Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
Post Reply
brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by brianv » Sun Jun 26, 2016 1:55 pm

nonhocapito wrote:The discussion about holograms is a waste of time. We discuss technology we don't even know exists. I think here we are in the presence of actors whose job is mostly spent in studios, and/or agents who are supported by digital scenery just because they cannot afford to step in the real world too much.
Correct and right.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by nonhocapito » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:39 pm

Funny how a few months back Seinfeld was called to lend credibility and charm to Obama; now the same thing seems to be happening for Sugarmountain, as featured in this video:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9No-uMk_-Zw
also from: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/videos/vb ... =2&theater

Seinfeld asks his dull questions, and Zuck gives even duller answers... Regardless, the aim seems to have been to donate some life to the character through the spontaneity of comedy. I am actually more amazed by the apparent abyss in intelligence and presence between the old and the new. All Sugarmountain does is speaking in slogans and shying away from reality.

SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 746
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:36 pm

nonhocapito wrote:Funny how a few months back Seinfeld was called to lend credibility and charm to Obama; now the same thing seems to be happening for Sugarmountain, as featured in this video:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9No-uMk_-Zw
also from: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/videos/vb ... =2&theater

Seinfeld asks his dull questions, and Zuck gives even duller answers... Regardless, the aim seems to have been to donate some life to the character through the spontaneity of comedy. I am actually more amazed by the apparent abyss in intelligence and presence between the old and the new. All Sugarmountain does is speaking in slogans and shying away from reality.
I'll save everyone the pain of listening to this (for those who want a shortcut) and make only a few (of possibly many) observations.

One, they are sitting awful close to each other. That's not impossible, but it's certainly not how I understand the body language to be of most men in conversation settings (even if being filmed).

It's just too close. Unless I'm whispering something in court, or talking to an intimate person in my life, I tend to situate myself with a proper buffer zone. But I do understand that this is both a cultural and individual thing, so my own preferences don't necessarily apply to everyone else.

I'll pass on the video imagery (and how "real" Suckerbook is) as that is not my particular concern here, and video analysis can be handled by more experienced and knowledgeable (re image analysis) members here.

Secondly, I'll point out that at the 11:20 mark into the video, Zuck reads a "question" from a local "person" essentially inviting Jerry to a block party. Jerry acts annoyed and says he doesn't understand the question, and Zuck rephrased it for him as - "will we come to the block party?"

Jerry interestingly replies by saying that "no thank you John- not interested- cause what makes that community nice and relaxed, is that I'm NOT there. (Laughter) That's what makes it friendly, and REAL- that's what he likes about it." Jerry then points his hand toward Zuck and says "you and I showing up will ruin everything he likes about that community."

Of course this can be interpreted more than one way, but I find it a peculiar thing to say in light of the overall mystery surrounding this grey shirted, well postured figure.

Oh yes, one more thing. At about the 8 minute point Zuck begins to talk about how he wants to be in a triathlon. He says at the 8:48 mark that 10 seconds into the bike ride with his dad that he fell and broke his arm.

Jerry appears incredulous, points at Zuck's arm and says "this arm is broken?"

Zuck smiles up towards the camera (or at least what we are to believe is a camera) while pointing at his own left arm, and Jerry says obligingly "it looks a little swollen."
It looks just like it always does to me, so I have no idea what he's up to here.

Zuck then explains that "well it's an a week old" and then gives a strange explanation about people not believing him because he doesn't have a splint or a sling. He then tells us that with a shoulder or elbow the movement is good for the healing process, unless it's "too badly separated."

Am I missing something here? Seriously, I'm not a medical Dr., but I did break my leg as a small child and I was in a "body cast" from my ankles to my chest. I also broke my thumb in law school and had a cast on my wrist/hand to stabilize it for about 6 weeks. It hurt like hell and there's no way I could swing my hand around gesturing during that time. My brother broke his arm (twice) so maybe he (or anyone else) can chime in here?

