Sweet Muskatel dreams and other illusions
Join our free email list here.
***
A side note about a completely fictional scenario that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything going on now in real life
Imagine a revolutionary new design of baby swing came out, and it sold well. However, in its first year on the market, more serious injuries and deaths were reported to the Bureau of Consumer Protection from the new baby swing than from all other baby swings combined for the last 30 years.
Completely hypothetical question 1: Is it reasonable for the Bureau of Consumer Protection to ignore the massive increase in reports of serious injury and death from the new baby swing?
Completely hypothetical question 2: Is it reasonable not to inform the public, or baby swing consumers, of the massive increase in reports of serious injury and death from the new swing?
In completely unrelated nonfiction news, more serious injuries and deaths have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System from the COVID19 vaccines than from all other vaccines combined for the last 30 years. Read more on the CVax Risk page.
***
We can tell it’s real because it looks so fake—honestly
When I first saw Elon Musk’s roadster in space video in 2018, I was in awe—not for the same reason most people were.
It looks computer-generated, but no one is asking any questions about it. Amazing! I thought.
The producers of Musk Theater were no dummies—they knew the roadster in space looked like computer-generated imagery (CGI), and Musk was prepared with a script for it.
Notice in this excerpt from the ‘press conference’ that Musk raised the issue of the appearance of fakery himself, as if he had nothing to hide; while ignoring a question from toadying AP reporter Marcia Dunn, who made it clear she had no doubt whatsoever the roadster in space was real.
Dunn wanted to know what Musk was thinking about when he witnessed the miracle he’d created. It turned out Musk was thinking about how fake it looked. What else would someone who just made history and international news be thinking about at a time like that?
Dunn: What were your…what, what was going through your mind…how, how amazed were you to see your roadster up there with Starman, uh…just cruising along with the Blue Planet, and how long will we be getting live views, do you think, from the car?
Musk: Well, I think it looks so ridiculous and impossible…um, and, you can tell it’s real because it looks so fake, honestly (loud laughter, mainly from 1 unseen guy). We’d have way better CGI if it was fake (more laughter).
With the magic word “honestly” tacked on, Musk turned gibberish into gold. We’re left with the understanding that it’s perfectly normal for real things to look fake. In fact, the faker it looks, the realer it is. Once again, I was in awe.
What Musk said made absolutely no sense—they just added some laughter to make it sound witty, and it worked! It just goes to show that even a marginal actor playing a quirky billionaire genius can easily fool the world, as long as the media plays along.
Musk continued about the appearance of fabrication:
Elon Musk at the roadster-in-space ‘press conference’ in 2018.
“Um, and, you know, the, the colors all look like, kind of weird in space—there’s no atmospheric occlusion—you know, you know, like everything looks too crisp. Um, and um, but we know, we didn’t really test any of those materials for, you know, is it space-hardened, or whatever, you know. So, it just has the same seats that like normal car has, it’s just [unintelligible] a normal car in space, which, I kind of like the absurdity of that…”
Unsure what “atmospheric occlusion” meant, I entered it into a search engine, but only got results for “atmospheric” and “occlusion” separately. By putting the term inside quotes, I was able to find this article, dedicated to explaining what Musk meant by “atmospheric occlusion”—a term he either made up or got wrong.
“Sachleben noted that he's never heard of ‘atmospheric occlusion,’ the term Musk used. It's likely that Musk was referring to particles in Earth's air that block and scatter light, but it's hard to say for sure, Sachleben said.”
Apparently, it was just dumb luck that, without any testing whatsoever, the result of Musk’s fun little multi-billion-dollar roadster-in-space project was a stunningly beautiful video worthy of a high-budget Hollywood film. There were no exploding tires, bubbled paint, leaking fluids, uncontrollable tumbling or inferior lighting to sully the picture.
I’m not going to try to convince you here that Musk’s roadster in space and other space antics were fiction—if you want to see the evidence for that, you can start here and here. I’m just saying everyone should be questioning whether it’s fiction, based on the obvious appearance of fabrication. After all, even the man selling it as real admits it looks fake.
