.com/dlq1lk.jpg


A cursory glance does point to the bottom of the chandelier being responsible for the illusion of the 'face'...


http://i44.tinypic.com/o8bdwo.jpg


However there are problems with this explanation.

Firstly, this chandelier is only a reflection in the mirror on the wall behind the coat and torso.

As you can see below, the appearance of the chandelier is cut off along the vertical line of the mirror on the wall, i.e. it's a reflection...

http://i44.tinypic.com/2vss3nk.jpg

Another way to confirm this is by comparing the image with the position of the chandelier in a stillframe from the documentary that covers the Annie Leibovitz shoot...

http://i41.tinypic.com/2wr3kpi.jpg

You can see above that there is only one chandelier hanging from the ceiling between the Queen and the mirrored wall behind her, and that the chandeliers that are interposed on the mirror are only reflections within it.


With that established, it then doesn't make any sense to say the chandelier is responsible for the face or the head of the figure, since the head is overlapping the coat and torso...

http://i43.tinypic.com/dlq1lk.jpg


Obviously a reflection in a mirror behind a coat and torso cannot come out of the mirror to overhang and partially obscure the front of that coat and torso.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2w21o5t.jpg

So the face cannot have been created by the chandelier; it's impossible.

I'd also suggest to anyone looking at this that if you give it some time and allow your depth perception to adjust to the image, you might come to see clearly that the head of this figure is not part of the mirror, but is distinctly in front of it.

It has a plainly defined outline...

http://i39.tinypic.com/2ckmsk.jpg

...and its presence interrupts the horizontal shading line patterns on the area of chandelier directly behind it...

http://i41.tinypic.com/dcxwuq.jpg



Another problem with explaining this away as the accidental reflection of somebody else in the room, is the sheer unlikelihood of that happening, given Leibovitz's renowned perfectionism.

As posted earlier, in the narration of the documentary ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhjEQpEGvaQ ) it is said:

"Annie Liebovitz and her 11 assistants have spent three weeks preparing for the half hour shoot."

Three weeks of preparation to fine-tune the composition of this 30-minute shoot, and yet somebody still accidentally blundered into one of the portraits as a background reflection in a mirror?

C'mon.

Also on this point, we see in the same clip that Leibovitz is taking various preparatory shots in rooms around the palace, and is well aware of the issue of background reflections since she is shown snapping photographs that play around with the idea of using reflected figures ...

http://i42.tinypic.com/2vltvs2.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhjEQpEGvaQ

This is a pretty good indication that the figure's presence was a pre-meditated and deliberate concept, don't you think?

A contention that is reinforced by the fact that the Queen happens to be glancing pensively over her shoulder in the general direction of the figure in this very same shot...

http://i39.tinypic.com/311uhdg.jpg

Does anyone seriously believe that's a coincidence?

yass
17-05-2013, 03:06 PM
Very interesting sol. I tried enhancing further though there is little improvement if any. The third one I thought was interesting because of what looked like the head of a shadow man behind his left shoulder that resembled a character in a picture that was posted in a thread here called Police pictures looking odd by flyermay. There was a lot of strangeness in those pictures. Not sure of the forum link but I've highlighted them in a thread here (http://s3.zetaboards.com/For_My_Jee/topic/7510010/1/#new).

I suppose the image doesn't look as human as does the one in the police photo. It looks more cartoon like but that could be due to the filter I used. Hard to say.

I don't know if the fellow in my image is a shadow man, or if shadow people have solid bodies and with clothes on can be made out better, or if it's a guy with matching black color on his face and mustache, or what exactly. Also noting there is a v shape on the forehead.

It's all a mystery you know, but it's very interesting to explore.



http://i.xomf.com/rqvml.jpg


http://i.xomf.com/rbbmm.jpg


http://i.xomf.com/vlpgj.jpg


http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08v4css7Ql0Du/610x.jpg


http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt312/yassx/ScreenShot025-3.jpg

martg
17-05-2013, 03:10 PM
look closely at the shadows on any picture and you will see shapes, usually faces.
people are programmed to look out for shapes that resemble faces, it doesn't mean there's anything there.
It's called pareidolia.

Infinite I
17-05-2013, 04:42 PM
look closely at the shadows on any picture and you will see shapes, usually faces.
people are programmed to look out for shapes that resemble faces, it doesn't mean there's anything there.
It's called pareidolia.

Thats right, like the devil face on the twin towers. Still though looks like a reptillian lol

size_of_light
18-05-2013, 01:14 AM
I tried enhancing further though there is little improvement if any.

Thanks for doing that, yass, it has improved the contrast quality which makes it easier to highlight what I'm highlighting below.

look closely at the shadows on any picture and you will see shapes, usually faces.
people are programmed to look out for shapes that resemble faces, it doesn't mean there's anything there.
It's called pareidolia.

Hi martg.

Set aside for a moment the issue of what the face looks like - which is where the pareidolia effect is relevant - and consider instead how the face can appear where it does.

Below, the blue lines mark the shoulders of the coat, and the red lines mark the neck of the figure.

There's an undeniable overlap where the neck-line (red) interrupts the shoulder-line of the coat (blue), right?

Not even a James Randi-calibre liar would bother arguing otherwise.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2nhm336.jpg


Now if the head of the figure was created by the chandelier reflected in the mirror behind the coat and torso - and the chandelier here is only a reflection in the background mirror -

http://i39.tinypic.com/2uqktg4.jpg

... then the shoulder-line of the coat would not be interrupted by the chandelier reflection but would continue on something like this:

http://i43.tinypic.com/33y2x7c.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/qrx9jn.jpg

Since it doesn't do that, and appears like this...

http://i42.tinypic.com/2nhm336.jpg

...THE HEAD IS NOT THE CHANDELIER because the chandelier is only a reflection in the mirror.

Basic observation conclusively rules out both of the most mundane explanations.

- There is no chandelier hanging from the ceiling in front of some person obscuring his or her face

http://i39.tinypic.com/2uqktg4.jpg

- The chandelier reflected in the mirror is not creating the illusion of a strange-looking head atop some empty coat accidentally misplaced so that it appears in the background of the Queen's official portrait photograph. ( :rolleyes: )

http://i42.tinypic.com/2nhm336.jpg

So to cut a long story short, the figure wearing the coat has a strangely nonhuman-looking head. (Deep down I think we all know that; it's the metaphorical elephant in the room. ;) )

Now reptilian and boogeyman skeptics needn't become apoplectic with rage at this point, because I'm not alleging this is a photo of an inter-dimensional being.

I don't rule it out as a possibility, but think that logically that's not the most likely of options by a long stretch.

The most reasonable explanation to me is that the nonhuman-looking figure is either a partial or complete digital creation added to the photo by Annie Leibovitz's team, with the prior or subsequent approval of the Queen's team.

If you Google 'annie leibovitz fantasy portrait' you'll see just how many other Leibovitz images of famous people have been digitally manipulated to incorporate fantasy elements and dark themes into the work, so it shouldn't be controversial to suggest that she's also done this with her portrait of the Queen, unless you're inclined to splutter on about 'royal protocol' and 'preserving the dignity of Her Majesty' or reject the notion that establishment artists and the British Monarchy have been mindfucking the docile, unquestioning public for centuries with covert symbolism that alludes to the true sources of control behind the power structures on this planet.

limesub
18-05-2013, 01:29 AM
unadulterated bullshit of the 33rd degree!

size_of_light
18-05-2013, 02:16 AM
unadulterated bullshit of the 33rd degree!

Surely not all of it!

Which bit?

- The bit about there being another figure in the photo with the Queen?

- The bit about it being impossible that a chandelier in front of the figure is obscuring its face?

- The bit about it being impossible that a chandelier reflected in the mirror behind an empty coat is creating the illusion that it's being worn by a figure?

- The bit about Annie Leibovitz being a renowned perfectionist, having spent three weeks preparing the photoshoot to avoid making mistakes and having a track record of extensively modifying her images through post-production digital painting?

- The bit from the documentary where Annie Leibovitz is seen test photographing figures reflected in mirrors in preparation for the Queen's photoshoot?

- The bit about Annie's Leibovitz's previous celebrity portrait that was a a digital composite featuring an inter-dimensional entity manifesting in a mirror portal beside a Queen who is seeking guidance?

- The bit about Annie Leibovitz's previous celebrity portrait that was a digital composite with an Alice in Wonderland character standing on a mantelpiece in a room with a design strikingly similar to the one the Queen has been photographed in, peering into a portal on the wall and yearning to be able to pass through it into another dimension?

- The bit about monarchies and establishment artists subjecting the public to ominous subliminal imagery for centuries or more?

limesub
18-05-2013, 02:27 AM
Surely not all of it!

Which bit?

- The bit about there being another figure in the photo with the Queen?

- The bit about it being impossible that a chandelier in front of the figure is obscuring its face?

- The bit about it being impossible that a chandelier reflected in the mirror behind an empty coat is creating the illusion that it's being worn by a figure?

- The bit about Annie Leibovitz being a renowned perfectionist, having spent three weeks preparing the photoshoot to avoid making mistakes and having a track record of extensively modifying her images through post-production digital painting?

- The bit from the documentary where Annie Leibovitz is seen test photographing figures reflected in mirrors in preparation for the Queen's photoshoot?

- The bit about Annie's Leibovitz's previous celebrity portrait that was a a digital composite featuring an inter-dimensional entity manifesting in a mirror portal beside a Queen who is seeking guidance?

- The bit about Annie Leibovitz's previous celebrity portrait that was a digital composite with an Alice in Wonderland character standing on a mantelpiece in a room with a design strikingly similar to the one the Queen has been photographed in, peering into a portal on the wall and yearning to be able to pass through it into another dimension?

- The bit about monarchies and establishment artists subjecting the public to ominous subliminal imagery for centuries or more?


well im sure if I showed the picture to my 3 year old son he would just nod and agree with whatever I told him was in the picture! then move on with his life!

abrilliantone
18-05-2013, 02:41 AM
My question is who is that? Is that just a digital insert put there for a purpose or is that an actual being?

size_of_light
18-05-2013, 02:49 AM
well im sure if I showed the picture to my 3 year old son he would just nod and agree with whatever I told him was in the picture! then move on with his life!

That's an excellent point and explains exactly what has happened here, and what was no doubt confidently predicted to happen by those who sanctioned the image, which is why they were emboldened enough to do it.

Like your son, we are being told - through omission - that this is just an innocent portrait of the Queen.

The media never picked up on the existence of the figure in the mirror when these official portraits were first released in 2007; as far as I'm aware nobody publicly questioned the presence of the figure with the Queen prior to sugarray, who first did so on this forum in 2012 - five years after it was released.

Trim back all the extraneous material in this portrait...

http://i42.tinypic.com/4hta4p.jpg

And get to the real focus and heart of the photo...

http://i39.tinypic.com/311uhdg.jpg

Now if it had been released as an enlarged, cropped image like this, more people would surely have been asking the questions: just who the hell is the second figure in the portrait, and what is the Queen's expression towards that figure intended to convey?

Think about it.

This photo is a classic example of the old "hidden in plain sight" adage.

Since it had to have been officially-approved by the Royal Family before being released to the public, its significance cannot be overstated.

martg
18-05-2013, 03:12 AM
I will admit, the figure is a strange addition to the photograph, royal photographer's don't tend to make mistakes, but I do think the distorted face is just the bottom of the chandelier.

abrilliantone
18-05-2013, 03:29 AM
But wait a minute is that a photo or a painting of a photo?

martg
18-05-2013, 03:36 AM
But wait a minute is that a photo or a painting of a photo?

I don't know, I thought it was a photo but now that you mention it I'm not sure

abrilliantone
18-05-2013, 03:53 AM
I don't know, I thought it was a photo but now that you mention it I'm not sure


It looks like painting and if that is the case. Then that figure was put there purposely. :eek:

jdeadevil
18-05-2013, 03:55 AM
Has anyone also noticed the shadow of the other mysterious figure? Just thought I'd put that out there....

abrilliantone
18-05-2013, 03:56 AM
Where exactly?

jdeadevil
18-05-2013, 04:01 AM
Well, am I wrong in thinking the 'figure' is theoretically in the mirror? Because if so there's another mirror just below, where his feet would be.

susannah1
18-05-2013, 04:08 AM
What? What are you seeing?


There's a bloke with the Queen while she's having her photo taken.

Either an assistant to the photographer or an assistant to the queen.

And there's a chandelier which obscures the man's head but someone has doodled two black splodges onto so they look like eyes.

That's what I can see because that's what's there.


This is idiotic and embarrassing.

I Agree. I also think that the photographer did this on purpose. Either that or she's not very good.

size_of_light
18-05-2013, 11:26 AM
My question is who is that? Is that just a digital insert put there for a purpose or is that an actual being?

Given Leibovitz's reputation for post production that is "incredibly refined with hours of touching up and digital painting" I'd vote for it being a digital insert or more specifically a digital modification of something physically present at the time like a coat on a clothes dummy strategically placed to appear as a reflection. Perhaps the torso even belongs to Leibovitz herself, deliberately capturing her own image in the mirror as she photographed the Queen, so that her face and hands could then be airbrushed out and morphed into the strange-looking entity in post production.

In the behind the scenes documentary of the photoshoot, the coat Leibovitz is wearing as she takes test photographs of herself with an assistant reflected in one of the palace mirrors does resemble the coat the mysterious figure in the final portrait is wearing...

http://i39.tinypic.com/34r64bd.jpg

But wait a minute is that a photo or a painting of a photo?

I don't know, I thought it was a photo but now that you mention it I'm not sure

It looks like painting and if that is the case. Then that figure was put there purposely. :eek:

Some of the detail in other parts of the photo has that kind of awful, sugary, chocolate box look to it, like it has been heavily filtered and touched up in Photoshop.

http://i40.tinypic.com/5kksg9.jpg

So the reflection in the mirror has probably been artificially-rendered to the same degree at least.

ultimate_warlord
18-05-2013, 12:26 PM
well im sure if I showed the picture to my 3 year old son he would just nod and agree with whatever I told him was in the picture! then move on with his life!


Why do people like you (and there are many here) join this forum to flash off their dumbness? Or do you get a wage packet from Professional Naysayers and Debunkers Agency?

You too should move on with your life if you can`t see what "size of light" and everybody else is seeing. The photo is deliberate. The queen knows something`s behind her shoulder. She wants us to know. That alone is the end of story. This photo was not about the queen, but about the enigmatic figure.
I´m not saying it`s a shapeshifting reptilian from Orion...I´m saying the queen and company blatantly want us to think so.

size_of_light
18-05-2013, 12:30 PM
The photo is deliberate. The queen knows something`s behind her shoulder. She wants us to know. That alone is the end of story. This photo was not about the queen, but about the enigmatic figure.

I´m not saying it`s a shapeshifting reptilian from Orion...I´m saying the queen and company blatantly want us to think so.

Couldn't have said it better.

edelweiss pirate
18-05-2013, 12:33 PM
You too should move on with your life if you can`t see what "size of light" and everybody else is seeing. The photo is deliberate. The queen knows something`s behind her shoulder..


Dude, the person is the dark suit is not an alien with a chandelier for a face.

It's a person who is part of the photographer's entourage.

I know you've got 'previous' on here for posting disinformation and supporting laughable bullshit to make the movement look stupid, but come on, keep within your operating parameters and don't attack people personally for giving their opinions huh?


Here, this is a video of the photoshoot. There are no aliens anywhere.


But there is a long haired chap with the same dark suit on.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTECfGfoMI

size_of_light
18-05-2013, 01:00 PM
Dude, the person is the dark suit is not an alien with a chandelier for a face.

It's a person who is part of the photographer's entourage.

At least other doubters have had the good sense to suggest (albeit mistakenly) that it is a chandelier face.

But you're striking off on your own, I see, and claiming it's just a normal fella.

Lets see what you've got...

Here, this is a video of the photoshoot. There are no aliens anywhere.


But there is a long haired chap with the same dark suit on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTECfGfoMI

I can only assume you mean this guy...

http://i42.tinypic.com/30jtrpc.jpg


Hilarious. :D


http://i42.tinypic.com/5a5ao0.jpg


The resemblance is uncanny.


http://i43.tinypic.com/2yocxmf.jpg


When did he change the colour of his shirt?

ultimate_warlord
18-05-2013, 01:05 PM
Three weeks planning by the crème de la crème of the photography universe. A most meticulous paranoically pedantic perfectionist with a team of aces, then publicly exhibits a photo with the most hilarious blooper in history by including herself in the photo while the reflection conveniently ultra-reflects to overlap and replace her head with a reptilian entity head.
YEAH...RIGHT !
Will she ever get another job?
I´m LMFAO at skeptics. I truly am.

edelweiss pirate
18-05-2013, 01:20 PM
When did he change the colour of his shirt?

Actually it's more likely a woman. Look at the video at 25 seconds. There is a female assistant with her hair tied back wearing the same dark suit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTECfGfoMI


There's certainly no aliens anywhere though.

size_of_light
18-05-2013, 01:42 PM
Actually it's more likely a woman. Look at the video at 25 seconds. There is a female assistant with her hair tied back wearing the same dark suit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTECfGfoMI

Ah, I see, so now it's "actually more likely a woman" meaning your first ridiculous explanation that it was a fella with the wrong-coloured shirt blew up in your face, and now you've just spotted someone else wearing a dark coloured shirt and it's suddenly definitely her. :rolleyes:

http://i41.tinypic.com/2mlhfd.jpg

I've already speculated on Annie Leibovitz's dark suit being the basis of the figure in the mirror, so adding this woman as a second possibility makes no difference.

Do you even understand what's being discussed here?

There's certainly no aliens anywhere though.

You keep repeating the 'alien' line despite nobody on this thread having claimed there are aliens present at the photoshoot, which indicates you have some kind of irrational fear of'aliens' and are projecting it onto this thread.

Best stop clogging it up with your personal issues, huh?

size_of_light
18-05-2013, 02:10 PM
Has anyone also noticed the shadow of the other mysterious figure? Just thought I'd put that out there....

Well, am I wrong in thinking the 'figure' is theoretically in the mirror? Because if so there's another mirror just below, where his feet would be.

There is a second unseen figure standing at the right, just beyond the range of the mirror.

It's difficult to tell due to the distorting angle of the bottom mirror, but I'm thinking the legs might correspond as shown...

http://i43.tinypic.com/2v17nnk.jpg

edelweiss pirate
18-05-2013, 02:38 PM
There is a second unseen figure standing at the right, just beyond the range of the mirror.


Of course there is. The room's full of Annie Leibovitz's assistants.

size_of_light
18-05-2013, 03:03 PM
Of course there is. The room's full of Annie Leibovitz's assistants.

The only reason you wouldn't attempt to deny the presence of a unicorn on the Royal Coat of Arms or a gargoyle statue on the roof of St Mary's Church is because their existence is a matter of public record.

Difference with this thing is that it hasn't been officially acknowledged as being exactly what it looks like.

If it was, everybody would suddenly come out of the woodwork claiming they always saw it anyway.

http://i40.tinypic.com/1j441y.jpg

abrilliantone
18-05-2013, 03:05 PM
One things for sure, for a 87 year old woman. [the queen] She sure can scurry around. :D

multiversal_quiver
18-05-2013, 07:42 PM
all dressed up to visit McDonald's in the Rolls to dine.

edelweiss pirate
18-05-2013, 08:06 PM
http://i40.tinypic.com/1j441y.jpg

I see you have been VERY VERY busy subtly modifying that original image with photoshop in an attempt to make it resemble something which it isn't.

So I think my early ideas that you are some kind of disinformation troll are becoming stronger and stronger.


Friend, just give it up and go away. Go get a proper job and your conscience will thank you.

So thanks for exposing yourself. You've been sneaking around here a looooooong time and I hadn't noticed your game before. So well done there.

But this time hubris has been your undoing.

multiversal_quiver
18-05-2013, 11:50 PM
We don't get to see the photo that was snapped 2.7 seconds later.

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/cloown_zps511f3fe4.jpg

size_of_light
19-05-2013, 12:18 AM
I see you have been VERY VERY busy subtly modifying that original image with photoshop in an attempt to make it resemble something which it isn't.

Not only do you refuse to see what's there, now you're falsely accusing me of Photoshopping something that isn't there!

In denial much?

What have I been "VERY VERY busy modifying"????

I expect you'll skulk away again for a few days now, since any reply to this that attempts to show that I've somehow "subtly modified that original image" will inevitably result in you looking even more pathetic, delusional, dishonest and desperate than you already do.

So I think my early ideas that you are some kind of disinformation troll are becoming stronger and stronger.


Friend, just give it up and go away. Go get a proper job and your conscience will thank you.

So thanks for exposing yourself. You've been sneaking around here a looooooong time and I hadn't noticed your game before. So well done there.

But this time hubris has been your undoing.

Your usual tedious, half-cocked gibberish.

Mind if I call you 'Half Cock'?

abrilliantone
19-05-2013, 01:10 AM
We don't get to see the photo that was snapped 2.7 seconds later.

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/cloown_zps511f3fe4.jpg



http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) ROTFLMAO Dude! Did you just make that?

1zenith
19-05-2013, 01:55 AM
Thats a Grey. Looks just like what are in my orbs and then some.

Some do look like that.

Some have bubble butt knobby heads, some have big round eyes.

Some slanted.

Some little baby Grey-Neonates. They are cute.

1zenith
19-05-2013, 01:58 AM
Not only do you refuse to see what's there, now you're falsely accusing me of Photoshopping something that isn't there!

In denial much?

What have I been "VERY VERY busy modifying"????

I expect you'll skulk away again for a few days now, since any reply to this that attempts to show that I've somehow "subtly modified that original image" will inevitably result in you looking even more pathetic, delusional, dishonest and desperate than you already do.



Your usual tedious, half-cocked gibberish.

Mind if I call you 'Half Cock'?

Only the nonpsychics cant see stuff like that ,I could clearly see it.
Now that the Greys are in my life, every where i look, like, 20 times a day i SEE them. In my closed eyes vision, in ORBS, in FENCES, in TILES,
in my OAK cabinets (there is a female and male Reptilian).
And onetime a Grey imprinted itself in my PC black screen for first time
when I went to work and logged on at 7am.

U didnt foto shop that. I know u didnt. ;)
Oh ya and last night I saw a 'uf0' .It wasnt
real. But I snapped some pics at bookstore at window, and the glare from the big deep light inside
the building on ceiling TOTALLY reflected off outside into parking lot like a ufo hovering not too far above the cars in parking lot. IT was cool. I showed my mom.
Only 'awake' ppl see all dat stuff.

1zenith
19-05-2013, 02:01 AM
ad hominem, I can't see anything but I'm not psychic, like you, so how the hell do you know she is ill for posting that?