It doesn't really matter, but I'm a tad baffled as to why an already questionable figure like Zuck would even say such a thing. Is it an admission of sorts to his artificial nature? Please note that I'm using the word "artificial" in a very broad sense. I truly have no idea what's going on with this character.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by nonhocapito » Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:36 pm

(As it is obvious, I'm having way too much free time at the moment, so here I am again posting about the super-dull Sugarmountain. :mellow: )

Browsing his pics with a fake facebook account (wouldn't use that shit for all the tea in china), I find this which I'm posting next to a couple of interesting comments.
2016-06-28 03_52_53-Debauchery.jpg
from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

Yep, the commentators must be right, because this photo is most likely just impossible. Cannot have been shot. Of course the world of business is full of doctored photo-ops so nothing strange. However it does confirm a tendency, with this continuous stream of faked events and faked imagery surrounding this mediocre character.

Here's another innocent comment which inadvertently exposes the artificial nature of Zuck's pictures. Not to mention the CEO/runner once again floating in the air, perhaps thanks to the notorious pollution of Bejing?
2016-06-28 04_04_12-Debauchery.jpg
from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

TrutherInTX
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:38 am

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by TrutherInTX » Tue Jun 28, 2016 3:00 am

nonhocapito wrote:Funny how a few months back Seinfeld was called to lend credibility and charm to Obama; now the same thing seems to be happening for Sugarmountain, as featured in this video:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9No-uMk_-Zw
also from: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/videos/vb ... =2&theater

Seinfeld asks his dull questions, and Zuck gives even duller answers... Regardless, the aim seems to have been to donate some life to the character through the spontaneity of comedy. I am actually more amazed by the apparent abyss in intelligence and presence between the old and the new. All Sugarmountain does is speaking in slogans and shying away from reality.
The oddest thing to me is those last few seconds of the video and how Seinfeld is reacting. I can't quite find the words but his demeanor said it all. It was like his facial movements and fake smile were as if this was something really odd and that he could not believe he was part of it. I will try and catch the right moment and add the picture later. Its hard to capture because there are a few seconds where you can sense what he is thinking as if this was beyond him or something.

Sugar mountain pulled it off well I thought but I agree with SCS that I was uncomfortable with them sitting so close. I would never be comfortable with that. Hope they both brushed their teeth before the interview.

VexMan
Banned
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 7:34 pm

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by VexMan » Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:51 am

Just wanted to jump into this discussion with something interesting I noticed.

It was a while ago, that I was reading an article done by Miles Mathis on Zuckerberg (can be found here http://mileswmathis.com/zuck.pdf ) and at the end of the pdf there is a link to theonion.com, the satire / allegedly fake news TV media (in my opinion they perform "regular public checks" about fakery and how much can/should they bent over general public with news fakery). Depending on my own thought about it, I was chewing on it yet distributed the link to the original video to my close friends with a reminder to be sceptic - but to think about posting there again.

Today , I wanted to share that link in here , as I noticed that nobody brought this particular item into discussion. As it turned out, the original video link IS DISABLED to view, as well as all video embedded links on numerous other sites (i've checked at least 30-40 of them). This got me motivated and I found the video on Youtube, that is unfortunately partial Onion's TV video - however it still contains a very intriguing part, where CIA deputy Cristopher Sartinsky says among other: "We were astounded that so many people would willingly publicize where they lived, their religious and political views, alphabetized lists of all their friends, personal email addresses, phone numbers, hundreds of photos of themselves, and even status updates of what they were doing moment to moment. It is truly a dream come true for the CIA." As Mathis has as well mentioned in his pdf, at 0:47s in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0 ) they tell us his CIA codename : OverLord . Quite profound nickname indeed . :

Let's suppose that The Onion indeed meant to make the original post/video/news just to follow some dirty agenda , there is/was no need to disable and deny access to it as time passed. That would be logical only if they revealed few (or one) facts to much while testing the viewers minds. Considering many other markers about Zuckerberg, doing some reading and research* and giving it a thought about it - it is not a far-fetched theory that Zuckerberg may indeed be posed just as a front-end of a covert op, named Fazebook .

* I found only 1 more page with some rational thought about it here http://www.discuss.epluribusmedia.net/c ... ia-program

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:53 pm

VexMan » September 16th, 2016, 10:51 am wrote:
It was a while ago, that I was reading an article done by Miles Mathis on Zuckerberg (can be found here http://mileswmathis.com/zuck.pdf ) and at the end of the pdf there is a link to theonion.com, the satire / allegedly fake news TV media (in my opinion they perform "regular public checks" about fakery and how much can/should they bent over general public with news fakery). Depending on my own thought about it, I was chewing on it yet distributed the link to the original video to my close friends with a reminder to be sceptic - but to think about posting there again.
About The Onion, I absolutely agree that they often do "checks" of credulity in their own articles, but this is — to me, at least — more because they were enamored with their fame and their role and they didn't want to lose it. Who would? They were one of America's leading comedy "channels" as it were, they were not owned by a massive media corporation, and they had a responsibility to their humor to try to read their audience and remain relevant, even at the expense of missing the mark.