The long history of “seeing is believing”
It’s been true for decades that “seeing it on TV ” is the functional equivalent of “seeing it live.” I think there’s increasing awareness of just how easy it is to fake anything on video, even on live television. But there’s also a common belief that major news stories would never, or could never, be fabricated.
Not only can major news stories be fabricated, it’s easy. All you need is an obedient press that says what they’re told to say, and a trusting population that believes what they’re told to believe.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” -- Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928), Chapter One.
The Apollo moon missions
To this day, millions still fiercely believe the Apollo moon missions were real, bless their hearts—and that illusion was all done with rudimentary 1960s technology.
I don’t mean to sound condescending, since I believed it myself until about a decade ago, when I decided to actually look into the evidence, instead of assuming it was nonsense like I’d always been told. It’s amazing how much I’ve learned that way.
This is a short playlist about NASA fraud on my YouTube channel, if you’re interested.
One key issue is the Van Allen Radiation Belt—bands of extreme radiation said to surround the earth. It’s necessary to get through or around the belts to get to the moon, which NASA purportedly did several times in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This resulted in no harm whatsoever to the astronauts or their equipment.
Yet today, NASA says it’s trying to solve the problem of getting humans and equipment safely through the Van Allen Radiation Belt, and we haven’t been ‘back’ to the moon for half a century.
According to NASA astronaut Don Pettit, who appears in the video above at about 5:40, he’d love to go to the moon, but we can’t do it anymore because we “destroyed” the technology to do it.
Question: If we threw every cell phone on Earth into the ocean, would cell phone technology be “destroyed”? No—it would only be lost for a few hours or days or weeks, until new cell phones could be built. How was the technology to get to the moon destroyed, such that decades later, we still haven’t been able to build it back up again?
9/11
Turn-of-the-century technology—video compositing—was used to create the illusion of planes hitting buildings on 9/11. Impossible? Before you jump to conclusions, watch The Key by Ace Baker and evaluate the evidence for yourself. He makes a convincing case, IMO.
Have you ever noticed that if you raise a discussion about 9/11 on social media, there will almost always be at least one person in the discussion who says they were an “eye-witness”? The odds say that’s impossible, but I eventually realized that almost all of them meant they were an ‘eye-witness’ via live television, and were nowhere near NYC at the time.
Seeing is not required for believing
Seeing it on TV isn’t even required to instill beliefs—all that’s required is for figures of apparent authority to tell people what to believe, and for the media to spread the word.
For example, “Experts say a dangerous new virus could kill 90% of life on earth.” This frightening headline is broadcast by all the media, with a scary CGI image of a purported virus, a video of a guy falling flat on his face on the street in China ‘from the virus,’ and assurances that scientists are working on a vaccine to save us. That’s all it takes to instill widespread fear of a dangerous virus—the proof of that is all around us.
Spanish Flu lies
Almost exactly the same thing as COVID19 happened 100 years ago, when people were told a dangerous new invisible enemy that caused Spanish Flu was threatening life on earth. The only difference was that invisible enemy was said to be a bacterium, rather than a virus. Schools and churches were closed; masking requirement were implemented; travel restrictions were put in place; and most of all, experimental vaccines were developed.
A 2010 paper published in the journal of the Office of the US Surgeon General and the US Public Health Service described many different vaccines developed to prevent and cure Spanish flu. They were administered to millions of people, including military, employees of large corporations, and residents of state institutions. Medical journals published glowing reviews of these vaccines, which were based on a theory of what caused flu that has since been discredited.
One of multiple instances where the CDC lies about Spanish Flu vaccines, claiming they didn’t exist.
Today, Spanish Flu is said to have been the most deadly pandemic in recent history. The CDC brazenly lies, claiming there were no Spanish Flu vaccines—knowing that in reality, millions of Spanish Flu vaccines were administered to a trusting public.
There’s a network of propaganda that successfully reinforces the lie and keeps the existence of Spanish Flu vaccines a secret. Why? Apply some commonsense and imagination, and see what you come up with.