Its clearly phucking alien eyes already.:mad:

multiversal_quiver
19-05-2013, 02:02 AM
Yet you find it profoundly disturbing.

http://i40.tinypic.com/14j8bwj.jpg
Annie Leibovitz

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/alieb2_zpsd705e07e.jpg

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/thCADH45X6_zps6da7e4a7.jpg

1zenith
19-05-2013, 02:12 AM
Of course there is. The room's full of Annie Leibovitz's assistants.

Who is that woman?

Isnt A L some lesbian writer or somethin'?

1zenith
19-05-2013, 02:13 AM
One things for sure, for a 87 year old woman. [the queen] She sure can scurry around. :D

Ya cuz we are HYBRIDS with rh- bloodtype and We DONT die young.

lol :D

hoax
19-05-2013, 02:20 AM
PERHAPS IT WASNT ILLUMIn material. ? :confused:

1zenith
19-05-2013, 02:22 AM
But I will print out a PIC of Queen, and I will let you know if she shapeshifts by my 'hold copy print- out up to the light method'.

Let me look at some online pics too...

I think my answer is gonna be......... YES she does SHAPESHIFT LIZARD. :D

abrilliantone
19-05-2013, 05:23 AM
Ya cuz we are HYBRIDS with rh- bloodtype and We DONT die young.

lol :D

Wait, what....what do you mean by we?

size_of_light
19-05-2013, 06:54 AM
Firstly, a correction: I've been mistakenly referring to the photos in question as having been taken at Windsor Castle, when they were in fact
taken in the White Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace.

http://i43.tinypic.com/amxr86.jpg

You can take a 360 degree virtual tour of the room at the link: http://www.royal.gov.uk/virtualtours/2013/BuckinghamPalace/VirtualTour/white-drawing-room.html



Now, here's something interesting to consider, folks...

In the original BBC News story covering the release of the portraits in 2007...

http://i42.tinypic.com/70xlw3.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6614187.stm


Leibovitz explains her inspiration...



Shortly after being asked to photograph the Queen, Ms Leibovitz said she was likely to take inspiration from Cecil Beaton
who photographed the Queen Mother at the palace.

"I like tradition. Cecil Beaton's pictures - they're very important to me," she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6614187.stm



Already the alarm bells of suspicion are going off, because the underlined passage is a pretty strange thing for the BBC to mention.

Yes, Cecil Beaton did photograph the Queen Mother at Buckingham Palace, but why refer to that fact, which is trivial and irrelevant
when you also know that he photographed the Queen herself at Buckingham Palace, and in the very same room as Leibovitz
- The White Drawing Room - back in 1968?

http://i42.tinypic.com/2v0lgsj.jpg

http://www.vam.ac.uk/users/node/16714


This was a very significant sitting too, as explained below...

http://i43.tinypic.com/2vtxonb.jpg

http://www.vam.ac.uk/users/album/16711


...so why the very conscious omission of this important and relevant detail in favour of a reference to Beaton having photographed
the Queen Mother at Buckingham Palace instead?


It strikes me as a deliberate attempt to steer people away from making any connection between the two sittings, which, when compared,
actually appear to be direct companion pieces.


Here's Beaton's 1968 portrait of the Queen in the White Drawing Room *...

http://i41.tinypic.com/35aw5kn.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/awb7gl.jpg

(*Note the exalted, religious-themed text under the portrait, which might turn out to have some special significance later on).


Now Beaton's 1968 portrait and Leibovitz's 2007 portrait can be directly joined up, as shown below, to create a wide panoramic view
of the White Drawing Room, divided down the middle of the fireplace and the wall painting by a 39-year time gap...

http://i39.tinypic.com/kb9cg.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/52f035.jpg



Does anyone know what the object marked with the red arrow is?



http://i40.tinypic.com/16bblo3.jpg

I haven't been able to find a higher-resolution version of the portrait at present to make the object out more clearly, but I don't think it would matter much
anyway - as with the 2007 'menacing figure' portrait, the important issue isn't what object is responsible for creating the appearance, but the visual effect
the object is creating.

Is it just me, or does it resemble a small glowing vision of the Virgin Mary, or some similar shining deity?


http://i39.tinypic.com/5pea1s.jpg


A pretty intriguing detail when you match it up with the 2007 portrait, and speculate that they are book-end companion pieces intentionally designed to depict the Queen
relating with (or being controlled by) both light and dark entities manifesting through dimensional portals...

yass
19-05-2013, 07:56 AM
http://www.vam.ac.uk/users/sites/default/files/2010el1428_1968_sitting_4.jpg
I found one a tad bigger. 1000 x 1206

I tried filtering the white object:



http://i.xomf.com/zkrsb.jpg


http://i.xomf.com/vynwv.jpg

size_of_light
19-05-2013, 08:36 AM
I found one a tad bigger. 1000 x 1206

Good work!

http://i43.tinypic.com/2uxybro.jpg


This was my first thought when I saw it...


http://i41.tinypic.com/eg4fp0.jpg


Whether it is actually a statue or a glowing light set up in the background to reflect
in the mirror, or a double exposure or whatever else, I get the feeling it's intended
to create a religious effect.

Notice the way the Queen's face is bathed in its pure, milky radiance...

http://i43.tinypic.com/2uxybro.jpg

...Beaton was elated. "The sun was now shining for the rest of the afternoon and I bade the many assistants bring
in our background from the dark cavern and rely on God's glorious design. Everywhere were sparking possibilities."

http://www.vam.ac.uk/users/node/16714

size_of_light
19-05-2013, 08:50 AM
http://i43.tinypic.com/e81emq.jpg

A little reminiscent of this...

http://i41.tinypic.com/3343wog.jpg

yass
19-05-2013, 08:55 AM
I kind of got the idea there was a baby in the arms.

There are probably better examples but this is the idea:

http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/ASC1561.jpg


http://www.holidays.net/store/img-large/virgin-mary-holding-baby-jesus-statue-daprato-studios-chicago-new-york-1935-25_271014050272.jpg



http://www.pasttensecountry.com/catalog/44251%20Mary%20with%20Child%2012inch.jpg

yass
19-05-2013, 08:59 AM
http://i43.tinypic.com/e81emq.jpg

A little reminiscent of this...

http://i41.tinypic.com/3343wog.jpg

Amazing! I'll declare.

sugarray
19-05-2013, 10:08 AM
Firstly, great thread SOL, don't know where you got the inspiration for this thread but it was great to have a name drop ;)

Sadly I can totally explain the Cecil Beaton picture anomaly.
Below is a picture of one of his production team
http://x.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/mg/6/80/4bc476b32856c/detail.jpg
As you can see he has the ability to emit light just like in the photo.
I know you doubters will probably say, how can it be him back in 1968 when he is a young looking guy now. I can also answer that question, since he played Captain America and that was set in the 1940s.
:D

Bottom line, pro photographers who prepare for days don't leave/accept "things" in the background, they're there for a reason.

edelweiss pirate
19-05-2013, 10:19 AM
This is turning into a bad joke.

Why are people supporting this idiocy?

And why is noone challenging it?

To me, this thread looks like one big cointel-pro disinformation operation.

size_of_light
19-05-2013, 12:22 PM
Consider the way three out of the four official 1968 Beaton portraits are nicely complimented, or mirrored, by three out of the four official 2007 Leibovitz portraits...


http://i44.tinypic.com/l8f3b.jpg





http://i41.tinypic.com/n2bw5d.jpg





...right down to the "Dracula" (Boatman's) cloak...



http://i42.tinypic.com/33a3v5x.jpg




http://i44.tinypic.com/1z5unvo.jpg

sugarray
19-05-2013, 12:43 PM
Sorry for the large picture firstly.
Not sure of the photographer in the picture, is it Cecil Beaton?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/03/article-2241857-1653DB5B000005DC-782_964x971.jpg
Why are the photographer's ears so distorted?

kiwi_
19-05-2013, 01:03 PM
This is turning into a bad joke.

Why are people supporting this idiocy?

And why is noone challenging it?

To me, this thread looks like one big cointel-pro disinformation operation.

Frankly i'm kind of impressed that these guys can take nothing and build a detailed conspiracy out of it. Reminds me of the Paul McCartney hoax.

ultimate_warlord
19-05-2013, 01:15 PM
Frankly i'm kind of impressed that these guys can take nothing and build a detailed conspiracy out of it. Reminds me of the Paul McCartney hoax.

That`s your opinion and choice. Great. Nobody`s forcing you to be here.

There`s something fishy going on with paranormal connections to certain celebrities, and the compliance of the bloodlines to clandestinely and deliberately reflect, re-inforce and manifestly produce exactly what these conspiracy theories are all about.

sundeep
19-05-2013, 01:33 PM
thank you for a great thread.

edelweiss pirate
19-05-2013, 01:38 PM
thank you for a great thread.

?

How is this a great thread though?

The reflection in the mirror is one of the photographer's assistants. The room's full of them, if you've seen the video footage of the photoshoot.

Size of Light has photoshopped the bottom part of the chandelier to make it look more like an alien face.


How is that great? I'm getting the feeling the forum is turning into some kind of mental home. Maybe that's it. Where have all the normal people gone? I wish they'd come back and dilute some of the nonsense that is getting poured in here.

size_of_light
19-05-2013, 01:50 PM
Size of Light has photoshopped the bottom part of the chandelier to make it look more like an alien face.


All anyone has to do to PROVE you're a LIAR is do a google image search for 'annie leibovitz queen portrait' and/or dozens of variations on the same, save the images to their hard drive, open and enlarge them and compare them to the photo as it appears in this thread.

What LIE will you concoct then, you weird, little delusional man?

njui
19-05-2013, 03:29 PM
Princess diana was bumped off because she went with a foreigner so this is well possible. there are dark forces that are apparent in the images.

excellent thread +1

edelweiss pirate
19-05-2013, 03:36 PM
What LIE will you concoct then, you weird, little delusional man?


Kinda rich for you to call me delusional isn't it?

After all, you've started a thread where you're trying to pretend that one of Leibowitz's assistants standing in front of a chandelier is an alien.


Being delusional seems to be your particular forum speciality. And as for weirdness, you win gold.


You can read the things I have published here below. None of which are half baked delusional rantings about people being aliens, I stick to provable and reasonable facts.

You should too, but then I get the feeling you'd be left with nothing to say.


BTW please provide the source of the original image you are using. I have searched for it and most files are a lot smaller than the one you appear to be using.


It is still irrelevant. The room is full of Leibowitz's assistants. No aliens are present.

martg
19-05-2013, 05:27 PM
http://i43.tinypic.com/e81emq.jpg

A little reminiscent of this...

http://i41.tinypic.com/3343wog.jpg

managing to work in a picture of Bruce Campbell should automatically make the thread 5 stars :cool:

edelweiss pirate
19-05-2013, 05:29 PM
managing to work in a picture of Bruce Campbell should automatically make the thread 5 stars :cool:


Despite the fact that the thread is a load of schizoid bollocks?

Don't be so superficial. Jeeez, you see your favourite Hollywood star and suddenly 'oh it's so kewwlll five stars'..... 'I love it when other people understand me and my vapid cultural conditioning'......'keeeeeewl'.

Intellectual death by KEWLNESS.


There really is BOB HOPE with you lot in't there?

martg
19-05-2013, 05:34 PM
@edelweiss pirate
f'kin hell, get yourself a sense of humour
if this thread is so offensive to you why don't you go and read a different one instead of spewing bile on this one?

edelweiss pirate
19-05-2013, 05:35 PM
@edelweiss pirate
f'kin hell, get yourself a sense of humour
if this thread is so offensive to you why don't you go and read a different one instead of spewing bile on this one?


I was active on this thread before you were.

And I don't find the thread offensive, I'm just pointing out that it's total bullshit, but it's being promoted as if it's real. If it were satirical I would be laughing, but no, there's a tragic mind controlled sincerity about the people's comments here. They genuinely believe it. And that is very very sad.

i_am
19-05-2013, 06:05 PM
Admin note

Ok! Enough already. I have deleted a number of posts that are personal insults and as such have no place on ANY thread. Take it private guys.

I suggest you go to the chat room and slug it out until last man standing if need be but don't do it on the forums.

edelweiss pirate
19-05-2013, 06:07 PM
Hi I AM! Haven't seen you around for a long time. Glad you're back.

multiversal_quiver
19-05-2013, 06:40 PM
Firstly, a correction: I've been mistakenly referring to the photos in question as having been taken at Windsor Castle, when they were in fact
taken in the White Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace.

http://i43.tinypic.com/amxr86.jpg

You can take a 360 degree virtual tour of the room at the link: http://www.royal.gov.uk/virtualtours/2013/BuckinghamPalace/VirtualTour/white-drawing-room.html





Did you get a look at the molding at the top of the room?

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/room_zps89008238.jpg

abrilliantone
19-05-2013, 08:13 PM
Now please excuse me i_am and good to see you my friend. :)


After all, you've started a thread where you're trying to pretend that one of Leibowitz's assistants standing in front of a chandelier is an alien. Now edelweiss pirate where exactly did size_of_light state that, the image within the mirror was an alien? Would you be so kind as to quote that for us.


I stick to provable and reasonable facts.And this is why you'll only "see" part of the picture instead of the whole. There are many things that we can not see but does exists. We learn more by dropping the "condition mind" and allowing a "open" one to see what we couldn't see before. :)


Be well also my friend. :)

edelweiss pirate
19-05-2013, 08:16 PM
And this is why you'll only "see" part of the picture instead of the whole. There are many things that we can not see but does exists. We learn more by dropping the "condition mind" and allowing a "open" one to see what we couldn't before. :)

Dude, please. I don't have a conditioned mind, I've seen things that would give you nightmares for the rest of your life and had experiences you could only dream of.

I'm not pulling rank, I'm just laying out the facts.

I've been way out there buddy. Which is all the more reason we need to nip bullshit like this in the bud because it discredits the serious metaphysics research which some of us are doing.



What do you do one you've seen and done it all? Been offered the riches of the earth on a plate and had the sense to refuse, and as a result receive the ultimate wealth.

You write about it. That's what I do.


Half baked rubbish like this thread is an insult to your intelligence. I'm here making the value judgements you should all be doing. The problem is there's too much mental laziness, confusion and stupidity.

abrilliantone
19-05-2013, 08:53 PM
Dude, please. I don't have a conditioned mind, I've seen things that would give you nightmares for the rest of your life and had experiences you could only dream of.

I'm not pulling rank, I'm just laying out the facts.

I've been way out there buddy. Which is all the more reason we need to nip bullshit like this in the bud because it discredits the serious metaphysics research which some of us are doing.



What do you do one you've seen and done it all? Been offered the riches of the earth on a plate and had the sense to refuse, and as a result receive the ultimate wealth.

You write about it. That's what I do.


Half baked rubbish like this thread is an insult to your intelligence. I'm here making the value judgements you should all be doing. The problem is there's too much mental laziness, confusion and stupidity.

No, I understand where you're coming from. I call people out on bull crap all the time myself. But still I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. Until I observe later in the thread that they are indeed full of it.

bridgetshaw
19-05-2013, 09:01 PM
I'm sick of this forum being used as a dumping ground for worthless rubbish.

Next time people call you a kook or a weirdo 'conspiracy theorist' because you believe 9-11 was an inside job you can thank people like the OP who discredit the whole area with crazy looney talk.



Some of this stuff is actually trolls and cointel-pro agents at work by the way..... It's the turd in the punch-bowl approach.

I agree with you eidlewess, , it looks photo shopped to me, especially as you can see where they have tried to blend the lizard head in....although i can see something else somewhere else in the photo.

bridgetshaw
19-05-2013, 09:09 PM
Kinda rich for you to call me delusional isn't it?

After all, you've started a thread where you're trying to pretend that one of Leibowitz's assistants standing in front of a chandelier is an alien.


Being delusional seems to be your particular forum speciality. And as for weirdness, you win gold.


You can read the things I have published here below. None of which are half baked delusional rantings about people being aliens, I stick to provable and reasonable facts.

You should too, but then I get the feeling you'd be left with nothing to say.


BTW please provide the source of the original image you are using. I have searched for it and most files are a lot smaller than the one you appear to be using.


It is still irrelevant. The room is full of Leibowitz's assistants. No aliens are present.

Its photoshopped , you can see that eidleweis, lol I would leave them to get on with it x x

edelweiss pirate
19-05-2013, 09:12 PM
Its photoshopped , you can see that eidleweis, lol I would leave them to get on with it x x

Thanks. Not everyone around here has totally lost the plot after all.

abrilliantone
19-05-2013, 09:15 PM
Its photoshopped , you can see that eidleweis, lol I would leave them to get on with it x x


And you know the picture is photoshopped how actually???

ultimate_warlord
19-05-2013, 09:21 PM
Where did anybody say there was an alien entity in the room?
What the OP shows is an unexplainable anomaly of a shadowy figure or disembodied suit with a reflection of the chandelier where it would have been impossible to be unless it`s a photoshop. The photo does not give evidence of photoshop. And both the photographer and the queen seem aware of what`s going on. Also the star photographer would never allow such a blooper to happen unless it was deliberate.
And the pirate says that "size of light" photoshopped it just for kicks. Even a photoshopped pic would not explain the reason why that suit or person is where it [I]should not[I] logically and naturally be.
Would Da Vinci unnecessarily paint in the vatican gardener in the Mona Lisa?
That`s the end of the story. Any additions by debunkers are coming out of their asshole as usual. NUFF SAID.

abrilliantone
19-05-2013, 09:29 PM
Thanks. Not everyone around here has totally lost the plot after all.

People didn't "loose" the plot around here. (I didn't at least) People are just listening to what it is S.O.L. has to say.

Now let's see you walk the walk and gives us Your photo analysis. On the same photos, debunking what he is claiming. Because you enter this thread judgemental from the beginning;
I'm sick of this forum being used as a dumping ground for worthless rubbish.

Next time people call you a kook or a weirdo 'conspiracy theorist' because you believe 9-11 was an inside job you can thank people like the OP who discredit the whole area with crazy looney talk.



Some of this stuff is actually trolls and cointel-pro agents at work by the way..... It's the turd in the punch-bowl approach.

And that sort of sounds like a "condition mind" to me. :o

sugarray
19-05-2013, 09:37 PM
http://lfasbluedogpress.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/queen-elizabeth-ii-by-annie-leibovitz-02-big.jpg
I think this original photo should prove it's not photoshopped

ultimate_warlord
19-05-2013, 09:42 PM
People didn't "loose" the plot around here. (I didn't at least) People are just listening to what it is S.O.L. has to say.

Now let's see you walk the walk and gives us Your photo analysis. On the same photos, debunking what he is claiming. Because you enter this thread judgemental from the beginning;


And that sort of sounds like a "condition mind" to me. :o

http://lfasbluedogpress.files.wordpr...itz-02-big.jpg
I think this original photo should prove it's not photoshopped

There !...Thanks sugarray. Now we have proof that the photo was not photoshopped by "size of light". Now let`s see the real debunking begin.

Waiting....

klara
19-05-2013, 10:00 PM
Where did anybody say there was an alien entity in the room?
What the OP shows is an unexplainable anomaly of a shadowy figure or disembodied suit with a reflection of the chandelier where it would have been impossible to be unless it`s a photoshop. The photo does not give evidence of photoshop. And both the photographer and the queen seem aware of what`s going on. Also the star photographer would never allow such a blooper to happen unless it was deliberate.


In the original picture/slide, this would have been impossible to miss.

And this is not some plain photographer, but one which loved to "play" with her art, and has a history with mirrors.

edelweiss pirate
19-05-2013, 10:05 PM
Where did anybody say there was an alien entity in the room?

This is the level of buffoonery we're dealing with here.

You can look through your mate Size Of Light's posts. He calls the image 'Gorn in a suit' and repeatedly tries to show the chandelier to be a face by etching a head outline around it.



You're posting on a thread and don't even know what's going on.

As I said:

The problem is there's too much mental laziness, confusion and stupidity.

size_of_light
19-05-2013, 10:37 PM
You can read the things I have published here below. None of which are half baked delusional rantings about people being aliensWhere did anybody say there was an alien entity in the room?You can look through your mate Size Of Light's posts. He calls the image 'Gorn in a suit' and repeatedly tries to show the chandelier to be a face by etching a head outline around it.:

lol still at it I see.

Your intellectual depravity seemingly knows no bounds.

Every one of your feeble arguments is a LIE. :D

Does look like a reptilian head, just sayin lol
Haha, yep, it's like Gorn threw on a suit.

There's no mention of aliens there mate - only an attempt to humorously nail the essence of the figure's appearance by likening it to a fictional character from the TV show Star Trek. I know humour is a largely foreign concept to you, but still.

In my very next post I specifically clarify my position...


And to clarify: I don't think this is some real 'creature' that showed up for Annie Leibovitz's photoshoot at Windsor Castle - it's a carefully constructed illusion intended to depict and symbolise a bizarre and menacing figure watching over the Queen (who is glancing pensively over her shoulder to denote awareness of its presence).

How do you preserve a trace of self-respect in the face of your own consistent, conscious efforts to deceive others?

On one hand it's sad and embarrassing watching the way you behave on here.

On the other hand, every time you bump this thread with more madness, new people get a chance to see the photo and make up their own minds.

And once your transparently insipid lies are seen through, the evidence speaks for itself.

I agree with you eidlewess, , it looks photo shopped to me, especially as you can see where they have tried to blend the lizard head in....although i can see something else somewhere else in the photo.

Its photoshopped , you can see that eidleweis, lol I would leave them to get on with it x x

You don't have to take my word for it bridget - just find a version - ANY VERSION - of the photo online, and compare it to the one in this thread.

After you've done the 90-seconds worth of independent research required to confirm that for yourself with 100% reliability, please come back and tell us what you now think about the 'lizard head' as you yourself describe it.

I haven't photoshopped it AT ALL, but it is interesting that you think that it has been, since I've been suggesting all along that Annie Leibovitz's photographic team probably did just that, in order to make it look like a 'lizard head.'

sugarray
19-05-2013, 10:48 PM
In all honesty SOL, the fact that they are saying the picture is photoshopped just proves they are seeing the same "thing" the rest of us are.

size_of_light
19-05-2013, 11:01 PM
In all honesty SOL, the fact that they are saying the picture is photoshopped just proves they are seeing the same "thing" the rest of us are.

Hi sugarray - I didn't get a chance when you posted earlier.

The man who started it all! You're responsible for this debacle! :p

Yep, you're right about the photoshopping issue. The skeptics may come around and realise we're all saying the same thing about it.

Edelweiss Pirate, unfortunately, has gone down a path of no return with this now, and can only heap more and more lies onto the matter in the hope that it eventually confuses others enough for them not to see how fundamentally dishonest - and disturbed - he is.

abrilliantone
19-05-2013, 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bridgetshaw http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/buttons_green/viewpost.gif (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1061510586#post1061510586)

Its photoshopped , you can see that eidleweis, lol I would leave them to get on with it x x




After you've done the 90-seconds worth of independent research required to confirm that for yourself with 100% reliability, please come back and tell us what you now think about the 'lizard head' as you yourself describe it.