That may be considered all subject to change, now, of course — since pro-Zionist, 'politically' involved Univision Communications bought the satirical newspaper. It reminds me of when already half-hearted satirical rag Mad Magazine was gobbled up by Warner Brothers and finally got normal advertisements.

Our country officially needs new independent satire. Dirty money keeps sucking it up.

As for ...
it is not a far-fetched theory that Zuckerberg may indeed be posed just as a front-end of a covert op, named Fazebook .
No shit Sherlock! :lol:

Even though Zuckerberg is "disconnected" from Facebook, in a way, he constantly "exists" (there must be a better verb for a simulation being perpetuated!) just to remind people of it. I appreciate nonhocapito keeping an eye on Zuckerberg's press releases.

VexMan
Banned
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 7:34 pm

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by VexMan » Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:58 am

hoi.polloi » September 17th, 2016, 4:53 pm wrote: As for ...
it is not a far-fetched theory that Zuckerberg may indeed be posed just as a front-end of a covert op, named Fazebook .
No shit Sherlock! :lol:

Even though Zuckerberg is "disconnected" from Facebook, in a way, he constantly "exists" (there must be a better verb for a simulation being perpetuated!) just to remind people of it. I appreciate nonhocapito keeping an eye on Zuckerberg's press releases.
B) Lately I like to name/call things and people as they are. Zuckerberg = Holographic (?) perpetrator alias Psyop agent alias actor-in-real-life doing his hoax hocus-pocus in the media . There, I said it again.

All that I read here is just priceless, I am grateful to all contributors.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by nonhocapito » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:15 pm

It recently occurred to me that there is a lot in common between Mark Zuckenberg and Kim Jong-un. They exclusively both appear in photo-ops promoting this or that initiative or product, not existing otherwise. They are systematically presented in the act of pointing and looking at things or caught in doing something crucial and amazing. And everyone around them agrees with their mood unconditionally and/or eagerly sucks up to them.
2016-09-21 21_08_35-News and info.jpg
1454117979733_2028.jpg
Only the uniforms are different. Are any of these monitors actually on?
I wonder if these people are made of the same kind of fakery or of different kinds...

Here's another pic that's worth a comment. Posted (as a profile pic!) after the faked terror events in Paris:
2016-09-21 21_19_50-News and info.jpg
I think Antonio Vukovic in the comments pretty much sums it up.

And to conclude this update about the faked life of Sugarmountain, here's the latest:
2016-09-21 21_28_27-News and info.jpg
Aside of the disproportionate big head of the wife (which might indicate photoshop if only because it doesn't look so big in other photos) all I see is that "September" and "11" totally accidental juxtaposition...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:48 am

nonhocapito, I can't tell if this is a tribute to your research, or a marketing coincidence that it involves hoaxes. There is a new movie coming out called "Sugar Mountain" whose tagline is "Truth Gets Lost."
Two brothers, down on their luck, fake a disappearance in the Alaskan wilderness so they'll have a great survival story to sell, but the hoax turns out to be more real than they planned.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3553378/

Two brothers, eh? Not twins this time, I suppose or we'd practically have an allusion to the Naudet story line.

Perhaps if enough people search "Sugar Mountain" it might randomly draw people to this topic. :D

Anders
Banned
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:20 am

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by Anders » Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:45 am

nonhocapito » June 21st, 2016, 10:49 am wrote:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ypVArkbsn8
Mark Zuckerberg a computer simulation?! This is getting hilarious. :lol: I was shocked to learn that Edward Snowden might be a simulated character, and when I looked at it, then it looks like a real possibility.

But Zuckerberg being a simulation? Surely he has to make presentations within his company? Seems way too improbable that he can be a simulation. But I agree that the quoted video above looks like a green screen projection of an audience with Obama and Zuckerberg plastered on top. So even if that doesn't show he is a simulation it shows fakery imo. And the quoted image above, is that really Zuckerberg or a lookalike actor?