Priceless....size_of_light :) I find it interesting also that a "lizard head" is the first thing that comes to mind when one first look at the photo. Because that's what I thought when I first saw the photo. I didn't mention it, but it is kind of strange that other people see that image also.

porridge
20-05-2013, 12:09 AM
I reckon Pirate is the man in the mirror..

http://i39.tinypic.com/34fb691.jpg

abrilliantone
20-05-2013, 12:36 AM
I reckon Pirate is the man in the mirror..

http://i39.tinypic.com/34fb691.jpg

You guys are silly. :D


size_of_light have you come across any mentions from Annie Liebovitz about the image in the picture?

admajic
20-05-2013, 12:54 AM
The whole debate on this thread is not whether or not a lizard headed creature was added to a picture, by photoshop or other means. But WHY??

Answer that one, edelweiss pirate....

ultimate_warlord
20-05-2013, 02:45 AM
Edelweiss Pirate, unfortunately, has gone down a path of no return with this now, and can only heap more and more lies onto the matter in the hope that it eventually confuses others enough for them not to see how fundamentally dishonest - and disturbed - he is.

Looks like a lot of people on scores of threads here think the same.

size_of_light
20-05-2013, 03:41 AM
Looks like a lot of people on scores of threads here think the same.

FUMIGATION IN PROGRESS... ;)

The reflection in the mirror is one of the photographer's assistants. The room's full of them, if you've seen the video footage of the photoshoot.

Size of Light has photoshopped the bottom part of the chandelier to make it look more like an alien face.


From 5:25 onwards in the clip below Leibovitz is shown photographing the Queen in front
of a screen so that she can later be digitally composited onto a different background.

Annie Leibovitz - Monarchy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhjEQpEGvaQ

This is the pose she is adopting in the photo that is the subject of this thread
- the one featuring the mysterious figure in the background.

http://i41.tinypic.com/10gaa12.jpg


Same camera angle, same outfit, same jewellery, same hand-pose, same draped fur.


http://i41.tinypic.com/120m3y0.jpg

The mysterious figure isn't some hair-brained Leibovitz assistant who accidentally stumbled into the background reflection of the mirror, because the entire background has been digitally added to a separate foreground photo of the Queen in post-production.

OK?

Satisfied/shattered/righteously humiliated?

Hopefully this new and damning piece of evidence has performed the equivalent of an exorcism on your sorry ass and toxic presence in this place, and you'll now melt back into the pit with your tail between your legs never to be seen again.

Cheers. ;)


---


size_of_life have you come across any mentions from Annie Liebovitz about the image in the picture?
No, nothing about that specific photo, which in itself is a little conspicuous, given that she mentions each of the other three photos towards the end of the excerpt below from her 2008 book Annie Leibovitz at Work.

I've bolded and underlined some other details too that I find either interesting or telling for various reasons...

http://i44.tinypic.com/6t0pis.jpg

The Queen

In 2007, a few weeks before Queen Elizabeth visited the United States for the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, I was asked to take her portrait. I was the first American to be asked by the Palace to make an official portrait of the Queen, which was very flattering. I felt honored. I also felt that because I was an American I had an advantage over every other photographer or painter who had made a portrait of her. It was O.K. for me to be reverent. The British are conflicted about what they think of the monarch. If a British portraitist is reverent, he’s perceived to be doting. I could do something traditional.

It’s ironic that the sitting with the Queen became controversial. I’m rather proud of having been in control of a complicated shoot. The controversy arose about two months after the pictures were published, when the BBC claimed that the Queen had walked out while we were shooting. This was completely untrue, and although they retracted the claim and issued an apology to the Queen and to me almost immediately, the scandal had a life of its own. The story, which came to be referred to as Queengate, wouldn’t die. Eventually the head of BBC One resigned over it.

When I was preparing for the shoot, I thought about using the landscape around Balmoral Castle, in Scotland. I brought this up in the very first conference call with the Palace. I said that Americans thought of the Queen as an outdoorswoman. I had been influenced by Helen Mirren’s performance in The Queen and I couldn’t help mentioning how much I liked her character in that film. There was a long silence on the other end of the line.

The second idea I had, after Balmoral, was to photograph the Queen on horseback. I asked where she rode and they said she went riding every Saturday at Windsor Castle. I said that I would love to see her in her riding clothes, and in a later conversation I asked if she could stop during her weekend ride and get off her horse and mount it again. That is, could I do a portrait of her in the trees. They said, No, it was not possible. She just rode the horse and came back, and, anyway, she didn’t wear riding clothes anymore. A few days later they said it was going to be Buckingham Palace and no horses.

I realized that I was going to need some time on the ground for this. When we arrived in London, we went straight to the palace and were shown all the rooms, including the throne room—everywhere except the private quarters. And then we scouted the back. There was a wintery sky and the trees didn’t have leaves. It was an appropriate mood for this moment in the Queen’s life. There was no way, however, that she was going to stand outside in formal attire.

For a sitting like this you don’t put all your eggs in one basket. You try to have as many options as possible. I kept thinking that somehow I would get the Queen outside, but I began choosing formal outfits. I narrowed the robes down to a very handsome Order of the Garter cape, but then we were told that she could wear only a white dress under it. We were lobbying for a gold dress. I was also hoping for a dress with more body to it. The Queen wears very streamlined dresses now that she’s older, and I wanted her in something with more volume. But she didn’t have anything like that. Finally everyone agreed that she could wear a gold-and-white dress under the Order of the Garter robe. The Queen was 80 years old. She was sturdy, but putting on and taking off a lot of heavy clothes is tiring, and she had to be dressed in layers to expedite things. The gold-white dress became the base.

I was still upset that I couldn’t get her outside. It was so beautiful out there. And it wasn’t cold or raining or anything. I began thinking about what Cecil Beaton had done. He brought in flowered backdrops. Beaton was big on backdrops. He made very stagy portraits. Perhaps because the pictures were made in black and white you don’t notice the backdrops. They sort of go out of focus. I realized that I could do something similar digitally. I decided to photograph the garden and the trees for a backdrop.

The Palace had given us 25 minutes with the Queen, so there had to be a battle plan. I chose a grand reception room, the White Drawing Room, as the principal setting because of the light from the tall windows. Supplementary lights had been pre-set so that when the Queen moved from one spot to another all we needed to do was switch them on. We had constructed a gray canvas backdrop in an anteroom, and she was to come in there wearing the Order of the Garter robe and the dress, but no tiara. The first shot was to be made on a balcony, with the sky behind her. That sky could be digitally exchanged later for the pictures I had taken in the gardens the day before. I didn’t want her to be wearing a tiara in the gardens.

The morning of the shoot, the Queen came walking down the hall very purposefully. She was definitely a force. This was all being taped by the BBC for a documentary. I would never have agreed to their being there if I felt I had any choice, but they had been following her around for months. Their microphone picked up her saying, “I’ve had enough of dressing like this, thank you very much,” as she marched down the hall. Later, when segments of footage for the BBC were edited for a promotional film, it appeared as if the Queen were stomping out of the photo session rather than going into it. Thus the brouhaha.

The Queen was about 20 minutes late, which we thought was a little strange. When that happens, you never know if it can be made up on the other end. My five-year-old daughter, Sarah, had come with us, and she curtsied and offered the Queen flowers, and I introduced my team. At this point I was in shock. The Queen had the tiara on. That was not the plan. It was supposed to be added later. The dresser knew that. The Queen started saying, “I don’t have much time. I don’t have much time,” and I took her to the first setup and showed her the pictures of the gardens. I think she understood what we had in mind. Then I walked her into the drawing room, probably sooner than I would have if things had been going well. She composed herself when I took some pictures.

I knew how tight everything was, especially with the loss of 20 minutes, and I asked the Queen if she would remove the tiara. (I used the word “crown,” which was a faux pas.) I suggested that a less dressy look might be better. And she said, “Less dressy! What do you think this is?” I thought she was being funny. English humor. But I noticed that the dresser and everyone else who had been working with her were staying about 20 feet away from her.

We removed the big robe, and I took the picture of the Queen looking out the window, and then I said, Listen, I was a little thrown when you first came in, and I have one more picture I’d like to try, with an admiral’s boat cloak. I was thinking of one of Cecil Beaton’s last pictures of the Queen. A very stark and simple and strong portrait in which she’s wearing a boat cloak. We went back into the anteroom, where the gray canvas backdrop had been set up, and she took off the tiara and put on the cloak. That’s the shot we digitally imposed on pictures of the garden.

Right after we finished, I went up to the press secretary and said how much I loved the Queen. How feisty she was. Later I mentioned to a couple of friends that she had been a bit cranky, but it was nothing unusual. What was remarkable about the shoot, and I wrote the Queen a note about this later, was something the BBC missed: her resolve, her devotion to duty. She stayed until I said it was over. Until I said, “Thank you.” We were finished a little before our allotted 25 minutes were up.

Excerpted from Annie Leibovitz at Work, by Annie Leibovitz, to be published by Random House in November; © 2008 by the author.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/10/annie_excerpt200810

abrilliantone
20-05-2013, 04:14 AM
Fucking lizard :mad: So there's no descriptions on the process that she used to create the photos? My apologizes to you my friend I realized that I misspelled your name. :o

size_of_light
20-05-2013, 08:36 AM
Fucking lizard :mad: So there's no descriptions on the process that she used to create the photos?

Not that I know of.

Following on from this in my last post...

No, nothing about that specific photo, which in itself is a little conspicuous, given that she mentions each of the other
three photos towards the end of the excerpt below from her 2008 book Annie Leibovitz at Work

...it looks as though after the portrait was done, Leibovitz wasn't the only one making a conscious effort to downplay its existence; they tried
to minimise public scrutiny of it also - you can't have hordes of people examining it too closely and getting the same nasty surprise we did.

The folllowing is from the Royal Collection Trust website, describing an exhibition of the Leibovitz portraits...

(http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/exhibitions/the-queen-portraits-of-a-monarch/annie-leibovitz )

http://i39.tinypic.com/72q1ol.png



So three of the four portraits were to be displayed to the public.

No prizes for guessing which of the four was inexplicably omitted from the exhibition...

http://i44.tinypic.com/23iuu09.png

(http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/exhibitions/the-queen-portraits-of-a-monarch/annie-leibovitz

bridgetshaw
20-05-2013, 11:31 AM
And you know the picture is photoshopped how actually???

Because when you have studied such photo,s , they dont look like that and you can tell the difference. Also, the reptilians are said to have shining yellow eyes, and that looks like some picture out of a lizard nature book! But obvously , your all having fun with it, so enjoy! :) But for me, its laughable and nothing more.

unlockthepower
20-05-2013, 11:38 AM
The implications are startling when you reflect logically on the issue

Yeah why don't you try it.

size_of_light
20-05-2013, 11:51 AM
Yeah why don't you try it.

Sadly, you don't even understand what you're protesting against.

ultimate_warlord
20-05-2013, 06:07 PM
Sadly, you don't even understand what you're protesting against.

A lot of jokers come out of the laptop, throw a stupid comment about something they neither understand nor give a hoot about, and then disappear into the ether without delivering a plausible debunking argument.

Why?...Because there IS no doubt here about the fact that this photo was tabooed from public view for a reason. The queen herself might have less to do with it than the photographer. But all involved must have been aware of it and there was some reason for it.

anon andon
20-05-2013, 06:33 PM
The photo of the Queen in the Vlad overcoat and stood in front of the lake is as freaky as, it has no realism to it, frankly I fear if you pulled the camera back it would reveal the Queen is floating, obviously one of the worst pieces of digital manipulation by a purported expert ever.

If the suit in the other picture stood any chance of being entourage, they need a bloody good meal because it is as gangly/immaciated as feck, yes you can pick features out of the chandelier but can be optical illusion, but all around if this is all Annie has to offer as experties as a professional photographer, I'd pick my 6 year old niece and her throw away to do the special occasions any day of the week.

Summed up, 'a worth while thread, there is more to this than meets the eye'!

ultimate_warlord
20-05-2013, 11:14 PM
The photo of the Queen in the Vlad overcoat and stood in front of the lake is as freaky as, it has no realism to it, frankly I fear if you pulled the camera back it would reveal the Queen is floating, obviously one of the worst pieces of digital manipulation by a purported expert ever.

If the suit in the other picture stood any chance of being entourage, they need a bloody good meal because it is as gangly/immaciated as feck, yes you can pick features out of the chandelier but can be optical illusion, but all around if this is all Annie has to offer as experties as a professional photographer, I'd pick my 6 year old niece and her throw away to do the special occasions any day of the week.

Summed up, 'a worth while thread, there is more to this than meets the eye'!

Scarier than the sum total of all the sixties and seventies "HAMMER FILMS" horror movies. This is no movie, though.

size_of_light
20-05-2013, 11:34 PM
Why?...Because there IS no doubt here about the fact that this photo was tabooed from public view for a reason.
The queen herself might have less to do with it than the photographer.

But all involved must have been aware of it and there was some reason for it.

I agree.

The image sequence in my next post from the Leibovitz/Monarchy documentary clearly shows the Queen
being directed by Leibovitz to turn her head towards her left shoulder (our right) in order to strike the
exact pose seen in the final portrait.

As everyone can see, there's no doubt it was done with the Queen standing in front of a canvas screen
and the background with the figure in it was then added digitally in post-production.

Here's a quote I put up a couple of posts back, from Leibovitz's book, in which she discusses the photoshoot
( http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/10/annie_excerpt200810 )...
Annie Leibovitz

I began thinking about what Cecil Beaton had done. He brought in flowered backdrops.
Beaton was big on backdrops. He made very stagy portraits. Perhaps because
the pictures were made in black and white you don’t notice the backdrops.
They sort of go out of focus. I realized that I could do something similar digitally.

So, she's going for unnoticeable digital backdrops behind the Queen, and she wants us to know it.

But despite somewhat labouring this point, she seems to then consciously neglect to tell us that
the Boatman's Cloak portrait...

http://i44.tinypic.com/dc50fr.jpg

...wasn't the only one of the four portraits in which this digital backdrop technique was used, as
the image sequence in the next post conclusively demonstrates.

Before posting that, however, here is a subsequent quote from Leibovitz as she continues to
describe the unfolding photoshoot, which again reveals the suspicious tendency to omit any
reference to the 'Mysterious Figure' portrait, while openly discussing the other three.

Annie Leibovitz

We removed the big robe,

http://i41.tinypic.com/33y137n.jpg

Annie Leibovitz

and I took the picture of the Queen looking out the window,

http://i41.tinypic.com/15n3b88.jpg

Annie Leibovitz

and then I said, Listen, I was a little thrown when you first came in, and
I have one more picture I’d like to try, with an admiral’s boat cloak.
I was thinking of one of Cecil Beaton’s last pictures of the Queen. A very stark and simple
and strong portrait in which she’s wearing a boat cloak. We went back into the anteroom,
where the gray canvas backdrop had been set up, and she took off the tiara and
put on the cloak.

http://i43.tinypic.com/a3lb94.jpg

Annie Leibovitz

That’s the shot we digitally imposed on pictures of the garden.

She covers just three out of the four official portraits, and clearly implies that the boatman's cloak
image is the only one in the portrait series that was 'digitally imposed' using a backdrop.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2v3k1ti.jpg

Immediately after this, she moves on from the subject altogether...

Annie Leibovitz

Right after we finished, I went up to the press secretary and said how much I loved the Queen.

In case anyone doesn't believe that, here's all of the above-quoted text from her book, as it appeared
in the Vanity Fair article...

( page 4 here: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/10/annie_excerpt200810 )

http://i39.tinypic.com/14n1bbc.jpg


( page 4 here: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/10/annie_excerpt200810 )


So the Royal Collection omitted this one of the four portraits from its exhibition
(http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/ex...nnie-leibovitz ) and the photographer
Annie Leibovitz, omitted any reference to this one of the four portraits when discussing
the photoshoot in her autobiography...

http://i40.tinypic.com/4j00nc.jpg




I wonder why....




http://i42.tinypic.com/30kg1vp.jpg

size_of_light
21-05-2013, 12:13 AM
The image sequence in my next post from the Leibovitz/Monarchy documentary clearly shows the Queen being directed by Leibovitz to turn her head towards her left shoulder (our right) in order to strike the exact pose seen in the final portrait.

As everyone can see, there's no doubt it was done with the Queen standing in front of a canvas screen and the background with the figure in it was then added digitally in post-production.


...(Leibovitz) then consciously neglects to tell us that the Boatman's Cloak portrait...


http://i44.tinypic.com/dc50fr.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/5nqf0l.jpg


wasn't the only one of the four portraits in which this digital backdrop technique was used,


http://i44.tinypic.com/esqclu.jpg




...As the image sequence below conclusively demonstrates...



Annie Leibovitz - Monarchy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhjEQpEGvaQ

http://i39.tinypic.com/8yz2c0.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/2vafsax.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/6giu6g.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/sls2g8.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/34615sk.jpg


Annie Leibovitz - Monarchy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhjEQpEGvaQ

size_of_light
21-05-2013, 12:54 AM
The photo of the Queen in the Vlad overcoat and stood in front of the lake is as freaky as, it has no realism to it,
frankly I fear if you pulled the camera back it would reveal the Queen is floating, obviously one of the worst pieces
of digital manipulation by a purported expert ever.

With the exception of the image featuring our Lizard Overlord in the mirror, of course, I find a good deal of
Leibovitz's work truly terrible, particularly the Boatman's cloak picture you mentioned and also her
Disney fantasy series - sickly, flat, and contrived pieces all of them.

She was a 'celebrity photographer' back in the 70s and has probably largely gotten by on that reputation alone
ever since then, methinks, as in, it's a case of every vain Hollywood star who makes it big wanting to have a
'Leibovitz' portrait done to confirm their status and place in pop history, and so she keeps on getting the work and
stays in the limelight.

If the suit in the other picture stood any chance of being entourage, they
need a bloody good meal because it is as gangly/immaciated as feck,

Yep, good point, it does appear to be a pretty flat, or empty-looking suit.

Now that we know for sure that the background of this photograph was taken at a different time to the
foreground image of the Queen, all bets are off as to exactly how the figure was created.

For those who think it might be (at least the head of) a genuine entity of some kind (as opposed to just
a digital representation of one), that possibility suddenly becomes more plausible when you realise that
the opportunity for it to be captured on film is no longer restrained by having to have occurred at a
specific time and place, i.e. during the 30-minute semi-public photoshoot with the Queen.


Maybe they did splice in the headshot of a genuine entity, for esoteric ritual reasons, or merely because
they could...

http://i42.tinypic.com/30kg1vp.jpg

ultimate_warlord
21-05-2013, 01:36 AM
Great job "size of light." Great thread.

abrilliantone
21-05-2013, 04:48 AM
Because when you have studied such photo,s , they dont look like that and you can tell the difference.

Well, I guess that link that sugarray provided us with is "photo shopped" as well? Since you have studied such photos before and are obviously an expert in photography. Then why don't you "post" your "evidence" showing us all that his picture has been "photo shopped"

Also, the reptilians are said to have shining yellow eyes, and that looks like some picture out of a lizard nature book! But obvously , your all having fun with it, so enjoy! :) But for me, its laughable and nothing more.

Again, when did size_of_light ever said. The image in the mirror is a lizard? I said "fucking lizard" and like I stated before: I find it interesting also that a "lizard head" is the first thing that comes to mind when one first look at the photo. Because that's what I thought when I first saw the photo. I didn't mention it, but it is kind of strange that other people see that image also.

So the question now is, why is it that a lizard is what you see also, when you look at the photo? When it was never stated, that was what the image was or look like.

bridgetshaw
21-05-2013, 12:11 PM
Listen, if you want to beleive that photo, thats fine, i dont really care, but dont expect others with an ounce of sence to either. Im unsuscribing to this thread because its just getting silly now.

anon andon
21-05-2013, 01:48 PM
Listen, if you want to beleive that photo, thats fine, i dont really care, but dont expect others with an ounce of sence to either. Im unsuscribing to this thread because its just getting silly now.

what? The only thing in that post that makes any scents is the 'ounce of sensei to the aether.

Other than that nobody asked you to subscribe to anything, the photo is out there to be enjoyed by millions and some enjoy it a little more than others and critique is a fact of life, get on with it!


Scarier than the sum total of all the sixties and seventies "HAMMER FILMS" horror movies. This is no movie, though.


And the TV series' with 'tales of the unexpected' thrown in for good measure.


There is in your face 'surrealism' and there is 'veiled surrealism' and these photos are of the latter and have a more sinister feel, just can't put your finger on it, but its their. The Vlad one She looks straight at you, what are the eyes saying?

Anyhow, this collection is I feel, is for the die hard monaluvvies like 'Delores Umbridge' and 'Hyacinthe Bucket' and the others of the battleaxe brigade, me personally would not hang it on my wall to even throw darts at, maybe get a print on a door mat though;)


SOL- lots of mediocre talent out there mooching in the higher echelons dont you agree?

ultimate_warlord
21-05-2013, 02:07 PM
what? The only thing in that post that makes any scents is the 'ounce of sensei to the aether.

Other than that nobody asked you to subscribe to anything, the photo is out there to be enjoyed by millions and some enjoy it a little more than others and critique is a fact of life, get on with it!





And the TV series' with 'tales of the unexpected' thrown in for good measure.


There is in your face 'surrealism' and there is 'veiled surrealism' and these photos are of the latter and have a more sinister feel, just can't put your finger on it, but its their. The Vlad one She looks straight at you, what are the eyes saying?

Anyhow, this collection is I feel, is for the die hard monaluvvies like 'Delores Umbridge' and 'Hyacinthe Bucket' and the others of the battleaxe brigade, me personally would not hang it on my wall to even throw darts at, maybe get a print on a door mat though;)


SOL- lots of mediocre talent out there mooching in the higher echelons dont you agree?

Excellent Post. I`m almost expecting Count Dracula Christopher Lee to appear at the window where the queen is sitting. And the one with the cape in the woods by the lake calls for Peter Cushing to make a sudden entrance holding a crucifix.
This is Edgar Allan Poe territory.

multiversal_quiver
21-05-2013, 02:28 PM
With the exception of the image featuring our Lizard Overlord in the mirror, of course, I find a good deal of
Leibovitz's work truly terrible, particularly the Boatman's cloak picture you mentioned and also her
Disney fantasy series - sickly, flat, and contrived pieces all of them.

She was a 'celebrity photographer' back in the 70s and has probably largely gotten by on that reputation alone
ever since then, methinks, as in, it's a case of every vain Hollywood star who makes it big wanting to have a
'Leibovitz' portrait done to confirm their status and place in pop history, and so she keeps on getting the work and
stays in the limelight.



Yep, good point, it does appear to be a pretty flat, or empty-looking suit.

Now that we know for sure that the background of this photograph was taken at a different time to the
foreground image of the Queen, all bets are off as to exactly how the figure was created.

For those who think it might be (at least the head of) a genuine entity of some kind (as opposed to just
a digital representation of one), that possibility suddenly becomes more plausible when you realise that
the opportunity for it to be captured on film is no longer restrained by having to have occurred at a
specific time and place, i.e. during the 30-minute semi-public photoshoot with the Queen.


Maybe they did splice in the headshot of a genuine entity, for esoteric ritual reasons, or merely because
they could...


http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/qeebee_zpsd0d7e354.jpg

whale
21-05-2013, 02:28 PM
I'm sick of this forum being used as a dumping ground for worthless rubbish.

Next time people call you a kook or a weirdo 'conspiracy theorist' because you believe 9-11 was an inside job you can thank people like the OP who discredit the whole area with crazy looney talk.

Some of this stuff is actually trolls and cointel-pro agents at work by the way..... It's the turd in the punch-bowl approach.

Actually, I get more of a turd feel from you than the poster

mystic nomad
21-05-2013, 03:50 PM
http://i42.tinypic.com/30kg1vp.jpg

Busy^

In the blown up pic with the chandelier headed suit.... Seems to me there are 3 of them in line. Knowing that there is also a protruding elbow in this manafactured scene leads me to presume that elbow also belongs to some representation of a curious headed, suit clad, skin walker.

Certainly no coincidences here (are there ever?), it's by design.

And of course paintings/art being the traditional way of conveying a message, especially portraits of people in so called positions of power, they are well known for being a biased visual narrative, just like state/corporate controlled media today, it's all about selling us, the viewer/the profane something, be it an idea, a lifestyle, a dream, a fear, whatever it may be. Why should this be any different.

The message here could be sponsored by the artist, the sitter, the sitters handlers, the people who actually paid for the whole damn thing..... Who knows?;)

Great thread, thanks. Illuminating:D

unlockthepower
21-05-2013, 04:38 PM
And to clarify: I don't think this is some real 'creature' that showed up for Annie Leibovitz's photoshoot at Windsor Castle - it's a carefully constructed illusion

Thank fuck for that, I thought you were actually claiming it was a reptilian or something. I agree it could well be deliberate given the photographers attention to detail and the royal's well known penchant for symbolism, or it could just be a mistake.

ultimate_warlord
21-05-2013, 04:52 PM
Thank fuck for that, I thought you were actually claiming it was a reptilian or something. I agree it could well be deliberate given the photographers attention to detail and the royal's well known penchant for symbolism, or it could just be a mistake.


It couldn`t be a mistake. Try doing it yourself deliberately, even, and show us how.
Mistake? How many mistakes are allowed on this level?
Try something else...Like mindfucking.

jdeadevil
21-05-2013, 05:01 PM
This might make me sound like a n00b, but I'm going to ask it anyway. There's no sign of human skin in that picture, is there a chance it could be a suit hung-up?

ultimate_warlord
21-05-2013, 05:15 PM
This might make me sound like a n00b, but I'm going to ask it anyway. There's no sign of human skin in that picture, is there a chance it could be a suit hung-up?

No you are not a noob...it does look like a suit hanging from a coathanger.
The question is about the anomaly of it being both a reflection and a presence outside the reflection interfering with the logic of the reflection.
Plus the evident fact that it is a deliberate action for some unknown reason.

abrilliantone
21-05-2013, 06:17 PM
Listen, if you want to beleive that photo, thats fine, i dont really care, but dont expect others with an ounce of sence to either. Im unsuscribing to this thread because its just getting silly now.


LOL :D I only asked that you prove your opinion. (since you felt so strongly about it) How can you say it's "photo shopped" then get "upset" when someone asks you to "prove" that it's been photo shopped. :(

njui
21-05-2013, 08:19 PM
The Monarchy is on Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/TheBritishMonarchy

I don't know if it is possible to ask them for a clarification or if they'd bother to respond, or even if members of the public can contact them .

ultimate_warlord
21-05-2013, 08:44 PM
The Monarchy is on Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/TheBritishMonarchy

I don't know if it is possible to ask them for a clarification or if they'd bother to respond, or even if members of the public can contact them .

And you think they`ll respond? And they`ll give you some kind of tinfoil explanation? On facebook???
They`re waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond our confines.
A moon landing you would find much easier to accomplish. LOL.

yass
21-05-2013, 08:54 PM
Annie Leibovitz is on Facebook too... https://www.facebook.com/AnnieLeibovitz ...without any contact details that I could see and it didn't look as if she chatted with anyone... and she's on Twitter... https://twitter.com/annieleibovitz ...but doesn't accept tweets (disabled) and hasn't tweeted though she has lots of followers.

She racked up $24 million in debt by 2009:

In 2000 Leibovitz was among the first group of Americans to be designated a Library of Congress Living Legend. Among the later publications of her work were American Music (2003); A Photographer’s Life: 1990–2005 (2006), which contained many images documenting Leibovitz’s personal life; and Annie Leibovitz at Work (2008). Leibovitz’s perfectionism in her work (budgets were exploded, and no expense was spared) and her celebrity-touched lifestyle had a role in producing a debt of $24 million, for which she was sued in 2009. The suit against her was settled, and the glare of publicity was deflected somewhat when her official portrait of the first family—Pres. Barack Obama, his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Sasha and Malia—was released to the public later that year. The photographer’s achievements were celebrated in Annie Leibovitz: Life Through a Lens (2009), a documentary film made for public television’s American Masters series by her sister Barbara. During her financial difficulties, Leibovitz began working on a personal project, photographing places and objects that were meaningful to her, and the images were collected in the book Pilgrimage (2011).

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/335335/Annie-Leibovitz


Obama family portrait in the green room by Annie Leibovitz
http://i.xomf.com/qgssx.jpg


ps - edit - I failed to mention that I was looking for an email address for Annie Leibovitz when I ran across this information.

bane
21-05-2013, 09:34 PM
I don't have anything profound to add just that when I first saw the shape in the mirror the first thing I thought of was a Silence from Doctor Who. The species/order who had manipulated humans throughout history.

cultofexperience
21-05-2013, 09:58 PM
That compositional nightmare of the obama family is supposed to exhibit more of her perfectionism? She's a privileged hack.

Sadly I cannot see the man in the queen photos on my cell phone.

abrilliantone
22-05-2013, 12:52 AM
Obama family portrait by Annie Leibovitz

http://i.xomf.com/qgssx.jpg


Damn it yass! Now you got me searching this photo for hidden shit. :D

yass
22-05-2013, 05:11 AM
Annie Leibovitz is on Facebook too... https://www.facebook.com/AnnieLeibovitz ...without any contact details that I could see and it didn't look as if she chatted with anyone... and she's on Twitter... https://twitter.com/annieleibovitz ...but doesn't accept tweets (disabled) and hasn't tweeted though she has lots of followers.

She racked up $24 million in debt by 2009:



http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/335335/Annie-Leibovitz


Obama family portrait in the green room by Annie Leibovitz
http://i.xomf.com/qgssx.jpg


ps - edit - I failed to mention that I was looking for an email address for Annie Leibovitz when I ran across this information.

Damn it yass! Now you got me searching this photo for hidden shit. :D

Haha... well, I didn't see anything in it but when I was looking again I noticed the shimmery wavelike patterns on the wall behind Barack and Sasha.

Reason I'm remarking is because on another picture of theirs I'd seen a couple days ago I noticed a shimmery pattern to the right kind of behind Malia. I'm still looking for that one.

Edit - I think this may be the one I was looking at. I'll sleep on it since I can't process now.

The thing about the shimmery pattern on the wall is that there have been two pictures of me, one when I was looking straight up at the sun when I was five, and one as an adult in which there was a shimmery wavelike pattern on the wall behind me. Outside I was sure it was due to the sun, well, light in both cases. I thought it was peculiar but interesting. I'm sure it had to do with light but I was thinking of vibration too.

I'd have to find the picture again, but in the meantime, I've encountered this one again in my search back through history. It doesn't say 'Red room' like the other said 'Green room' but Annie Leibovitz is the photographer.



http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1288462.1363278720!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/article-michelle15f-0314.jpg
First Lady Michelle Obama and President Barack Obama in the April 2013 issue of Vogue Magazine.
Photo Credit: Annie Leibovitz/ Vogue
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/michelle-obama-graces-vogue-cover-time-article-1.1288406

size_of_light
23-05-2013, 04:06 AM
Earlier in the thread I pointed out that the face cannot have been created by the chandelier hanging down in front of an ordinary person,
because the chandelier directly above the figure is only a reflection in the mirror behind it.

http://i44.tinypic.com/9s9hxy.jpg

And because the neck area of the figure clearly overlaps the shoulder of the coat and is therefore in front of it, the
'reflected-chandelier-behind-a-headless-coat-creating-the-illusion-of-a-reptilian-face' argument is also rendered invalid.

http://i42.tinypic.com/6xzpk8.jpg

Since the posts covering that, we've also seen video evidence of Leibovitz photographing the Queen standing
in the exact same position, with the exact same outfit, jewellery, gloves, draped fur, finger pose and facial
expression (right down to the glance over her left shoulder), that is seen in the final portrait.

Leibovitz took this photograph in front of a grey canvas backdrop.

http://i42.tinypic.com/346u62t.jpg

Without question, the background to the portrait, with the strange figure present, has been digitally added to
a separate foreground shot of the Queen.

Leibovitz herself recounted using this very process for another one of the portraits (Queen in the Boatman's cloak)
though in the same memoir suspiciously omitted any reference to the 'Mystery Figure' portrait at all, for seemingly
obvious reasons...

http://i44.tinypic.com/20f5n3r.jpg


Yet despite - or perhaps in tandem with - the co-ordinated effort to downplay the existence of this image by
Leibovitz and the Royals (who omitted only this portrait from the series of four when they were later officially
exhibited through the Royal Collection) there seems to have also been clues deliberately-planted in the public
arena to draw attention to it and what is really going on with all this.

For instance, when Leibovitz is seen in the Monarchy documentary, preparing for the Queen's portraits by
photographing an assistant reflected in a mirror behind her...

http://i40.tinypic.com/b4xdw4.jpg


...the composition turns out to be an unmistakable match with that of the finished Mystery Figure portrait...


http://i42.tinypic.com/34zizjp.jpg

If the Royals, Leibovitz and the BBC wanted to conceal from the public the creation and presence of this 'Mystery Figure'
in the finished portrait, then why was this isolated, 2 or 3-second shot - explicitly showing us what Leibovitz was planning to do -
included in the Monarchy documentary at all? When you watch the clip with the benefit of hindsight, its presence is conspicuous.

The only conclusion I can come to is that they want us to know, provided we're worthy, i.e. provided we're paying attention and take the time
to rationally eliminate the impossible (e.g. that it is the accidental reflection of an assistant with a chandelier obscuring the face), in order
to eventually arrive at the 'improbable', but true.

A demonstration of this journey through the maze of reason is to realise that once we know that the image of the Queen was
digitally imposed on a separate background photograph...

http://i39.tinypic.com/5z409d.jpg

...there's no longer any doubt that the Mystery Figure isn't a stray assistant accidentally caught in the reflection of the mirror
when the photograph was taken, because the background photograph must have been carefully composed, scrutinised and
perfected in post-production along with its foreground counterpart; it contains no glaring mistakes, and everything
within it appears the way it does intentionally.


http://i39.tinypic.com/1z4cnsn.gif

http://i41.tinypic.com/2yucd1f.gif

The Royals have explicitly told us the truth here, in the boldest and most unequivocal fashion possible.

Yet they also know that the majority of people have the attention spans of gnats, cannot be bothered following the
path of reason through to its logical and mind-blowing conclusion, and are thus, by self-definition, 'not worthy'
of knowing the truth.

Reality has been idiot-proofed.

abrilliantone
23-05-2013, 04:29 AM
http://i.imgur.com/3w1ej.gif


Bravo! size_of_light Bravo!

multiversal_quiver
23-05-2013, 06:14 AM
http://i39.tinypic.com/1z4cnsn.gif




That's the first time I've seen Liz flashing.

size_of_light
23-05-2013, 09:02 AM
Symbolism becoming clearer...


http://i41.tinypic.com/2yosepv.jpg


http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/royal-residences/british-royal-residences/buckingham-palace/



http://i43.tinypic.com/bhatqa.jpg



http://i44.tinypic.com/2yyxp1f.jpg

klara
23-05-2013, 09:07 AM
Very interesting size_of_light,
thank you.

size_of_light
23-05-2013, 11:39 AM
http://i44.tinypic.com/2yyxp1f.jpg

The secret door is revealed in this clip...

Queen Elizabeth's secret door and Katie Couric
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuvihYZ8Idg&feature=player_embedded



However this is as much as we get to see...



http://i42.tinypic.com/33jltdz.jpg


http://i42.tinypic.com/2vhve6q.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuvihYZ8Idg&feature=player_embedded


Still, it provides a useful visual aid for understanding the meaning behind the Mystery Figure portrait...


http://i42.tinypic.com/2di4xmc.jpg




The Royal Guide in the same clip also mentions a couple of other significant portraits taken in the White Drawing Room...




- Queen and Duke of Edinburgh's 50th Wedding Anniversary

http://i44.tinypic.com/17p9ua.jpg

^ Don't let the smiles blind you to the overwhelmingly dark and oppressive vibe of this image.
It looks like they're delivering a sermon at a Black Mass or working the Reception Desk in Hell.

Happy Anniversary!



- Prince William's christening...

http://i44.tinypic.com/33u5nr8.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/2nvebl.jpg

Might be worth examining a HD colour version of this one at some point, to see if anything sinister is lurking
in the details...







Jesus!!!!


http://i41.tinypic.com/2uzrz2w.jpg

"Drop it! Dropppp itttttt!!!!!"

ultimate_warlord
23-05-2013, 05:23 PM
http://i.imgur.com/3w1ej.gif


bravo! Size_of_light bravo!


+ 1 zillion.

ultimate_warlord
23-05-2013, 05:43 PM
The secret door is revealed in this clip...

Queen Elizabeth's secret door and Katie Couric
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuvihYZ8Idg&feature=player_embedded



However this is as much as we get to see...



http://i42.tinypic.com/33jltdz.jpg


http://i42.tinypic.com/2vhve6q.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuvihYZ8Idg&feature=player_embedded


Still, it provides a useful visual aid for our deepening understanding of the meaning behind the Mystery Figure portrait...


http://i42.tinypic.com/a163yu.jpg




The Royal Guide in the same clip also mentions a couple of other significant portraits taken in the White Drawing Room...




- Queen and Duke of Edinburgh's 50th Wedding Anniversary

http://i44.tinypic.com/17p9ua.jpg

^ Don't let the smiles blind you to the overwhelmingly dark and oppressive vibe of this image.
It looks like they're delivering a sermon at a Black Mass or working the Reception Desk in Hell.

Happy Anniversary!



- Prince William's christening...

http://i44.tinypic.com/33u5nr8.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/2nvebl.jpg

Might be worth examining a HD colour version of this one at some point, to see if anything sinister is lurking
in the details...




These two last photos of the christening were taken within half a second of each other.

Where is the lady Wotsername on the left in the blue dress in the top colour photo? She`s nowhere in the black and white version...
How did she vanish so quickly?

abrilliantone
23-05-2013, 06:02 PM
- Prince William's christening...

http://i44.tinypic.com/33u5nr8.jpg

Might be worth examining a HD colour version of this one at some point, to see if anything sinister is lurking
in the details...

You mean besides all of the "the hybrids" within it. :eek:

funkytt
23-05-2013, 06:36 PM
Excellent detective work "Size of light" . Ive been following this thread , and the "secret door" symbolisim is an interesting development.

I agree with what you say - "they want us to know, provided we're worthy".

Exactly the same as the symbolism at denver airport , its all there to see , for those who are PERCEPTIVE enough to decipher it

anon andon
23-05-2013, 10:33 PM
SOL you are a whizz, without doubt! Great stuff:D


I take it back about Annie though, She did the Obamas a credit, thats the most humane I have ever seen the first Lady, generally Michelle has these sinister vacant eyes, the kind that give you chills. So why was that not accomplished with the 'Queen' photos, why so dare I say Edgar Allen Poe-ish?;)

size_of_light
24-05-2013, 03:49 AM
( * Thanks to those with positive feedback; much appreciated * )



Here's another animation (may take a few moments to load) to help establish a sense of what lies beyond...

http://i41.tinypic.com/9ay7bd.gif

kiwi_
24-05-2013, 06:36 AM
These two last photos of the christening were taken within half a second of each other.

Where is the lady Wotsername on the left in the blue dress in the top colour photo? She`s nowhere in the black and white version...
How did she vanish so quickly?

Half a second? are you having a laugh. I guess being a reptile alien provides Diana with the power to move at lightning speed..

size_of_light
24-05-2013, 06:37 AM
These two last photos of the christening were taken within half a second of each other.

Where is the lady Wotsername on the left in the blue dress in the top colour photo? She`s nowhere in the black and white version...
How did she vanish so quickly?

That is curious.

Notice she's the only one who looks like she's truly happy to be there...

http://i41.tinypic.com/258tsvc.jpg

kiwi_
24-05-2013, 07:10 AM
Notice she's the only one who looks like she's truly happy to be there...


How do you know that she was truly happy and the other people also smiling in the pic weren't?

size_of_light
24-05-2013, 07:18 AM
How do you know that she was truly happy and the other people also smiling in the pic weren't?

I said: 'the only one who looks like she's truly happy...'

Everyone else looks like they're forcing a smile.

EDIT: Except for the Queen Mother, who always looks like she's on another planet.

kblood
24-05-2013, 07:18 AM
Tis not easy being royal.

I am a mysterious controller btw :D

brokenshadow
24-05-2013, 08:38 AM
Great work on this. Nice to see some genuine anomaly for a change, not just various interpretations of conditions. Clearly there is a figure there, deliberately embedded for effect.
To my eye it appears to be a representation of Baphomet. If you google the images you will see it usually presented with a light coming from the center of its head. This seems in keeping with the construction of the image and appropriate in terms of the premise.
Interesting to know if the chandelier is naturally positioned or has been digitally moved to fall to the middle of the figures head.

ultimate_warlord
24-05-2013, 11:29 AM
Half a second? are you having a laugh. I guess being a reptile alien provides Diana with the power to move at lightning speed..


How do you know that she was truly happy and the other people also smiling in the pic weren't?

You need to get a better hobby mate. You`re no star debater that`s for sure.
Like birdwatching, crocwrestling, sheepshagging or any of that other shit they do in NZ.

kiwi_
24-05-2013, 12:18 PM
Why so mad, because I pointed out how retarded your post was?

size_of_light
24-05-2013, 12:49 PM
To my eye it appears to be a representation of Baphomet. If you google the images you will see it usually
presented with a light coming from the center of its head. This seems in keeping with the construction
of the image and appropriate in terms of the premise.


A bit like this?


(Slow-loading animation...)


http://i39.tinypic.com/2s0h8b7.gif

Naturally it's not a direct match with the Eliphas Lévi image, but there's enough of a sense there for me
to see where you're coming from in thinking there could be a connection.

Interesting to know if the chandelier is naturally positioned or has been digitally moved to fall to the middle of the
figures head.

Good observation, I hadn't thought of the chandelier being re-positioned to represent something like that.

I suspect it has been digitally-moved, if only to create an element of 'plausible deniability' about the figure's
bizarre appearance; anyone who finds it too confronting can still sleep at night by deludedly assuring themselves
it's just an illusion created by the chandelier.

But now that you mention it, it does makes sense that they might disguise horns and headgear within the patterns
too.


http://i40.tinypic.com/19ocx.jpg


Who knows, but it looks to me like an 'all-seeing eye' was possibly painted into the detail above the Mystery Figure's
head, and if so, that could have been done to match the same feature on some representations of Baphomet...


http://i42.tinypic.com/fy34hc.jpg





Might just be my imagination, but I've got a nagging sensation I've seen the face of the figure depicted verbatim
elsewhere, which is possible if Leibovitz's team photoshopped a pre-existing image from a statue or a painting
of a naga or whatever into the work.

A real photo of something like a Komodo Dragon as the basis, perhaps?

http://i44.tinypic.com/33v28p1.gif

blister
24-05-2013, 01:11 PM
Great thread. SOL, in the post where you compared the Annie/Beaton shots, it seems to me that if you discount that Lizzie is looking at the shadowy guy - which did not quite click with me in the first pace anyway as I thought her gaze would have been slightly more to the left if that was the case (IMHO) - her gaze does directly link up with whatever young Lizzie is looking off screen at.

Can you tell from what you know of the room if there is anything significant that would line up with the sight line from those two pictures?

size_of_light
24-05-2013, 02:04 PM
Great thread. SOL, in the post where you compared the Annie/Beaton shots, it seems to me that if you discount that
Lizzie is looking at the shadowy guy - which did not quite click with me in the first pace anyway as I thought her gaze
would have been slightly more to the left if that was the case (IMHO) - her gaze does directly link up with whatever
young Lizzie is looking off screen at.

Hi blister, good thinking.

Let's take a look...

http://i41.tinypic.com/65s7s7.jpg

Can you tell from what you know of the room if there is anything significant that would line up with the sight line
from those two pictures?

These are screenshots of the room from the Virtual Tour website ( http://www.royal.gov.uk/virtualtours/2013/BuckinghamPalace/VirtualTour/white-drawing-room.html )...

http://i44.tinypic.com/24y7n09.jpg


http://i42.tinypic.com/ajlz43.jpg


They seem to be glancing at this fireplace, which looks somewhat innocuous...

http://i42.tinypic.com/33w5n2e.jpg



Maybe something to do with the vases?


http://i39.tinypic.com/ziq9t1.jpg

jdeadevil
24-05-2013, 02:23 PM
Tis not easy being royal.

I am a mysterious controller btw :D

Mystery solved! Now let's all go home and enjoy a nice cold drink at my place. That's right Scooby-Doo, you're fired, we don't need you anymore.

I highly doubt there's a fully transformed reptilian in that mirror, no matter how much JFK-style investigation you guys do.

klara
24-05-2013, 03:53 PM
That is curious.

Notice she's the only one who looks like she's truly happy to be there...


fairy godmother?

yass
24-05-2013, 03:54 PM
All I could find was a thumb at first through reverse image search at TinEye using your b&w from the thread. Since this one is unique for all the characters in it I enlarged it just a tad.

I did have, and dropped the image you also came up with. Those purplish colors in the dresses are not true, it's more blue.



http://i.xomf.com/kzzsk.jpg



http://i.xomf.com/wccnj.jpg



http://i.xomf.com/vfzlw.jpg


1600x963
http://i.xomf.com/yjcmf.jpg



Diana tucks some fingers out of sight here
http://i.xomf.com/fgpzm.jpg


1600x1123
http://i.xomf.com/vfzlw.jpg




http://i.xomf.com/drshy.jpg



http://i.xomf.com/vpnqx.jpg

2408x3500
http://i.xomf.com/rkhnn.jpg

yass
24-05-2013, 04:11 PM
I'm hoping the larger screen shot below will work. The high res is just too big (for my purposes). I did want the image to be big enough to view some details better. I want to note their hands. Hands are often interesting among the bloodlines.