In the video below it's difficult to see the face of Zuckerberg in the beginning when he walks onto the stage, because the camera is zoomed out a lot, but again, is that really Zuckerberg or is it a lookalike actor in the first few seconds of that video?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQaCv52DSnY

And in the next video from about 1:30 is it a lookalike actor again that walks to the demo? The presenter on stage first looks like Zuckerberg, then it's a cut to the lookalike actor walking across the stage, and then there is another cut and it looks like Zuckerberg again when he picks up the VR headset:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGSc_YLQAyo
Last edited by Anders on Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

Anders
Banned
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:20 am

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by Anders » Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:46 am

EDIT: Removed duplicate post.

Anders
Banned
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:20 am

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by Anders » Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:40 pm

Here is a video from Mark Zuckerberg's office that looks worse than the ISS space station videos:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVsUwF4L6Nc

The poor video quality, well that may be because it was uploaded like that, but why the change of the proportions so that the video becomes stretched out sideways? One possible reason is to mask a green screen projection of the whole scenery. And what kind of office space is that? Is that tiny desk in the middle of the industrial looking environment supposed to be where Mark Zuckerberg sits?

EDIT: I now found a video where the proportions have been corrected. With more correct proportions it shows that the video has been cropped a lot on the sides. Is the cropping a trick to make a green screen projection look more convincing? Anyway, the camera and the image of Zuckerberg move together in a way that looks artificial.
Last edited by Anders on Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by nonhocapito » Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:31 pm

So Anders, do you read the threads you post on? Or you just skip through them, get the wrong idea and make a smart comment accordingly?
Nowhere in the thread it is stated that he is a 100% computer simulated character (at least I haven't said it.)

Rather, given the puzzling pictures which often look photoshopped or artificial or simulated (the pictures taken on the Russia trip were the defining moment for me, but this thread is full of them and for more you only have to head to his facebook page) we can reasonably argue that most of the events this person is allegedly involved in see him in fact as a digital creation or addition of some sort.

Furthermore, I'd argue that there is no way that this guy sits at the top of this crucial company, simply because the military-power structure would not allow such geo-strategical value to be concentrated in the hands of one person. If we accept the idea that he might not be the real boss at all, we can also accept the fact that his presence at many corporate meetings and functions is completely unnecessary, unless they are marked as a photo opportunity.

I am of the idea that there is probably an actor here, but certainly they don't buy him all the plane tickets, for several reasons.

And I am quite comfortable in advancing the hypothesis that this is actually a normal operation for the power structure at this point: to create characters to feed to the public as "CEOs" and "geniuses" and "creators" of all these amazing technological things that surround us, simply because they cannot afford to inform the public on how these companies actually came to light or what is the real purpose behind them.

The idea that actors are used in a heavily digitized environment can be extended at other figures as well. Case in point:
2016-11-24 18_35_38-News and info.jpg
From http://indianexpress.com/photos/trendin ... d-2952012/

Image

Doesn't look like he was actually sitting there to me...
t5bt44ca.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Anders
Banned
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:20 am

Re: Facebook, Twitter and the artificial new media

Unread post by Anders » Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:50 pm

nonhocapito » November 24th, 2016, 2:31 pm wrote: Nowhere in the thread it is stated that he is a 100% computer simulated character (at least I haven't said it.)

Rather, given the puzzling pictures which often look photoshopped or artificial or simulated (the pictures taken on the Russia trip were the defining moment for me, but this thread is full of them and for more you only have to head to his facebook page) we can reasonably argue that most of the events this person is allegedly involved in see him in fact as a digital creation or addition of some sort.
Ok, my mistake, by fake I assumed it meant that Zuckerberg was a CGI character like Snowden. But what if even Zuckerberg is a CGI character (with lookalike actors playing some roles)? The whole Facebook operation looks massively faked now that I look at it (I haven't researched Facebook earlier).

Facebook is a fairly new company. The first Zuckerberg interview on television was in 2004:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB7cjH0gtMQ

Assuming that Zuckerberg is a computer simulated character seems like a crazy idea, but one has to at least examine the possibility. In the interview he talks about Harvard. Obama allegedly studied at Harvard, but I have doubts about that because there are photos of Obama at Harvard that look fake. So Harvard is then a big fakery academic central of some kind.

Post Reply