I found the picture of Obama and Lech at the bottom of this post just after I'd posted another like it in a post here, and before I dismantled it I put the image into a TinEye reverse image search and it came up with one result.

I thought Obama's fingers were mottled in the red room picture (Annie Leibovitz):

http://i.xomf.com/pxlyk.jpg


But then I realized it was only sunshine (it seems) and so I edited out what I'd posted, including the following image showing some very odd looking fingers.

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww114/unfathomable_album/Obama-and-Lech-Kaczynski-shake-hand.jpg

http://www.bittenandbound.com/2010/04/10/polish-president-plane-crash-lech-laczynski-killed-photos-video/obama-and-lech-kaczynski-shake-hands/


http://i.xomf.com/hsyxy.jpg


1600x963
http://i.xomf.com/yjcmf.jpg


Diana
http://i.xomf.com/dynyd.jpghttp://i.xomf.com/nmqls.jpg


Queen Elizabeth II
http://i.xomf.com/rnqvb.jpg


Queen Mother
http://i.xomf.com/bywqb.jpg


Phillip
http://i.xomf.com/nvhwk.jpg


Charles
http://i.xomf.com/qvjsd.jpg


Obama and Lech
http://i.xomf.com/hczlx.jpg

njui
24-05-2013, 04:15 PM
how cum there are only princes n no kings around? Prince challs, prince willy, prince harry, prince phoilips???

:eek:

yass
24-05-2013, 04:33 PM
how cum there are only princes n no kings around? Prince challs, prince willy, prince harry, prince phoilips???

:eek:

Just because. Blame it on the moon ;)


David Cameron says Queen will never abdicate

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02238/ELECTION-Lead-2025_2238072b.jpg

The Prime Minister said it was “out of the question” for the Queen to abdicate and pass the crown to either the Prince of Wales or the Duke of Cambridge.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/the_queens_diamond_jubilee/9308914/Diamond-Jubilee-David-Cameron-says-Queen-will-never-abdicate.html

size_of_light
24-05-2013, 11:54 PM
Hands are often interesting among the bloodlines.

http://i.xomf.com/pxlyk.jpg

http://i.xomf.com/hczlx.jpg

Secret societies are big on hand gestures, so it's perfectly plausible that they might alter images of hands to communicate
esoteric messages to others in the know.

http://i44.tinypic.com/bhgnbr.jpg

It would be easy to fake these light and shade effects in Photoshop, and virtually no one is ever going to suspect anything
is going on, let alone try to argue that it is.

Whether or not that's the case with these images, it's a good example of how easily photos can be altered to embed
hidden symbolism under the cover of 'plausible deniability.'

size_of_light
25-05-2013, 02:55 AM
http://i40.tinypic.com/2mi2oa9.jpg
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2007/06/queen-elizabeth-200706



So this...



http://i40.tinypic.com/30uwrcx.jpg



...was commissioned to 'honor' her impending visit to Jamestown, Virginia, England's first permanent
settlement in America (Virginia was named after Queen Elizabeth 1, 'The Virgin Queen', incidentally).

Weird.

Well did any weird occult happenings take place in Virginia between the taking of this weird occult photograph
of the Queen on March 28th and the commencement of her 6-day tour of the area on May 3rd?

http://i40.tinypic.com/33c5d02.jpg




http://i41.tinypic.com/24cz69c.jpg




The Virginia Tech Massacre took place 19 days after the Queen's Portrait was created to honour her visit to
the state the massacre would occur in 17 days before her arrival.

In other words, the worst mass murder event in US history up until that time, happened in Virginia almost
exactly between two major Royal events also centered on Virginia.




http://i39.tinypic.com/2uqivj9.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2007/05/03/queen-trip.html



Mere coincidence?

Or cohesive elements in an over-arching occult satanic ritual?


http://i42.tinypic.com/de607t.jpg



You be the judge.


http://i39.tinypic.com/b96rlk.jpg

yass
25-05-2013, 04:14 AM
That makes sense sol. I suppose there are other hand pictures that are odd and have less to do with color.


http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt312/yassx/ScreenShot012-34.jpg
http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt312/yassx/ScreenShot065-6.jpg


http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt312/yassx/2886624592_de327023b1_m.jpg

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt312/yassx/mo2-1.jpg



Sometimes other body parts

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt312/yassx/ScreenShot017.jpg


http://z1.ifrm.com/2505/120/0/p1021921/ScreenShot003.jpg
http://i.xomf.com/pbvjw.jpg

Hehe.




Interestingly, there was an intriguing article about Queen Elizabeth I.

http://z1.ifrm.com/2505/120/0/p1028381/liz1.jpg

This portrait depicts Queen Elizabeth in a maternity dress, raising the distinct possibility that the "Virgin Queen" bore children, namely Francis Bacon. A mysterious sonnet speaking of "a just complaint to the unjust" is found on the lower right side. The painting is on display at Hampton Court, south of London.


Interesting story:

http://s3.zetaboards.com/For_My_Jee/topic/7576597/1/#new




There is a mysterious story about the real first colony in Roanoke, Virginia, from which the inhabitants disappeared.


The real first English settlement in the New World: the lost colony of Roanoke

In 1584, more than twenty years before Jamestown, Sir Walter Raleigh planted a hundred or so men on Roanoke Island, off the North Carolina coast. Raleigh's men toughed it out for a year before all but fifteen of them caught a ride back to England with Sir Francis Drake. A return expedition in 1587 brought more colonists, this time with women and children, led by the artist John White. (Soon after arrival, White's daughter delivered the first English child born in the Americas.) White himself returned to England for still more settlers and supplies, but a certain Spanish Armada interfered with his return trip, and when English ships finally returned to Roanoke in 1590, the colony's ninety men, seventeen women, and eleven children had vanished without a trace. Or almost without a trace: the word "CROATOAN" was famously carved into the bark of a tree near the lost colony's gate.

A secret code had been worked out, that should they leave Roanoke Island, they were to carve their new location on a conspicuous tree or post. If the move had to be made because of an attack, either by Indians or Spaniards, they were to carve over the letters or name a distress signal in the form of a Maltese cross.

Three years to the month later, White returned to find the word ''Croatoan'' without any cross or other sign of distress. To this day, no one is certain were the lost colony went, or what happened to them.

The idea occurred to me when reading this over, to put the word ''Croatoan'' into an anagram server to see if anything of possible significance might show up.

The result that caught my eye is "Corona At".

Of course, we know of the corona around the sun, a type of plasma "atmosphere" of the Sun or other celestial body, and is best seen during a total solar eclipse, but what we might not know is that the Latin root of the word corona means crown.

Croatoan > At Corona > At Crown

http://s3.zetaboards.com/For_My_Jee/topic/7524094/1/#new



I saw a headline a couple days ago saying there was cannibalism at Jamestown. I never looked at it but searched for it today.

Excavated skull suggests Jamestown colonists resorted to cannibalism

Gruesome archaeological evidence has emerged revealing how some of the first settlers of America survived a period of famine. The vicious winter of 1609, dubbed the Starving Time by historians, saw the colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, who had consumed every scrap of food in the settlement, turn to cannibalism. When help and supplies finally arrived the following spring, only 60 of the original 300 settlers were still alive. The skull of a 14-year-old girl, excavated last year from a rubbish dump at James Fort, has revealed a mass of cut marks, at first tentative, then fiercely smashing the skull apart to extract the brain and other soft tissue for food.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/01/jamestown-cannibals-skull-excavated

additional link

Skeleton of teenage girl confirms cannibalism at Jamestown colony

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-01/national/38945390_1_leg-bone-cannibalism-skull

torus
25-05-2013, 04:22 AM
http://i42.tinypic.com/de607t.jpg

You be the judge.


"Look at you....Dick. Snivelling Dick."

klara
25-05-2013, 04:48 AM
Jesus!

Just went to the story of the 14 y old tenager and cannibalism, and Google Ads put in it an ad about gourmet kitchen. With people eating. :eek:
Weird sense of humour from syncronicity.

yass
25-05-2013, 05:21 AM
Jesus!

Just went to the story of the 14 y old tenager and cannibalism, and Google Ads put in it an ad about gourmet kitchen. With people eating. :eek:
Weird sense of humour from syncronicity.

Ad-sense. It picks up words from the subject and inserts ads relating to the word, in this case "eating".

The first time I noticed it I'd posted about h202 hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen peroxide ads started appearing.

torus
25-05-2013, 05:24 AM
Jesus!

Just went to the story of the 14 y old tenager and cannibalism, and Google Ads put in it an ad about gourmet kitchen. With people eating. :eek:
Weird sense of humour from syncronicity.

I post on the holocaust denial thread and I get a google ad encouraging me to visit Israel and that "you'll never be the same!"

No doubt.

size_of_light
25-05-2013, 05:56 AM
140 miles north west of the site of the Virginia Tech Massacre in Blacksburg, lies the town of Point Pleasant...



http://i40.tinypic.com/2w2ik9d.jpg


Cryptid enthusiasts will recognise this as the stomping ground of the 'Mothman', that infamous 'otherworldly entity'
that allegedly stalked the area in 1966/67 during a flap of sightings by locals that is said to have intensified and
climaxed immediately prior to the collapse of Point Pleasant's Silver Bridge, on December 16, 1967. This tragedy
took the lives of 46 people.

http://i40.tinypic.com/rkosgo.jpg

The below image was said by one of those who allegedly encountered the entity to have
succeeded in almost perfectly capturing the essence of its appearance, particularly the hypnotic
power of it's glowing red eyes.

http://i39.tinypic.com/w12q95.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/fbapvs.jpg


Anyhow, there is a theory that the Mothman is some kind of supernatural angel of death, or omen, and that its appearance
in connection with particular places is a portent of impending tragedy in those areas. Chernobyl, immediately prior to the
1986 reactor meltdown, is an example of one such place where Mothman is said to have made an appearance, to either
warn of, or rejoice in, the coming disaster.

So with all that in mind, and given Point Pleasant's relative proximity to Blacksburg, where the Viriginia Tech Massacre
/psy-op/sacrifice was perpetrated, I thought it was worth speculating on there being a possible connection between
the figure in the Queen's portrait and the Mothman.

The figure did 'show up' immediately prior to the Tech Massacre tragedy,and is linked to it via the Queen, who visited
the area of the shootings and 'consoled' the victims in the direct aftermath.

Who knows?

There is a guy named Andy Colvin, who promotes himself as 'The Mothman Photographer' and who claims to have taken
the only photo in existence of the Mothman (background thread here:http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69886),
which is allegedly seen peering in through the window behind Colvin in this image taken in Point Pleasant in 1973.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2igylcp.jpg

In the OP to the thread on Colvin linked to above, I said:

Even more interesting to me than (the photo), is Andy Colvin's blog:

http://www.andycolvin.com/wordpress/

I found it to be a thought-provoking read that explains Colvin's personal
involvement in the case, and expounds on Hindu Mythology, MIBs, black ops,
hyperdimensional beings, Union Carbide and the events that transpired at
Point Pleasant back in 66/67, linking them all together to present
some fascinating tentative theories and speculations on what might really lie
behind the whole bizarre tale of the Mothman.

Unfortunately that blog has since been deleted, and I wasn't able to find the information from it repeated anywhere else online.

I think Colvin still does the odd internet radio show detailing his theories and experiences but I haven't tracked any of them
down.

Might be worth doing at some point, because, from memory, the information on all this really was so amazingly weird that if even
half of it turned out to be true then it would probably be more surprising if the Queen's portrait wasn't somehow connected with
the Mothman...

http://i39.tinypic.com/2gt5450.jpg

size_of_light
25-05-2013, 08:14 AM
Same theme in all four images:

http://i43.tinypic.com/xcj6sh.jpg

- A human being controlled from behind by an unseen reptilian entity.


Interesting how similar the faces of this entity are in the two official representations...

http://i41.tinypic.com/23k7y2p.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/2lwnm93.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/34zxg9i.gif

yass
25-05-2013, 08:43 AM
I remember that thread and picture and the minute I laid eyes on it I thought of that figure in the queen's picture. It's that big snout.

I tried the wayback machine with the link to the blog, and I couldn't get beyond March 37, 2010 because it redirected to Amazon beyond that.

Here is his last paragraph in his Mothman post:

Like the Mothman Death Curse, which seems designed to make people NOT look closely at the actual prophecies of Mothman (and perhaps find clues leading back to the Church, State, and/or owners of media outlets favorable to cryptozoology), the Copycat Theory seems designed to keep people from looking closely at mass mind control, for the same reason.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100327214912/http://www.andycolvin.com/wordpress/


I did just a little searching around. There is a yahoo group hosted by Andy Colvin but it looks like it died. I can't access the contents unless I'm a member.

Description

This is a group for Mothman researchers, witnesses, and friends hosted by Andy Colvin, a West Virginia witness from 1966. Andy is an artist/photographer who has written 5 books on Mothman. Artist Colvin adopted an ethnographic approach to this research after he studied with likes of UT Austin professors Mark Goodman (documentary photographer), Louis Black (film scholar), and Steven Feld (famed anthropologist). The "new" ethnography involves mitigating the impact of the observer through subjective awareness. Colvin has personal experience with the Garuda of Buddhism, the angels of Christiandom, the Thunderbird of the NW Coast Indians, and the Katchina/Phoenix of the Pueblo Indians. He also studied with Marshall Univ. journalism professor Ralph Turner, who originally reported on Mothman, and with the brilliant scholar Linda Schele, who broke the Mayan code.

In this group we cover Mothman, UFOs, abductees, contactees, MIBs, the Garuda, Thunderbird, Sasquatch (particularly the flying interdimensional type), Freemasonary, Montauk, Crowley, Charles Manson, ESP, The Philadelphia Experiment, telepathy, precognitions, conspiracies, mind control, "What the Bleep?," and other technologies involving the physics of consciousness. Since Mothman may actually be an archetypal, shapeshifting deity involved in a process of synchronous information-sharing, the sky is really the limit.

Mothman seems to be able to leave clues about any part of the global crime octopus, or any part of your personal life. While other paranormal groups tend to either avoid conspiracy theory or go way overboard on it, we gently embrace it, acknowledging that there is indeed a real and ancient supernatural force impacting our reality. According to the sages, this force can unlock our human potential. Plus it is a great way to avoid global catastrophe.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mothmans_photographer/


He seems to have dropped off the radar in the last couple of years.


He has a youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/mothphotog?feature=watch) to which he's uploaded 15 videos. I was surprised to see 3 that were posted 5 months ago. I was curious and listened to one titled Warning to John Keel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJhM5EdGT7k



It is totally bizarre, it's only audio, and I don't think it's Andy Colvin speaking.

yass
25-05-2013, 09:15 AM
Also, got this from flickr. Where it gives options to see small medium large or original I chose original thinking it may not be as large as the large but it would be original, but what I ended up with is huge, 2 MB, 2448x3264, and ...sideways.

http://i.xomf.com/bkzkc.jpg

intel_33
25-05-2013, 12:36 PM
I'm sick of this forum being used as a dumping ground for worthless rubbish.

Next time people call you a kook or a weirdo 'conspiracy theorist' because you believe 9-11 was an inside job you can thank people like the OP who discredit the whole area with crazy looney talk.



Some of this stuff is actually trolls and cointel-pro agents at work by the way..... It's the turd in the punch-bowl approach.

This is turning into a bad joke.

Why are people supporting this idiocy?

And why is noone challenging it?

To me, this thread looks like one big cointel-pro disinformation operation.


Where do you stand in regards to the existence of extradimensional and/or reptilian entities then?



I said: 'the only one who looks like she's truly happy...'

Everyone else looks like they're forcing a smile.

EDIT: Except for the Queen Mother, who always looks like she's on another planet.


BTW I reckon Charles looks like he's thinking about banging Camilla in that shot you are talking about.




http://i41.tinypic.com/35aw5kn.jpg


Damn, she was kinda hot!

she could hold my sceptre any time looking like that.

Hate me all you want (same goes for bluefog302) but you can't deny she got big 'uns.

Apologies for the derail, proceed. :cool:

size_of_light
25-05-2013, 02:21 PM
That makes sense sol. I suppose there are other hand pictures that are odd and have less to do with color.

Yep, for sure. The one with Michelle Obama at the podium minus her hand looks particularly freaky.

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt312/yassx/2886624592_de327023b1_m.jpg

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt312/yassx/mo2-1.jpg

I'm wondering if an explanation for some of these kinds of pictures might be that digital editors are altering small details as pranks, or to amuse themselves, in the same way that Disney animators slipped occasional sex subliminals into family cartoons.

Then again, 'innocent prank' is probably just a cover story Disney concocted once their subliminals were exposed, and similarly these news images with difficult to explain anomalies are more likely put out for much more complex and sinister reasons.

Interestingly, there was an intriguing article about Queen Elizabeth I.

http://z1.ifrm.com/2505/120/0/p1028381/liz1.jpg

There is a mysterious story about the real first colony in Roanoke, Virginia, from which the inhabitants disappeared.

http://s3.zetaboards.com/For_My_Jee/topic/7524094/1/#new


Very interesting info there yass - I was looking for something on the occult history of Jamestown and your link has it all...

Less reputable historians have pushed the Roanoke story further. For my man Kenneth Hite (writing in jest) and Peter Lamborn Wilson (writing in earnest), Roanoke was a magickal working by the occult imperialists of the School of Nght, an alleged circle of Elizabethan atheists and adepts said to include Raleigh, poet Christopher Marlowe, magus John Dee, and how great is this one Lord Fernando Strange. Shakespeare's The Tempest, Wilson says, was propaganda for their imperial aims. The lost colony, Hite proposes, represented an "alchemical marriage" between the "Red King" Powhatan and the "White Queen" Elizabeth to establish a Golden Empire. "The Old World can keep its maternally-inclined wolves and its giant-killing Trojan refugees," Hite writes. "Occult conspirators built the United States on a foundation of High Weirdness indeed."

http://s3.zetaboards.com/For_My_Jee/topic/7524094/1/#new


The idea occurred to me when reading this over, to put the word ''Croatoan'' into an anagram server to see if anything of possible significance might show up.

The result that caught my eye is "Corona At".

Of course, we know of the corona around the sun, a type of plasma "atmosphere" of the Sun or other celestial body, and is best seen during a total solar eclipse, but what we might not know is that the Latin root of the word corona means crown.

Croatoan > At Corona > At Crown

That is a strange...'coincidence.'

I saw a headline a couple days ago saying there was cannibalism at Jamestown. I never looked at it but searched for it today.

It's starting to sound like the kind of place that should be honored with a portrait of an inter-dimensional boogeyman! :eek:

size_of_light
25-05-2013, 03:21 PM
Here is his last paragraph in his Mothman post:


Like the Mothman Death Curse, which seems designed to make people NOT look closely at the actual prophecies of Mothman (and perhaps find clues leading back to the Church, State, and/or owners of media outlets favorable to cryptozoology), the Copycat Theory seems designed to keep people from looking closely at mass mind control, for the same reason.
http://web.archive.org/web/201003272...com/wordpress/


I did just a little searching around. There is a yahoo group hosted by Andy Colvin but it looks like it died. I can't access the contents unless I'm a member.


Description

This is a group for Mothman researchers, witnesses, and friends hosted by Andy Colvin, a West Virginia witness from 1966. Andy is an artist/photographer who has written 5 books on Mothman. Artist Colvin adopted an ethnographic approach to this research after he studied with likes of UT Austin professors Mark Goodman (documentary photographer), Louis Black (film scholar), and Steven Feld (famed anthropologist). The "new" ethnography involves mitigating the impact of the observer through subjective awareness. Colvin has personal experience with the Garuda of Buddhism, the angels of Christiandom, the Thunderbird of the NW Coast Indians, and the Katchina/Phoenix of the Pueblo Indians. He also studied with Marshall Univ. journalism professor Ralph Turner, who originally reported on Mothman, and with the brilliant scholar Linda Schele, who broke the Mayan code.

In this group we cover Mothman, UFOs, abductees, contactees, MIBs, the Garuda, Thunderbird, Sasquatch (particularly the flying interdimensional type), Freemasonary, Montauk, Crowley, Charles Manson, ESP, The Philadelphia Experiment, telepathy, precognitions, conspiracies, mind control, "What the Bleep?," and other technologies involving the physics of consciousness. Since Mothman may actually be an archetypal, shapeshifting deity involved in a process of synchronous information-sharing, the sky is really the limit.

Mothman seems to be able to leave clues about any part of the global crime octopus, or any part of your personal life. While other paranormal groups tend to either avoid conspiracy theory or go way overboard on it, we gently embrace it, acknowledging that there is indeed a real and ancient supernatural force impacting our reality. According to the sages, this force can unlock our human potential. Plus it is a great way to avoid global catastrophe.


Great job! The yahoo group description is awesome, too bad it's inactive.

He has a youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/mothphotog?feature=watch) to which he's uploaded 15 videos. I was surprised to see 3 that were posted 5 months ago. I was curious and listened to one titled Warning to John Keel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJhM5EdGT7k



It is totally bizarre, it's only audio, and I don't think it's Andy Colvin speaking.

Damn. Bizarre is the right word for it. A little unnerving too.

The clip description says...

Given on 11/30/67 by the Int'l Bankers. Read by Apol.

...and the speaker refers to 1968 as the upcoming year, so I'm thinking this might be an original recording John Keel made back in 1967 of one of the many bizarrre phone calls he received while in Point Pleasant investigating the Mothman.

I kinda want to make a transcript of what the voice says, but I'm also a little reluctant to listen to that insanity again :D

For anyone interested, Colvin himself appears in the clip below.

Same guy as the teenager seen in the Mothman photo from '73.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2anipi.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6cyjcX_2go

Did anyone else catch a fairly obscure story that did the alternative rounds a few months back from a youtube user who contacted the account of Indrid Cold (the name used by the very mysterious - polite, but intimidating - otherworldly entity who played a key role in the Mothman mystery)?

The Indrid Cold user replied with a series of profound and enigmatic messages that included private information about this guy that nobody else could have known?

Might have been a hoax but the unusual precision and quality of Cold's written replies and the profound information contained within them, along with the relative obscurity of the story itself lent support in my mind to the sense that it was at least a little more more sophisticated a situation than just a case of somebody making the whole thing up.

Will have to dig it out again if no one else knows of it or has a link.

For anyone game, here's the account of this (real?) Indrid Cold...


http://i40.tinypic.com/53mwwm.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHbe6nSFxqFjgP4u5iHIH_g

- Consider yourself forewarned before plunging in and opening up lines of communication with this...fella..., because I seem to recall that the guy who did it ended up pretty freaked out by the whole experience and wanted nothing more to do with him.

size_of_light
25-05-2013, 04:08 PM
BTW I reckon Charles looks like he's thinking about banging Camilla in that shot you are talking about.

What exactly are the lecherous-looking couple in the background doing or suggesting to Charles at this moment?

http://i43.tinypic.com/35d2bo8.jpg


Damn, she was kinda hot!

she could hold my sceptre any time looking like that.

And a qualified mechanic too!

Charlene from Neighbours eat your heart out.

size_of_light
26-05-2013, 12:36 AM
Re: Andy Colvin...

Haven't listened to this yet but it sounds interesting.

Higherside Chats 43: Mothman, Mind Control & Corporate Conspiracies of West Virginia w Andrew Colvin

Greg Carlwood and new occasional co-host Adam Gorightly are joined by author, artist, and West Virginia resident, Andrew Colvin for an extended discussion on the strange phenomena known as ‘The Mothman,” the history of the powerful elite’s corporate playground in West Virginia, and the various types of mind control memes used by the media. Bring some breadcrumbs and prepare to go deep.

http://i40.tinypic.com/33c4vhl.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WPtxZT-jDFs


..particularly the bit about "the history of the powerful elite’s corporate playground in West Virginia."

size_of_light
26-05-2013, 03:35 AM
So the Queen commissioned a portrait of herself posing alongside a reptilian-looking humanoid entity in honour
of her visit to Virginia - 36 days later - where she would meet victims of the worst mass murder in US history,
which was set to take place in 19 days time.

http://i42.tinypic.com/a5fbc8.jpg




Given the intertwined nature of this situation, let's hunt for more clues in the town of Blacksburg, scene of the
Virginia Tech Massacre...



Google Earth Censors the "Butt Mountain" Darpa Facility in Blacksburg Virginia


http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/140607_darpa_blacksburg.html

Matt Kazee / TheTruthMovement.net | June 14, 2007


On Saturday June 9th, 2007 Matthew Kazee called in to the Alex Ansary show to discuss the Underground DARPA base in Blacksburg Virginia. For years there have been rumors that hidden away in in Blacksburg was a top secret underground DARPA base where research was done on many things including robotics, chips for humans so they can control computers with their mind, and chips for computers to control people's minds.

The rumors broke nationally from a woman by the name of Cathy O'Brien who wrote a book in 1995 called "Trance-Formation of America", in which she claimed that Bill Clinton was a partner with George Bush Sr. in a drug smuggling operation that was exposed in the Iran Contra Affair, and later proved by former D.E.A. Cele Castillo. It involved smuggling guns to the Contra's in exchange for cocaine which was air lifted by the C.I.A. in C-130 airplanes to the small town of Mena, Arkansas while Bill Clinton was Governor. O'Brien claimed that they had a plan to bring in a "new world order" and after people got tired of Republicans that Bill Clinton would be President. This was decided in 1984.

She also claims she was a victim of the M.K. Ultra Program in Blacksburg Virginia in a underground DARPA base located in "Butt Mountain". The strangest quote I read that Cathy O'Brien said was "Virginia Tech is good for two things, engineering and mind control." and that "most of the east coast M.K. Ultra Mind Control experiments happened in this DARPA facility." This was written in 1995, the same year that a plane crashed in to the White House on September 11 in an attempt to kill President Clinton.

There is only one problem with her claims-- Butt Mountain is not in Blacksburg. Internet searches seem to point to the Kimballton mine that is located inside Butt Mountain at Pearisburg, Virginia. So why did she say Blacksburg? The 7000ft deep mine is 30 minutes from Blacksburg. I set out to see if this story had any legs. I was shocked at what I found.

After a few weeks of searching and talking to locals, I heard plenty of rumors that sounded more like urban legends. I started hearing that it might be located at the Arsenal in Radford Virginia.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2woj0ol.jpg

I talked to a vet who did 3 tours in Iraq, and he said that the military didn't guard the Arsenal anymore, it was all security guards. So I started looking elsewhere. I looked into the real Butt Mountain in Giles and it seemed so logical. It just seemed to be a mine, from all indicators.

I went to Google Earth to have a look at Butt Mountain from satellite to see if there was any sign of a military base on the surface. I found nothing. I looked around Mountain Lake every mountain along 460 into Blacksburg and again I found nothing. Thinking the O'Brien story was an urban legend, I decided to try one last search. Even though I know that Butt Mountain is not even in the same county as Blacksburg, I typed in to the Google Earth search bar "Butt Mountain Blacksburg Virginia" and was amazing to see the camera fly away from the Kimballton mine in Pearisburg and drop down in the middle of Blacksburg. A marker just off of 460 came up saying "Butt Mountain Blacksburg Virginia: the proposed site for DUSEL Deep Underground Science Engineering Laboratory"

Was it possible that there were two Butt Mountains? I couldn't believe my eyes. I called a friend into the room who witnessed the site in Blacksburg just 5-10 minutes from Virginia Tech. He was amazed to see the marker for the DUSEL in Blacksburg because he knew that Butt Mountain was miles away.

The next day I broke the story on the Alex Ansary show and explained how to find the Butt Mountain in Blacksburg that Cathy O'Brien must have been talking about. It was easy-- all you had to do was go to Google Earth and type in "Butt Mountain Blacksburg Virginia" and anyone could see it with their own eyes. I also posted this information on Alex Jones, Paul Watson and Steve Watson's myspace page.

On Sunday as I was diving to Plainfield, New Hampshire to interview Ed and Elaine Brown, I called in to the Alex Jones show on KLBJ to discuss the Brown stand off and to tell Alex about the google earth discovery so that millions could can see it for themselves.

Now Google Earth has officially censored the search phase "Butt Mountain Blacksburg Virginia". That search now shows no results. I must have hit the hot button. If there is nothing to hide then why censor it so quickly? None of my previous search phrases work anymore. Like a reporter should, I started trying different searches. I found what I was looking for and with "Kimballton Mine Blacksburg Virginia" and "DUSEL Blacksburg" it takes you to exactly where I saw the tag for Butt Mountain Blacksburg, only now it says this: DEEP UNDERGROUND SCIENCE ENGINEERING LABORATORY.

This raises some serious questions. Why did a search for Butt Mountain Blacksburg Virginia go 30 minutes away from the real Butt Mountain into Blacksburg? If this was nothing to hide why did Google Earth censor the entry shortly after I talked about it on National Radio? Why does a search for Kimballton Mine go to Virginia Tech instead of the real Kimballton Mine? Why is there no marker for the DUSEL or Kimballton Mine at the real site in Google Earth. It was time to get some answers to what is at the marker in Blacksburg that Google has censored?

I drove out to the marker yesterday and didn't see much so I went back to find satellite pictures of that area. Here is what I saw when I did my search for "Butt Mountain Blacksburg Virginia".

http://i39.tinypic.com/33wtwf4.jpg

Why did they censor the search phrase of "Butt Mountain Blacksburg Virgina"?

Let's zoom in and have a look

Let's have a look at what Google Earth now calls DUSEL Redistribution Laboratory

http://i41.tinypic.com/5lrqte.jpg

Now here is the satellite images of what's in the area

http://i42.tinypic.com/2u9hc8n.jpg

Doesn't look like much, let's zoom in and have a closer look at the area.

http://i40.tinypic.com/dma4xs.jpg

A baseball field and parking lot was the first thing I noticed. A parking lot leads to a back section with buildings and cars. Let's look closer.

http://i44.tinypic.com/zmzarr.jpg

In this shot we see a playground on the bottom and a fence that separates the back area with buildings and cars. Steps can be seen in the top corner to a white building diagonally across from the playground.

http://i39.tinypic.com/8vrl77.jpg

That is the playground with 2 slides beside the baseball field. Let's see what's behind the fence and what Google Earth wont show you.

http://i39.tinypic.com/ejymmc.jpg

The corner of the slides can be seen in the bottom left corner. Behind the fence is what looks like another playground only its a SWAT training facility. Where the local special forces train to sweep buildings and shoot cars. There is a building in the top center with no roof. Cars that can be seen are used in drills. A firing range can be seen in the top left.


http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/140607_darpa_blacksburg.html


(continued in next post....)

size_of_light
26-05-2013, 03:40 AM
continued from previous post...

Google Earth Censors the "Butt Mountain" Darpa Facility in Blacksburg Virginia

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/140607_darpa_blacksburg.html


http://i44.tinypic.com/34so31f.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/dpbyf7.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/adi0sy.jpg

This is the Shooting Range for Swat in Blacksburg Virginia

http://i39.tinypic.com/1qoj6r.jpg

Here are more parked cars that are used for SWAT training. Diagonally across from a baseball field and playground for children. Nice city planning.

So let me get this straight. When I first looked on Google Earth for Cathy O'Brien's description for the underground base in Butt Mountain in Blacksburg, Virginia in 1995. Google instead takes me to this SWAT training facility that is fenced in and less the 50 yards away from a playground instead of where it should take me to the real Butt Mountain in Pearisburg, Virginia to a 7000ft deep mine that since 2005 is the Virginia Tech DUSEL Deep Underground Science Engineering Lab. Virginia Tech has plenty of pictures and all kinds of DARPA funded engineering programs and is no secret.

http://i40.tinypic.com/5oihqc.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/2lsck69.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/flbpc4.jpg

Pictures from within Butt Mountain in Pearisburg, Virginia. So why doesn't Google have the markers in the right place? More importantly why did Google censor the exact phrase "Butt Mountain Blacksburg Virginia" shortly after I announced it to the independent media?

It is because up until a few days ago Google Earth referred to a building in Blacksburg as the Butt Mountain: Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory " DUSEL " which is DARPA funded for Geology, Engineering and Physics for Virginia Tech. Lets look at the original wide angle picture of the whole layout.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2u9hc8n.jpg

The original marker seemed to me to be in the center of the picture. These photos were taken from blacksburg.gov and not Google Earth. At the top of the picture is the what Google now calls a Physics Department. Google Earth for now at least still calls the building the "proposed site for DUSEL" and the Kimballton Mine. That's what I saw when I did my first search for Cathy O'Brien's quote "Butt Mountain Blacksburg Virginia."

http://i39.tinypic.com/33wtwf4.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/a31am8.jpg

This site is a 5-10 minute drive from campus depending on traffic. Is this the place where Cathy O'Brien claimed in 1996 with video testimony that she was a victim of mind control? On April 16 2007 Cathy reminded people that she warned them of what was happening with these programs and how dangerous M.K. Ultra Programs can be and suddenly a story that seemed to be an Urban Legend now has legs.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/140607_darpa_blacksburg.html

brokenshadow
26-05-2013, 05:48 AM
Just a warning. This thread is now bordering on moronic. SOL, you were doing an impressive job of researching a subject and determining evidence where there clearly was some. The mothman picture shows nothing and any further leaps you're making are pure conjecture and nothing more. This is why Icke is so scorned, he's desperately and illogically trying to support his inaccurate world view when evidence points to the contrary.
The image represents something, most likely a satanic symbol, utterly in-keeping with what we know to be accurate. Mothman sightings may or may not be linked but they're nothing more than an aside and do not have a bearing on the format of the image, in fact the opposite is true and the vagueness of the presentation is taking on your interpretation.
Please stick to presenting interesting evidence, it's what you were doing very well. Steer clear of what there is zero evidence of and consider what there really is; that the royals are satanic zionist elitist bloodlines.

size_of_light
26-05-2013, 06:50 AM
Just a warning. This thread is now bordering on moronic. SOL, you were doing an impressive job of researching a subject and determining evidence where there clearly was some. The mothman picture shows nothing and any further leaps you're making are pure conjecture and nothing more. This is why Icke is so scorned, he's desperately and illogically trying to support his inaccurate world view when evidence points to the contrary.
The image represents something, most likely a satanic symbol, utterly in-keeping with what we know to be accurate. Mothman sightings may or may not be linked but they're nothing more than an aside and do not have a bearing on the format of the image, in fact the opposite is true and the vagueness of the presentation is taking on your interpretation.
Please stick to presenting interesting evidence, it's what you were doing very well. Steer clear of what there is zero evidence of and consider what there really is; that the royals are satanic zionist elitist bloodlines.

I understand what you mean, brokenshadow, but the basic facts about the photo have now been well covered.

Finding new ways to re-explain the same point - that the figure isn't an assistant accidentally reflected in the mirror with a chandelier for a face, but was consciously inserted into the photograph by it's creators - is no longer necessary, since the case has been soundly made.

Anyone is free to draw a line under the information at that point and disregard the more speculative material that follows it.

The stuff that involves fumbling around in the dark and seeing what you find is useful in that it can often turn up interesting connections and improbable 'coincidences' that mightn't be much value in a lab or in a court of law, but can be indispensable to understanding in deeper, less quantifiable ways.

That being said, if you have any suggestions or material to contribute that is more in line with some of the earlier information presented, then by all means post it.

kblood
26-05-2013, 06:50 AM
Using Google Maps and Google Earth to do real research, seems brilliant to me. Why does it seem moronic to you?

If David Icke is right, then why should he change his view? If we just try to imagine that he might be right. I know that most people usually will not accept the real truth, because its too complicated, or too simple in some ways. Probably even too fantastic.

Just a warning. This thread is now bordering on moronic. SOL, you were doing an impressive job of researching a subject and determining evidence where there clearly was some. The mothman picture shows nothing and any further leaps you're making are pure conjecture and nothing more. This is why Icke is so scorned, he's desperately and illogically trying to support his inaccurate world view when evidence points to the contrary.
The image represents something, most likely a satanic symbol, utterly in-keeping with what we know to be accurate. Mothman sightings may or may not be linked but they're nothing more than an aside and do not have a bearing on the format of the image, in fact the opposite is true and the vagueness of the presentation is taking on your interpretation.
Please stick to presenting interesting evidence, it's what you were doing very well. Steer clear of what there is zero evidence of and consider what there really is; that the royals are satanic zionist elitist bloodlines.

size_of_light
26-05-2013, 10:07 AM
http://i39.tinypic.com/2rxtap4.jpg




*** The bolded passages below form a coherent summary of the information for those who don't want to read the entire thing***



'Ismail Ax' sparks web frenzy

April 18, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/04/18/1176696889800.html


All at once, the world went searching for the meaning of "Ismail Ax".

Those two words, written in red ink on one arm of Cho Seung Hui, the 23-year-old Virginia Tech student suspected of the campus shooting spree, set off a massive internet hunt by the public for clues to what might have motivated the nation's worst mass killings.

Almost as soon as the Chicago Tribune's website reported that detail, which was then picked up by news organisations around the world, the blogosphere filled with theories about the possible meaning of "Ismail Ax." Hundreds of bloggers speculated on a link to Islam or to literature; thousands offered their opinions and millions read the commentaries, according to Technorati.com.

The rapid search and response of that term offered another snapshot of how quickly the web disseminates information and connects people.

On Monday, compelling mobile phone videos of the scene at Virginia Tech raced across the web. The next day, the internet provided reflection and a search for answers.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/04/18/1176696889800.html




"Ismail Ax" and the Latest Mind-Controlled Assassin

By Matt S.

http://educate-yourself.or/cn/IsmailAxandVtechmassacre18apr07.shtml

This article, I believe, will bring some light to the VA Tech massacre that took place on the morning of April 16, 2007 and took 33 lives, including the assassin, Cho Seung-Hui, himself. Two words, "Ismail Ax," were written in red ink on the arm of Cho Seung-Hui. "Ismail" is the Arabic version of the name "Ishmael", the brother of Isaac, son of Abraham, and regarded as the forefather of Islam. Because I have the same name, I immediately became interested in this subject.

The purpose of this article is to explain the significance of "Ismail Ax" from a different perspective, in which this incident is viewed as a black-ops, mind-controlled, "Manchurian Candidate" operation aimed at paving the way towards fascism in the United States and stripping the rights of the citizens of the United States.

Fritz Springmeier's "The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave" has been a very useful tool in understanding the details of how human beings have been systematically turned into machines and robots using many different and complex techniques to turn people into whatever "they" deem necessary. The assassin is a prime example of one of these. "The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave" is located at http://educate-yourself.org/mc/IlluminatiFormulaindex.shtml and in Chapter 4 - 'Science No 4 - Hypnosis Understanding the Basics About Hypnosis' topics like "A. Dissociation, trance, & its historical use", "Keeping the mind dissociative" and "Hypnotic triggers & cues" are discussed. This book and it's sequel (discussed later) are massive books with tons and tons of detailed information on the processes, programs, organizations, people, and belief systems involved. To really get a sense of how much there is in these books, they really should be printed out. These are reference books to mind control. Springmeier is also the author of "Bloodlines of the Illuminati." Here is a quote from Chapter 4 of The Illuminati Formula:

"Monarch Mind Control Codes Contents:

H. HYPNOTIC INDUCTIONS
I. JANUS-ALEX CALL BACKS (End-times) Main link to a System?s programs to ALEX coded 44334223112. Scramble code to ALEX is 34424313221. Individual code to ALEX = 55434232312. Link to JANUS coded 3323432123. Report back- X441062F Main JANUS tracking/reprogramming code-JAN US 9341 00569XXY99632 [x3]; its back up code X44420-61F. (There is a Janis 2 computer at 666 Connecticut Ave. Washington , D.C. Disinformation by the Network is that the PACER computer equipment is called Janus/Janis)."

If you don't know what this means, that's okay. I highly recommend people read as much as they can of this book as well as "Deeper Insights into the Illuminati Formula" which can be found at http://www.whale.to/b/sp/deep.html Found in "Deeper Insights", and in the "MONARCH MIND-CONTROL CODES" section is:

"I. JANUS-ALEX CALL BACKS (end-times)

END-TIME ACTIVATION CODES
Most slaves have end-time programming. The programming to activate a slave's end-time programming often runs pages upon pages of coded messages. A number of Monarch slaves have been de-programmed enough that they began accessing and spewing out pages and pages of these activation codes

Some of those systems are Monarch systems of the Theta Model, and many of those in the military are young men of the Illuminati. Some have been seen at NORAD, in Colorado, which helps confirm that Theta models are being employed to bring in the Anti-Christ. (NORAD is a main center for Alex and Janus end-timed programming.)"

and

"D. DELTA (assassination)
Delta alters --are activated to kill by the following three things: seeing specific clothing, items held in a persons hand, and particular words. Since these items would specific for a particular murder there is no particular specifics that can be given."

Under "HYPNOTIC CODES, CUES AND TRIGGERS" is the following:

"This chapter will provide some more of the hypnotic codes, cues, triggers or whatever one wants to call these words, noises, and sensory inputs that manipulate these poor victims turned into Monarch robots. The reader is encouraged to refer to Vol. 2 for the principle list of codes. Other chapters will explain about the structures these codes go to, and also the spiritual dimensions of these codes and structures."

"From the co-author Fritz Springmeier's experience, the following is a continuation of favorite code words that have been used to program slaves with:

AARON, ABBY, ABIGAIL, ABLE, ABNER, ABRAHAM, ACACIA. ACE, ADAM, ADELPHI, AGATE, AIR +, ALABASTER, ALADIN, ALBERT, ALFA or ALPHA. ALICE, ALLEY CAT, ALLIGATOR, AMOS, AMY, ANGEL, ANNA, ANTHONY, APACHE, APOLLO, APOSTLE, APPLE +, ARCHER, ARGUS, ARK, ARROW, ASK +, ASTER, ATHANTIS, ATLAS, AUDREY, AURORA. AUTUMN +, AZTEC, B +, BABE, BABY, BACK ROOM, BACK BONE, BAD, BAKER, BALD, BAMBI, BANANA, BANJO, BANKNOTE, BARBARA. BARK, BARON, BEACH +, BEAST, BECKY, BEE HIVE, BEETHOVEN, BELSHAZZER, BERMUDA, BERTHA, BETA, BETSY, BETTY, BEULAH, BEWITCH, BICYCLE, BIG BROTHER, BINGO, BIRD DOG, BIRTHDAY, BLACK, BLACK +, BLACK SHEEP, BLACK WIDOW, BLANCA, BLONDIE, BLOODHOUND, BLOODY +, BLUE +, BOA. BOB CAT, BOMBAY, BONANZA. BOODLE, BORAX, BOXCAR, BRASS +, BRIDGET, BROOMSTICK, BUCCANEER, BUICK, BULL, BULLDOG, BULLFROG, BUMBLEBEE, BUNNY, BUTTERCUP, BUZZARD, BYRON, T-BIRD, TADPOLE, TALISMAN, TAN, TANGO, TANYA, TARA, TARZAN, TEACUP, TEARDROP, TEEPEE, TERRIER, TERRY, TESTAMENT, THOR, THREE SISTERS, THUNDER, THUNDERBOLT, THUNDERCLAP, THUNDERFLASH, THUNDERSTORM, TIAMET, TIGER, TILLIE, TITAN, TOM CAT, TONI or TONY, TOPAZE, TOPSOIL, TORNADO, TOTENKOPF, TRINITY, TURTLE, UGLY, ULYSSES, UMBRELLA, UNCLE +, UNDERDOG, UNICORN, UNIFORM, URSULA, VAGABOND, VAMPIRE, VANCOUVER, VARSITY, VELVET, VENUS, VERONICA, VICKY, VICTOR, VIKING, VIOLA, VIOLET, VIPER, VIRGINIA VOODOO, VULCAN, VULTURE, WAGON WHEEL, WALDORF, WALLFLOWER, WANDA. WARRIOR, WASP, WATCHDOG, WEASEL, WHISKEY, WHITE +, WIDOW, WILD CAT, WILLOW, WINNIE, WINTER +, WIZARD, WOLF, WOLF +, WYOMING, X-FORCE, X-RAY, XYZ, YANKEE, YANKEE DOODLE, YELLOW, YOGI, & YO YO.



Going by this information, it might be a big step to come out and say that "Ismail Ax" is one of these activation codes or triggers that would have caused Cho Seung-Hui to go on his rampage. BUT, there's more.

After doing a Google search on "Ismail Ax" on Tuesday, April 17th, at the time only two results popped up. One was the article of www.propagandamatrix.com and another was found at:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/cmt-40/Nice/Dutch-MT/tools/EnglishTags

The page turned out to contain thousands of seemingly meaningless words and strings of letters."ismail Ax NN-NNP" was one of these. If this page is still available, please go and see for yourself.

The page is still active and here's a screenshot from the link mentioned above (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/cmt-40/Nice/Dutch-MT/tools/EnglishTags...


http://i43.tinypic.com/a5jfq1.jpg

Compare this to the Springmeier material. Notice the similarities. The site turns out to be at Carnegie Mellon's School of Computer Science website.

But that's not it.

After my suspicions grew and grew, I decided to download random documents from the site and see if I could find anything incriminating. After reading a few documents, it seemed to me that what this was about was Machine translations of languages, involving very complex linguistic and computer programming coding used for instantaneous language translation between computers or people.

Then I found a document entitled "Domain-limited Interlingua-based Speech Translation" at:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/cmt-40/Nice/Papers/digital-government-chapter/Cahill-MT-alon.doc

Here is the beginning of this document:

"Evolution of Domain-limited Interlingua-based MT at CMU

The Interactive System Labs (ISL) and the Language Technologies Institute (LTI) at Carnegie Mellon have been pursuing an ongoing research effort over the past fifteen years to develop machine translation systems specifically suited for spoken dialogue. The JANUS-I system (Woszczyna et al., 1993) was developed at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Karlsruhe in conjunction with Siemens in Germany and ATR in Japan. JANUS-I translated well-formed read speech in the conference registration domain with a vocabulary of 500 words. Advances in speech recognition and robust parsing over the past ten years then enabled corresponding advances in spoken language translation. The JANUS-II translation system (Waibel et al., 1996), taking advantage of advances in robust parsing (Carroll, 1996; Lavie, 1996), operated on the spontaneous scheduling task (SST) -- spontaneous conversational speech involving two people scheduling a meeting with a vocabulary of 3,000 words or more. JANUS-II was developed within the framework of an international consortium of six research groups in Europe, Asia and the U.S., known as C-STAR (http://www.cstar.org). A multi-national public demonstration of the system capabilities was conducted in July, 1999. More recently, the JANUS-III system made significant progress in large vocabulary continuous speech recognition (Woszczyna, 1998) and significantly expanded the domain of coverage of the translation system to spontaneous travel planning dialogues (Levin et al, 2000), involving vocabularies of over 5,000 words. The NESPOLE! System (Lavie et al, 2001, Lavie et al, 2002) further extended these capabilities to speech communication over the internet, and developed new trainable methods for language analysis that are easier to port to new domains of interest. These were demonstrated via a prototype speech-translation system developed for the medical assistance domain. The language processing technology developed within the JANUS-III and NESPOLE! Systems were also incorporated into portable platforms such as the LingWear system and the Speechalator, developed for the DARPA Babylon Program."

Recognize the JANUS system from anywhere? Look at the Springmeier quotes again and see. Do you think this might be the SAME JANUS system? I'm willing to bet a lot right now. Carnegie Mellon and others seem to be involved in the same system Springmeier was talking about. The "DARPA Babylon Program" is also very suspicious sounding as well.

Apparently, Virginia Tech has been an "active" partner with DARPA:

Strange Virginia Tech 'Coincidences'
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=836

"Janus" is also in "Mind Controlled Killers:

What happened at Columbine High School?

Was O.J. Simpson innocent?

In Defense of Buford Furrow Jr.!" at: http://www.whale.to/b/desborough2.html

At the very end of the article is this:

"The super-secret Janus Group utilizes very highly-trained psychic assassins, who employ such techniques as the green and red marble systems, as well as the White Glove method. In order to psychically kill enemies of the Illuminati. The Director of Janus (an Illuminatus) wields more political clout than the hierarchy of the National Security Agency. He was an intimate friend of the late Roy Cohn -- a director of Permindex, the group which masterminded the assassination of President John Kennedy. As a cover for his covert activities, he also performs the role of a talk-show host. he has a tendency to drag a pen across the forehead of mind-controlled assassins, when implanting new assassination programs. Now that the programming of several of his assassins has broken down, he will probably face sever punishment at the hands of the Illuminati for ineptitude."

This is a quote from "The Biggest Secret" by David Icke:

"Belgium, this little country between France and the Netherlands, is also the home of the European Union, NATO, and, I am told, a massive computer centre where databases on all the people of the world are being compiled. It is known apparently as "the Beast" and there are a number of these around the world. An Elite mind control operation called the Janus Group is also based in the NATO headquarters."

A link to the page this quote appears on is:
http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/free/chapter_fifteen.htm

Now, call me crazy, but I think that THIS IS NOT ONE BIG COINCIDENCE. I then did some looking around, and not surprisingly, I didn't find much on the Janus system. Here is what I did find:

Bios on Alex Waibal, Director of Interactive System Labs (ISL) and one of the founders of C-STAR:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ahw/bio.html
http://www.csd.cs.cmu.edu/research/faculty_research/waibel.html Also:
http://www.janusiii.com/
http://www.janus-eu.org/Temp2/index-f.htm
http://www.c-star.org/main/english/cstar2/

which don't really tell much, except at http://www.janusiii.com/ there is a good bit of friendly Freemason symbolism, oddly enough.

It is my theory that "Ismail Ax" directly connects to the JANUS-ISL-C-STAR global network technologies employed in these covert operations, used quite possibly as an activation code/trigger. Just like previous school attackers, especially at Columbine, Cho Seung-Hui was also another black-ops mind-controlled assassination slave who was more disturbed than anyone could know and had a life that you and I should thank God we never had to live.

-Matt S.

http://educate-yourself.or/cn/IsmailAxandVtechmassacre18apr07.shtml

intel_33
26-05-2013, 10:15 AM
What exactly are the lecherous-looking couple in the background doing or suggesting to Charles at this moment?

http://i43.tinypic.com/35d2bo8.jpg


Dunno, perhaps.... "Charles, dont you think the camera mans assistant would taste rather divine?"

And it then looks like he's checking it out, thinking about it.



And a qualified mechanic too!


OK you've lost me there, I can't picture liz spinning on oil filters and changing brake pads. :D

But then again kylie doesn't exactly look like she greases nipples all day either so what do I know ey. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywd00tNiB20

BTW if anyone is wondering, I did call the number. ^

It wasnt kylie on the other end, it was Danni.

I was dissapoint.

ultimate_warlord
26-05-2013, 01:51 PM
This thread is too important to derail with the usual rubbish.
I say let SOL speculate to heart`s content. The more fished up, the better.
If you`re fishing sharks you have to bait them with chum.

Good work SOL...KEEP IT GOING.

size_of_light
26-05-2013, 02:16 PM
This thread is too important to derail with the usual rubbish.
I say let SOL speculate to heart`s content. The more fished up, the better.
If you`re fishing sharks you have to bait them with chum.

Good work SOL...KEEP IT GOING.

Haha - thanks warlord.




Stepping back from the Viriginia Tech angle for a moment, to post a few more interesting details
about the Queen's visit to America, which the portrait was created to 'honour'...

http://i41.tinypic.com/2ed8ilt.jpg



"THE QUEEN PHONES SPACE!"

-- How's that for a landmark headline in the history of esoteric symbolism?


http://i42.tinypic.com/fn79zk.jpg
http://www.space.com/3732-queen-england-visit-nasa-goddard-space-flight-center.html



So, not only was the Mystery Figure portrait 'commissioned to honour':

- The Queen's 400th-anniversary visit to the first British settlement founded in America,

...but in a very real, quasi-official sense, it was also ritually dedicated to:

-The historic linking of British and American Space Agencies and,
-Her placement of a phone call into space

In addition, the visit had her:

- Meet victims of the worst mass murder event in American history.

A fairly momentous list of events for the Queen to deal with there, and apparently of enough esoteric importance
to justify the creation of an extraordinary one-off public image of her posing in deference to a menacing, non-human entity.


http://i41.tinypic.com/5lcvw6.jpg

ultimate_warlord
26-05-2013, 02:21 PM
"THE QUEEN PHONE'S SPACE!"

-- How's that for a landmark headline in the history of esoteric symbolism?

Hahaha...

ET phone home...

lmfao.

multiversal_quiver
26-05-2013, 04:40 PM
Our good old friend, Moloch, with the fleur de lis

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/moloch_zps01bc83e8.jpg

ultimate_warlord
26-05-2013, 08:42 PM
Just a warning. This thread is now bordering on moronic. SOL, you were doing an impressive job of researching a subject and determining evidence where there clearly was some. The mothman picture shows nothing and any further leaps you're making are pure conjecture and nothing more. This is why Icke is so scorned, he's desperately and illogically trying to support his inaccurate world view when evidence points to the contrary.
The image represents something, most likely a satanic symbol, utterly in-keeping with what we know to be accurate. Mothman sightings may or may not be linked but they're nothing more than an aside and do not have a bearing on the format of the image, in fact the opposite is true and the vagueness of the presentation is taking on your interpretation.
Please stick to presenting interesting evidence, it's what you were doing very well. Steer clear of what there is zero evidence of and consider what there really is; that the royals are satanic zionist elitist bloodlines.

Incidentally, I have just been informed of previous work by SOL, and IMO, this member is one of the foremost researchers of the paranormal and cryptozoology. The material SOL presents is genuinely enigmatic, and evidence of hoaxing is not evident. Unfortunately, and as usual when it comes to the subject of ghosts, strange entities and the like, the OP, the guy with the information gets bombarded by trolls and pisstakers that seem to take it upon themselves as a life-or-death mission to ridicule and pulverise the threads out of sensible recognition. The subject matter gets lost in insults and one is forced to expend precious energy answering the obnoxious debunkers back.
The purpose of this site is to discuss and reveal such mysteries and the idiots and wannabe debunkers are not required to post moronic one-liners and contribute nothing to the explanation of a very REAL persistent unseen presence of strange creatures and events.
The universe is NOT BLACK AND WHITE...it is various shades of grey, if I can put it like that. No matter what science and the rest of the controllers come up with to pooh pooh away these things, they have been with us all the way since we understood how to think.

Here`s some links to previous very long threads which ended abruptly for the reason that they have been trolled and bulldozed into oblivion.
This attitude towards bona-fide research will only contribute to the permanence of our ignorance of what`s really going on on planet earth and the UNIVERSE as a whole:-




To be fair, you need to start at the beginning!

so, this is the first thread... this is all about the actual gable footage which is where the story starts back in 2009...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...=gable+footage

half way through the above thread, monsterquest (that was the name of the show) aired.. and then it really got interesting!!

This thread was then set up 2010...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109672

and then finally, sol set this one up

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...=gable+footage

you need some time, but hope you enjoy it as much as i did and if it isnt your thing, of course, delete the message! x

SKEPTICS...Nobody is asking you to believe anything. Nobody is twisting your arm. If you think a thread is moronic, well...Ok then just get on your horses and ride outta town.

NICE NICE WORK, SOL.

ultimate_warlord.

And thanks for the links, moondancer.

intel_33
27-05-2013, 12:27 AM
This thread is too important to derail with the usual rubbish.

Im sure SOL knows I know they are always fucking with us thru symbolism, what lies in plain sight and all, its there for us to see, im not one to stick my head in the sand like an Ostrich when it comes to symbolism, if it looks like a duck then it probably is, so hey, apologies if you see red.

Still stands though that Charles looks like he is gunning for a snack, and the queen looked pretty good back then in a tight top!

Dont know where Edelwhatsits went either.

yass
27-05-2013, 01:32 AM
Incidentally, I have just been informed of previous work by SOL, and IMO, this member is one of the foremost researchers of the paranormal and cryptozoology. The material SOL presents is genuinely enigmatic, and evidence of hoaxing is not evident. Unfortunately, and as usual when it comes to the subject of ghosts, strange entities and the like, the OP, the guy with the information gets bombarded by trolls and pisstakers that seem to take it upon themselves as a life-or-death mission to ridicule and pulverise the threads out of sensible recognition. The subject matter gets lost in insults and one is forced to expend precious energy answering the obnoxious debunkers back.
The purpose of this site is to discuss and reveal such mysteries and the idiots and wannabe debunkers are not required to post moronic one-liners and contribute nothing to the explanation of a very REAL persistent unseen presence of strange creatures and events.
The universe is NOT BLACK AND WHITE...it is various shades of grey, if I can put it like that. No matter what science and the rest of the controllers come up with to pooh pooh away these things, they have been with us all the way since we understood how to think.

Here`s some links to previous very long threads which ended abruptly for the reason that they have been trolled and bulldozed into oblivion.
This attitude towards bona-fide research will only contribute to the permanence of our ignorance of what`s really going on on planet earth and the UNIVERSE as a whole:-




To be fair, you need to start at the beginning!

so, this is the first thread... this is all about the actual gable footage which is where the story starts back in 2009...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...=gable+footage

half way through the above thread, monsterquest (that was the name of the show) aired.. and then it really got interesting!!

This thread was then set up 2010...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109672

and then finally, sol set this one up

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...=gable+footage

you need some time, but hope you enjoy it as much as i did and if it isnt your thing, of course, delete the message! x

SKEPTICS...Nobody is asking you to believe anything. Nobody is twisting your arm. If you think a thread is moronic, well...Ok then just get on your horses and ride outta town.

NICE NICE WORK, SOL.

ultimate_warlord.

And thanks for the links, moondancer.

Truly, and I wanted to point out another thread but now I'm freaked out after finding it because some of the pictures (like the inside of Lion's Gym) are gone. I am hoping I've downloaded them all in the past but I can't be sure I did.

Rare Photos of the Well of Sheshna

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=150071&highlight=Rare+Photos+Sheshna

yass
27-05-2013, 01:47 AM
Bless the Lord. All 100% preserved in the wayback machine. :D

http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=150071&highlight=Rare+Photos+Sheshna



Strange though. The wayback machine result:

http://i.xomf.com/cdyyf.jpg


The thread:

http://i.xomf.com/xcynl.jpg


I have his work posted at two other places.

Here: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Free_Thinkers/topic/8708470/1/

and here: http://s3.zetaboards.com/For_My_Jee/topic/7509532/1/


Those are just like the thread here. Only the wayback machine, which says it's result is from the live web has all the images.

size_of_light
27-05-2013, 02:16 AM
Taking into account how many similar mass shootings with equally dubious official narratives have reared their ugly heads in America in the past six years, I doubt too much refresher material is required to remind or convince most people reading this that the 2007 Virginia Tech Massacre was another government-staged psyop.

In a depressingly familiar-sounding scenario, the authorities locked down the campus and waited for several hours while cornered victims were ritually slaughtered by a team of two or more anonymous, professionally-trained shooters. A patsy with an unclear background and a history of psychotropic drug use was then served up to the complicit corporate media as the lone gunmen responsible for the carnage.

Rinse and repeat.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2zs730n.jpg

Including the alleged killer - who is said to have shot his own face off at the end of the rampage - 33 people died.


The bolded passages below comprise a brief summary of some of the main points of suspicion about the event, which are fleshed out in greater detail at various places online.

Seung-Hui Cho Was a Mind Controlled Assassin
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/190407mindcontrolled.htm

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, April 19, 2007



Charles Mesloh, Professor of Criminology at Florida Gulf Coast University, told NBC 2 News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMGmJG9RM90&feature=player_embedded ) that he was shocked Cho could have killed 32 people with two handguns absent expert training. Mesloh immediately assumed that Cho must have used a shotgun or an assault rifle.
"I'm dumbfounded by the number of people he managed to kill with these weapons," said Mesloh, "The only thing I can figure is that he got close to them and he simply executed them."

Mesloh said the killer performed like a trained professional, "He had a 60% fatality rate with handguns - that's unheard of given 9 millimeters don't kill people instantly," said Mesloh, stating that the handguns Cho used were designed for "plinking at cans," not executing human beings.

Cho was certainly no slouch, in the two hour gap between the first reported shootings and the wider rampage that would occur later in the morning, during which time the University completely failed to warn the students despite having loudspeakers stationed throughout the campus, Cho had time to film a confession video, transfer it to his computer, burn it onto a DVD, package it up, travel to the post office, post the package, and travel back to his dorm room to retrieve his guns and then travel back to the opposite end of the campus to resume the killing spree. The almost inconceivable speed of Cho's actions become more suspicious when we recall initial reports that there were two shooters.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/190407mindcontrolled.htm



The reason it's important in the context of this thread to stress the staged nature of this event again and again is that once you fully accept it and then reflect on the fact that the Queen visited the area and met with victims just 17 days afterwards, the unavoidable conclusion which should arise in the mind is that the real purpose of the Virginia Tech Massacre is to serve those who are represented symbolically (or possibly even literally) by the Mystery Figure in the Queen's portrait.

http://i41.tinypic.com/5lcvw6.jpg

Think about it.

The portrait was commissioned 'in honour of' her visit to Virginia 17 days after the authorities staged the worst mass murder event in US history (up until that time).

It makes no difference whether the federal authorities actively initiated and directed the massacre, or were merely assigned the role of managing the systematic cover-up that protected its true perpetrators after the event - the horrific scale of the crime necessarily defines those authorities responsible for concealing the atrocity's real nature as representatives of a global-level organization consciously dedicated to the service of evil.

For that to be true, the event must have had a deeply ritualistic basis and therefore the Queen's visit - which was scheduled to immediately follow the tragedy - had to have been a pivotal component in that ritual, given the rarefied status her position must represent in a symbolic sense to the practitioners of such a ritual.


http://i42.tinypic.com/de607t.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/b96rlk.jpg

No doubt for a lot of us, Dick Cheney's involvement in anything is a practical guarantee that the reason behind that 'anything' must have its roots in the deepest, darkest, festering bowels of hell, so his chaperoning of the Queen around Virginia during this visit might almost be construed as the smoking gun that conclusively proves everything I've just set out above.

Cheney was still the Vice President at this time, or, more accurately, was President in all but formal title at this time, and was surely at the peak of his powers in terms of connections with the intelligence agencies and black ops programs.

From the same prison planet article...

We have been receiving numerous calls and e mails alerting us to the fact that VA Tech is pulling links from its website concerning their relationship with the CIA. Reports from November 2005 confirm that the CIA was active in operating recruitment programs based out of VA Tech.

and perhaps most significantly...

Several professors from VA Tech are involved in government programs linked with NASA and other agencies.http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/190407mindcontrolled.htm

This final point about NASA programs connecting in with the scene of the crime strikes me as especially pertinent when you recall that in my last post, we discovered that following her meeting with victims of the massacre...

http://i41.tinypic.com/2ed8ilt.jpg

http://www.space.com/3732-queen-england-visit-nasa-goddard-space-flight-center.html





http://i42.tinypic.com/2wnd7x4.jpg

yass
27-05-2013, 03:12 AM
Bless the Lord. All 100% preserved in the wayback machine. :D

http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=150071&highlight=Rare+Photos+Sheshna



Strange though. The wayback machine result:

http://i.xomf.com/cdyyf.jpg


The thread:

http://i.xomf.com/xcynl.jpg


I have his work posted at two other places.

Here: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Free_Thinkers/topic/8708470/1/

and here: http://s3.zetaboards.com/For_My_Jee/topic/7509532/1/


Those are just like the thread here. Only the wayback machine, which says it's result is from the live web has all the images.


Just to note that I checked the other thread links through the wayback
machine and though at Jee wayback also said it didn't have that URL and
here's the live webpage, it's showing a different daily I Ching than today's.



http://i.xomf.com/qldmm.jpg



http://i.xomf.com/swzkc.jpg



Today's I Ching
http://i.xomf.com/dgryv.jpg

intel_33
27-05-2013, 03:53 AM
Including the alleged killer - who is said to have shot his own face off at the end of the rampage - 33 people died.


The majick number. http://gritengine.com/game-engine-forum/images/smilies/smiley_yep.gif

multiversal_quiver
27-05-2013, 04:31 AM
http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/uteute_zpsaef61d4a.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Scheme_female_reproductive_system-en.svg/500px-Scheme_female_reproductive_system-en.svg.png

size_of_light
27-05-2013, 04:55 AM
http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/uteute_zpsaef61d4a.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Scheme_female_reproductive_system-en.svg/500px-Scheme_female_reproductive_system-en.svg.png




Highlighting the wrong area is quite literally missing the point.



http://i43.tinypic.com/312uslk.jpg

multiversal_quiver
27-05-2013, 05:02 AM
The point is I see no mystery figure.

size_of_light
27-05-2013, 05:10 AM
The point is I see no mystery figure.

Why not?

multiversal_quiver
27-05-2013, 06:03 AM
Why not?

What one sees is in the eye of the beholder.

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/eyeofbeholder_zps6e6401c7.png

dimaryp
27-05-2013, 07:19 AM
SOL i think your work is excellent and very thought provoking.

For me the mystery figure's face looks like an owl. moloch perhaps?

size_of_light
27-05-2013, 09:00 AM
Since the creation of the portrait was also the creation of the appearance of the entity within it, I'm going to treat the appearance of the entity and the portrait as one and the same in this post, to simplify and emphasise the point I'm trying to make.

In order to do that, the word 'portrait' will be replaced with the word 'entity' (a condensed form of 'the appearance of the entity') throughout what follows...



http://i40.tinypic.com/2mi2oa9.jpg
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2007/06/queen-elizabeth-200706



Officially, we're being told that the entity's existence is 'in honor of (The Queen's) visit to Virginia.'



What does that mean exactly?


http://i41.tinypic.com/5lcvw6.jpg


http://i43.tinypic.com/f1i1ya.jpg
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/honor


So the entity exists 'to show respect for her visit to Virginia'.


- Note that it doesn't exist to show respect for the Queen herself.

- Nor does it exist to show respect for the state of Virginia, or the settlement of Jamestown.


The entity exists to show respect for her visit.





Further clarification below...


http://i43.tinypic.com/2rtp5.jpg
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+honor+of

The entity is a manifestation of respect for her visit to Virginia.


http://i41.tinypic.com/5lcvw6.jpg


The only way I can personally begin to make sense of what that really means is to visualize a...


'manifestation of respect for her visit'


...being like the rolling out of a red carpet.

http://i40.tinypic.com/hx0i9d.jpg

The act of unfurling the carpet corresponds with the manifesting action of the entity:

- The red carpet unfurls / the entity appears

- The red carpet appears on the floor to cover the distance to be traversed / the entity appears in this world spanning the distance to be traversed (from Britain to America).

http://i42.tinypic.com/4v62ro.jpg

In a symbolic or metaphysical sense, doesn't this mean the entity manifesting as the bridge spanning the distance to be covered on the Queen's journey to Virginia, would also be the underlying energizing principle of that visit?

http://i42.tinypic.com/v683lz.jpg

size_of_light
27-05-2013, 09:50 AM
What one sees is in the eye of the beholder.

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/eyeofbeholder_zps6e6401c7.png



A failure to recognize something doesn't necessarily mean it's not there.

http://i41.tinypic.com/34io8rt.jpg








http://i44.tinypic.com/1dypa9.jpg

multiversal_quiver
27-05-2013, 12:44 PM
I think the creepy entity in the photo is the one holding the dead wookie.

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/moloch_zps01bc83e8.jpg

ultimate_warlord
27-05-2013, 01:15 PM
The point is I see no mystery figure.


What one sees is in the eye of the beholder.

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/eyeofbeholder_zps6e6401c7.png

Well I guess we`ll just have to go to specsavers then, eh? Your eyesight seems so acute and your sleuth-like brains make Sherlock Holmes look like Scooby-Doo. We`ll just have to take your word for it that we`re a bunch of nutters plucking shit out of the ether.
As for the "mickey mouse" mockery of the subject, perhaps if you stand on a chair and try to view your butt in a mirror, you might be able to behold with your hawklike beholder`s eyes that the darkness you see is only caused by the fact that your head is up your arse and if you make an effort to crap it out, you might not have the compulsive need to enter serious websites like this to exhibit your blatant lack of acumen.

size_of_light
27-05-2013, 02:04 PM
SOL i think your work is excellent and very thought provoking.

For me the mystery figure's face looks like an owl. moloch perhaps?

Hi dimaryp - thank you.

I agree about the owlishness of its appearance. I'll see if I can dig up some photos for a comparison if you don't do it first.

Here are the two oldest images of Moloch I could find, compared with the Mystery Figure, or Mr Figg, as I might now start calling him for short. ;)

http://i40.tinypic.com/4r98v5.jpg

Earlier in the thread brokenshadow suggested it was a representation of Baphomet and I think there are similarities with Baphomet in the overall sense of its appearance and possibly in some of the details...

http://i42.tinypic.com/fy34hc.jpg

Here are a few of the others I picked up on, or at least, think are possibly present on Mr Figg as well as in the depiction of Baphomet...

http://i41.tinypic.com/308zmev.jpg

With Moloch, I'm seeing the same fringe again, and having grown up on a farm, I'm struck by how similar the appearance or Mr Figg's fringe is to some scruffy Jersey cows' fringes when viewed from front on.

It also occurred to me that the position of the eye socket and the cheekbones of both figures look a little alike.

http://i40.tinypic.com/bhc288.jpg

Putting Moloch, Mr Figg and Baphomet in a line-up together, I can certainly appreciate how they might all, in fact, turn out be representations of a single entity; it's possible.

Note the opening in the midriff section of both Moloch and Baphomet...

Don't know what the accepted wisdom is about these openings, or whether it's even acknowledged that the two deities share this common feature, but I get the feeling that this cavity is meant to represent something along the lines of an open or active base chakra.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2zriydx.jpg


Very interesting, don't you think, that when you turn up the brightness and contrast on Mr Figg, a new detail is revealed: he also has an opening or cavity in the base chakra region...

http://i41.tinypic.com/iwkm5u.jpg

I have a theory that I posted on a few threads several years back that the shape of these deities and the cavity at their bases is a highly significant esoteric symbol, possibly with a number of different inter-linked meanings, or aspects.

Compare Moloch and Baphomet with the Tsar Bell outside the Kremlin in Russia...

http://i41.tinypic.com/ej9ypt.jpg

The Tsar Bell, is "a huge bell on display on the grounds of the Moscow Kremlin. The bell was commissioned by Empress Anna, niece of Peter the Great. The bell is currently the largest bell in the world,[1] weighing 216 tons, with a height of 6.14 m ( 20.1 ft) and diameter of 6.6 m ( 21.6 ft). It was founded from bronze by masters Ivan Motorin and his son Mikhail in 1733–1735. Ornaments, portraits, and inscriptions were made by V. Kobelev, P. Galkin, P. Kokhtev, P. Serebryakov and P. Lukovnikov. The bell was never rung — during a fire in 1737, a huge slab (11.5 tons) cracked off while it was still in the casting pit.

After the fire, the bell remained in its casting for a century. In 1836, the Tsar bell was placed on a stone pedestal next to the Ivan the Great Bell Tower in the Moscow Kremlin. The slab is nearly three times larger than the world's largest bell hung for full circle ringing, the tenor bell at Liverpool Cathedral.

...

For a time, the bell served as a chapel, with the broken area forming the door. There has apparently been some talk of recasting it.

According to a National Public Radio special on the bell, some Old Believers believe that on Judgement Day, it will be miraculously repaired and lifted up to heaven, where it will ring the blagovest (call to prayer).

Is there a possible connection? Note the doorway in both bells. Could the Tsar Bell have been purposely designed like this to symbolise something else? A levitation device/interdimensional portal powered by the secrets of magnetism?

Perhaps the 'open door' symbolises the fact that 'they' have entered this world and are still here and "on Judgement Day, it will be miraculously repaired (they re-enter it and close the door) and lifted up to heaven, where it will ring the blagovest (call to prayer)."

A Bell-shaped Masonic Symbol and Magnetism
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73528?t=73528


http://i44.tinypic.com/2zfqqn9.jpg

Like it's Russian counterpart, the most famous bell in America is also cracked, and has a mysterious history.

One of the more popular dates of the Liberty Bell's cracking is July 8, 1835, when the bell was tolled during the funeral procession of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Marshall. Although newspaper accounts give details of the funeral, there is no mention of the Liberty Bell cracking. The earliest versions of this story appear in Thompson Westcott's The Official Guide Book to Philadelphia: A New Handbook for Strangers and Citizens published in 1876 for the Centennial Exhibition. Also, the custodian of Independence Hall, Frank M. Etting, announced in March 1876 that he learned that the bell was cracked in 1835 while tolling the death of Chief Justice Marshall. Neither source provides documentation to support their claims.

http://www.libertybellmuseum.com/resources/faqs.htm

A quick look at the link and you'll see, quite bizarrely, that no one seems to have the faintest clue when the Liberty Bell actually cracked, with multiple years and explanations given for how and when it occured. Seems odd. However if it did happen in 1835 as is most popularly held, that's only one year before the Tsar bell in Russia was first put on public display in 1836.

A Bell-shaped Masonic Symbol and Magnetism
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73528?t=73528

Then we have the Masonic level, in my view a disguised variation of the same symbol...

http://i42.tinypic.com/9a1cte.jpg

multiversal_quiver
27-05-2013, 02:23 PM
Never gonna give you uppppp.

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/astley_zps0825271b.jpg

intel_33
27-05-2013, 02:27 PM
I have a theory that I posted on a few threads several years back that the shape of these deities and the cavity at their bases is a highly significant esoteric symbol, possibly with a number of different inter-linked meanings, or aspects.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2zfqqn9.jpg



Any cannons anywhere?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1060628084

size_of_light
27-05-2013, 02:37 PM
Any cannons anywhere?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1060628084

Ah! Good work! Forgot all about that one.

size_of_light
27-05-2013, 02:49 PM
Never gonna give you uppppp.

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/astley_zps0825271b.jpg

Gotta make you understannnnnd.

http://i44.tinypic.com/28tjmyo.jpg

size_of_light
27-05-2013, 03:08 PM
- from the Daily Mail a couple of days ago (thanks moondancer ;) )...

Is this the most astonishing photoshoot of the Queen ever? Yes, it really IS Her Majesty as Queen of Scots amid the heather (moments before a midge invasion)

It is perhaps the most striking and romantic photograph of the Queen ever taken.

The Monarch, dressed in the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle – the Scottish equivalent of England’s Order of the Garter – stares directly into the camera from an idyllic spot on her beloved Balmoral estate.

Now the photographer who took the stunning photograph has revealed how it was inspired by a series of portraits by renowned Scottish artist Sir Henry Raeburn – and how concerns about bad weather and a midge attack nearly led to the photoshoot being abandoned.

http://i43.tinypic.com/33nfa0j.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2r6he1f.jpg


full story here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330996/Is-astonishing-photoshoot-Queen-Yes-really-IS-Her-Majesty-Queen-Scots-amid-heather-moments-midge-invasion.html

multiversal_quiver
27-05-2013, 05:45 PM
Well I guess we`ll just have to go to specsavers then, eh? Your eyesight seems so acute and your sleuth-like brains make Sherlock Holmes look like Scooby-Doo. We`ll just have to take your word for it that we`re a bunch of nutters plucking shit out of the ether.
As for the "mickey mouse" mockery of the subject, perhaps if you stand on a chair and try to view your butt in a mirror, you might be able to behold with your hawklike beholder`s eyes that the darkness you see is only caused by the fact that your head is up your arse and if you make an effort to crap it out, you might not have the compulsive need to enter serious websites like this to exhibit your blatant lack of acumen.


Try again. Your attempt at insulting has failed, because I know who and what I am, and what you are. Love you. There is no need to be defensive.

I'm having fun. It shows that you can make something out of anything, using random associations. You can pluck something out of nothing. For example, I didn't say, nor do I think, that you're a bunch of nutters, or I wouldn't be here. I'm saying that I think the associations are wrong, because I see that it could potentially be many things-- whatever you make of it. The one image looks like the reflection of a man in a suit, with his head blocked by the chandelier. Who says it's not a man in a suit, watching the photographs being taken? Duke of Edinburgh holding a rubber ducky to get Liz to smile for the camera. An example of seeing what you wish to see is... many years ago, there was a window in the town where I lived that had a distortion that made it look as though the image of Mary, mother of Jesus, appeared in it-- sort of---- if you squinted. People lined up to look at it and called it a miracle, held candlelight vigils, dropped to their knees crying and filled boxes with donated money.

The reason, my right honourable friend, that my head is up my arse is to learn more about the substance of which you are full. The first thing I saw when I looked at that image was mickey mouse. Why is my assessment any less worthy? We should be able to think as freely as these two baby elephants fighting over who is going to get to keep the kitten.

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/inkblot_1_1_zps3256fef3.jpg

hoax
27-05-2013, 06:56 PM
We're no strangers to love
You know the rules and so do I


...Independence Day gets rick rolled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGdoqBxqZuw

:>

ultimate_warlord
27-05-2013, 10:37 PM
Try again. Your attempt at insulting has failed, because I know who and what I am, and what you are. Love you. There is no need to be defensive.

I'm having fun. It shows that you can make something out of anything, using random associations. You can pluck something out of nothing. For example, I didn't say, nor do I think, that you're a bunch of nutters, or I wouldn't be here. I'm saying that I think the associations are wrong, because I see that it could potentially be many things-- whatever you make of it. The one image looks like the reflection of a man in a suit, with his head blocked by the chandelier. Who says it's not a man in a suit, watching the photographs being taken? Duke of Edinburgh holding a rubber ducky to get Liz to smile for the camera. An example of seeing what you wish to see is... many years ago, there was a window in the town where I lived that had a distortion that made it look as though the image of Mary, mother of Jesus, appeared in it-- sort of---- if you squinted. People lined up to look at it and called it a miracle, held candlelight vigils, dropped to their knees crying and filled boxes with donated money.

The reason, my right honourable friend, that my head is up my arse is to learn more about the substance of which you are full. The first thing I saw when I looked at that image was mickey mouse. Why is my assessment any less worthy? We should be able to think as freely as these two baby elephants fighting over who is going to get to keep the kitten.

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/inkblot_1_1_zps3256fef3.jpg

Here we go again. I do agree with you that sometimes we do see what we want to see, but then again, what bugs me is morons like you trying to smartass their way to glory by going around threads to ridicule valid ideas with the kind of crap you presented as an argument.
You see...my logic is so far superior to yours that I don`t need to chase posters around threads which I think are just deffo rubbish. Like for example, I rarely visit the "Have a laugh" section (where you should be a regular customer). This is because I won`t waste time in places where I can`t gain some knowledge about the world I am forced to live in. If I wanted to laugh I´d hire a Mr. Bean DVD. I don`t go to DI forum...see?
Therefore using my superior sleuthing powers I have come to the conclusion that you have a monkey on your back. You are afraid of something glaring in your face so you try to laugh it off like a giggling schoolgirl confronted by a bully. Well your attempt to answer me was heroic if nothing else...particularly this part:-

The reason, my right honourable friend, that my head is up my arse is to learn more about the substance of which you are full.

I find it quite a punchline.

Except that learning about shit will not be easy for you, because having your head swimming in it all day long will make you unconscious and immune of it in the end. And when the shit hits the fan, you`d be thinking it`s chocolate.

multiversal_quiver
27-05-2013, 10:50 PM
Here we go again. I do agree with you that sometimes we do see what we want to see, but then again, what bugs me is morons like you trying to smartass their way to glory by going around threads to ridicule valid ideas with the kind of crap you presented as an argument.
You see...my logic is so far superior to yours that I don`t need to chase posters around threads which I think are just deffo rubbish. Like for example, I rarely visit the "Have a laugh" thread (where you should be a regular customer).
Therefore using my superior sleuthing powers I have come to the conclusion that you have a monkey on your back. You are afraid of something glaring in your face so you try to laugh it off like a giggling schoolgirl confronted by a bully. Well your attempt to answer me was heroic if nothing else...especially this part:-



I find it quite a punchline.

Except that learning about shit will not be easy for you, because having your head swimming in it all day long will make you unconscious and immune of it in the end. And when the shit hits the fan, you`d be thinking it`s chocolate.

In your humorless self-proclaimed superiority, you have failed to insult me, failed to make your case, failed to present any real verifiable evidence whatsoever, and failed to cause injury to me which is what you're sadly trying to do. I'm sorry that you're having a bad day, or that you've been treated so poorly by others to bring you to this low point in your perceived experience of reality. What you are experiencing is not even close to enlightenment. I love you and wish you the best.

ultimate_warlord
27-05-2013, 10:59 PM
In your humorless self-proclaimed superiority, you have failed to insult me, failed to make your case, failed to present any real verifiable evidence whatsoever, and failed to cause injury to me which is what you're sadly trying to do. I'm sorry that you're having a bad day, or that you've been treated so poorly by others to bring you to this low point in your perceived experience of reality. What you are experiencing is not even close to enlightenment. I love you and wish you the best.

Ok, please refrain from loving me like that. Even my girlfriend turns me off with that kind of patronising. Just carry on loving yourself and don`t bother too much about us nutters here, you might damage your sphincter trying to shit that hard.

multiversal_quiver
27-05-2013, 11:21 PM
Ok, please refrain from loving me like that. Even my girlfriend turns me off with that kind of patronising. Just carry on loving yourself and don`t bother too much about us nutters here, you might damage your sphincter trying to shit that hard.

If more than one person is responding to you in that way, it's a good clue, and an opportunity for self-examination, lest you become the reptiles we're trying to overcome.

ultimate_warlord
27-05-2013, 11:36 PM
If more than one person is responding to you in that way, it's a good clue, and an opportunity for self-examination, lest you become the reptiles we're trying to overcome.

Many thanks for your concern. Relax and be assured that I will never become a reptile.
Some people agree with me...some don`t. I require no self examination to percieve what is as clear as daylight. I will not enter a mega debate with you, but I will point out ONE giant size finger at one fact that stands out.
Why was the "White Room" photo with the impossible reflection not publicised?
It seems to be a very elegant image of the queen in a very beautiful surrounding.
What was wrong with that photo? When you satisfy my curiosity I will accept your everlasting love.

multiversal_quiver
28-05-2013, 12:18 AM
Many thanks for your concern. Relax and be assured that I will never become a reptile.
Some people agree with me...some don`t. I require no self examination to percieve what is as clear as daylight. I will not enter a mega debate with you, but I will point out ONE giant size finger at one fact that stands out.
Why was the "White Room" photo with the impossible reflection not publicised?
It seems to be a very elegant image of the queen in a very beautiful surrounding.
What was wrong with that photo? When you satisfy my curiosity I will accept your everlasting love.

I don't think any of the photographs are elegant. They make my skin crawl. If there was something like the image of an entity in a photograph that could be questioned, I don't think they would have any problem publicizing it and sticking it into your face... like all of the other symbolism.

But the question you asked is interesting, and maybe you could write a letter to ask why the image was not publicized, using your words, "It seems to be a very elegant image of the queen in a very beautiful surrounding." I wonder what rubbish they would write back, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. They probably have an entire staff of people just to look over the photographs with a microscope to see if any nose hairs are showing, and psychologists and propaganda staff to study how the images might be perceived.

The overwhelming majority of people are not going to see what you want them to see, because the overwhelming majority of people will not get past the façade of the giant lizard lady sitting out in plain sight in the photo. If our neighbors dressed up and acted like that, they'd call them mentally ill and sell them medication.

ultimate_warlord
28-05-2013, 12:29 AM
I don't think any of the photographs are elegant. They make my skin crawl. If there was something like the image of an entity in a photograph that could be questioned, I don't think they would have any problem publicizing it and sticking it into your face... like all of the other symbolism.

But the question you asked is interesting, and maybe you could write a letter to ask why the image was not publicized, using your words, "It seems to be a very elegant image of the queen in a very beautiful surrounding." I wonder what rubbish they would write back, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. They probably have an entire staff of people just to look over the photographs with a microscope to see if any nose hairs are showing, and psychologists and propaganda staff to study how the images might be perceived.

The overwhelming majority of people are not going to see what you want them to see, because the overwhelming majority of people will not get past the façade of the giant lizard lady sitting out in plain sight in the photo. If our neighbors dressed up and acted like that, they'd call them mentally ill and sell them medication.

I don`t agree with your logic. Number one...they didn`t hide the photo well enough not to be "discovered", did they? It`s all over the DI forum. Epic Fail? I don`t think so.
The very fact that the photo was not publicised was to awaken the curiosity of "nutters" like me and 99% of this forum and the youtube and blogs on the internet. If they didn`t taboo this pic, it would have probably passed away unnoticed and been forgotten ages ago. Who would have looked closely at that reflection that can hardly be discerned if it was a run-of-the-mill photo of the monarch? I wouldn`t have...that`s for sure.
Now not only is it exhibited wider than the rest of the set, but it also gave publicity to the previous pics of the younger queen and their relevance to this same photo.

The question here is not "WHAT". It`s "WHY". Get it?

size_of_light
28-05-2013, 02:42 AM
Duke of Edinburgh holding a rubber ducky to get Liz to smile for the camera.

http://i39.tinypic.com/1jkj5u.jpg

Not only isn't it the Duke of Edinburgh holding a rubbery ducky in front of his face, it's not anyone
holding anything in front of their face, since both arms of the figure are down by the sides of the torso.


looks like the reflection of a man in a suit, with his head blocked by the chandelier.


The diagram below is self-explanatory...

Chandelier B, is the one hanging from the ceiling above the Mystery Figure, behind the Queen at the opposite
end of the room.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2925lzm.jpg

Shaq O'Neal is 7 foot 1 inches tall.

The Mystery Figure would need to be 9 or 10 foot tall minimum in order to be tall enough that its head could be
obscured behind Chandelier B.

http://i43.tinypic.com/9gcb28.jpg

Compare the Shaq I've added to the above photo with the chair next to him, beside the door. You'll see by
the scale that I've even EXAGGERATED his height, and made him taller than he would really appear to be if
standing in this position.

In other words, the Mystery Figure would, in reality, need to be closer to 10 - 12 foot tall plus.

However, we'll stick with the extremely conservative estimate of 9 foot tall!!!


http://i41.tinypic.com/349arut.jpg

It's also not a coat, hanging on a clothes dummy or something similar, with the chandelier reflected in the
mirror behind it creating the illusion of a weird face above the headless coat.

http://i43.tinypic.com/j0ihom.jpg

Who says it's not a man in a suit, watching the photographs being taken?

The Queen was undoubtedly digitally imposed on a separate background photograph...

http://i42.tinypic.com/346u62t.jpg


If anything The Queen and Leibovitz didn't approve of mistakenly appeared in that background photograph,
it would have been digitally airbrushed out.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2yucd1f.gif

It took me a couple of minutes to roughly remove the figure from the portrait above.

Leibovtiz works with the best digital artists in the world and had lot longer than a couple of minutes to perfect
this photo.

Everything in the image appears the way it does intentionally.

http://i41.tinypic.com/5lcvw6.jpg

bulletproofheart
28-05-2013, 02:54 AM
Is it just me or does she get more evil looking every year.

As for the pathetic fucking capes and hideous fancy dress in that picture,she looks like a drag queen that fell in a dressing up box.

multiversal_quiver
28-05-2013, 03:07 AM
1. Duke w/ Duck. It's a well known fact that he plays with his ducky in his pocket.

2. That is my point, that what something appears to be to one person, and what it is are often two different things. That is, playing with the contrast and color on an image from earlier, and it looks like this:

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q797/multiquiv/astly_zps9aec4c2f.jpg

Who is this fellow?

size_of_light
28-05-2013, 03:07 AM
What one sees is in the eye of the beholder.

Duke of Edinburgh holding a rubber ducky to get Liz to smile for the camera.


Interesting choice of visual comparisons there...



http://i40.tinypic.com/2j676vq.gif



You suuuuure you can't see it?



http://i39.tinypic.com/4g1xxz.jpg

multiversal_quiver
28-05-2013, 03:08 AM
Is it just me or does she get more evil looking every year.

As for the pathetic fucking capes and hideous fancy dress in that picture,she looks like a drag queen that fell in a dressing up box.

I can agree with that.

multiversal_quiver
28-05-2013, 03:10 AM
Interesting choice of visual comparisons there...



http://i40.tinypic.com/2j676vq.gif



You suuuuure you can't see it?



http://i39.tinypic.com/4g1xxz.jpg

Lol. That could be the duck.

ozpixie
28-05-2013, 03:13 AM
What? What are you seeing?


There's a bloke with the Queen while she's having her photo taken.

Either an assistant to the photographer or an assistant to the queen.

And there's a chandelier which obscures the man's head but someone has doodled two black splodges onto so they look like eyes.

That's what I can see because that's what's there.


This is idiotic and embarrassing.

True.

It's ideas like these that give the forum a bad rap. It's true that there are dark forces controlling governance but these photos don't reflect that whatsoever. The old hag always has people around her.

size_of_light
28-05-2013, 03:14 AM
True.

It's ideas like these that give the forum a bad rap. It's true that there are dark forces controlling governance but these photos don't reflect that whatsoever. The old hag always has people around her.

Spat on by a moderator. :eek:

Keep reading - apology accepted in advance...;)

size_of_light
28-05-2013, 06:37 AM
A quick summary of the timeline so far and on March 28th, 2007, the Queen poses for a portrait with an inter-dimensional reptilian entity, or with Moloch or Baphomet, or some other bizarre and menacing-looking non-human entity emanating from a dimensional portal behind her. Amongst the host of overlapping and interconnected esoteric goals this ritual serves, is to generate the metaphysical propulsion required to power her through the symbolically-momentous upcoming tour of Virginia and other parts of the United States commencing in 36 days time.

http://i41.tinypic.com/5lcvw6.jpg

Touching down in Virginia on May 3rd, she spends a pleasant and enjoyable first morning inhaling the delicious negative energy being exuded by the deeply traumatised survivors of the worst mass murder event in American history; a rare, intoxicating delicacy thoughtfully prepared for her by US authorities 17 days in advance.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2wm4585.jpg

May 8, and still high on death, the Queen pays a visit to NASA's Goddard Space Center, because, well...er..."Hey, why the fuck not, right? We've all seen the photo of Ron Jeremy posing alongside Gary Coleman and Chewbacca the Wookiee, so why not send the Queen to NASA headquarters for the day in the name of random, irrelevant hijinks?"

http://i41.tinypic.com/9untsk.jpg

That's all it was - good, clean, innocent fun, or as the press release put it:

a way to honor the spirit of exploration that marked the settlement at Jamestown. "The NASA visit is about modernity and looking forward to the next generation of explorers," he said.

http://www.space.com/3732-queen-england-visit-nasa-goddard-space-flight-center.html


...sounds like we're going to be hard-pressed to find anything sinister about this particular leg of the tour then. :eek:






:rolleyes: Here's a photo taken when she first arrived at Goddard Space Center...


http://i41.tinypic.com/1qmucm.jpg
http://www.chickensinenvelopes.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/queen-at-nasa.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/9ig1nn.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/8wgpk2.jpg