First of all, I don't give two shits about the royals. I do care when people are trying to be shady as hell though.
So does anyone here with a lukewarm IQ or higher have thoughts on Kate Middleton's recent reappearance after claiming she would be stepping away from her royal duties due to cancer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx6AkLWerpw
- It looks like her, not a double like whoever was "out shopping" earlier this year(see link below)
- She looks fine, although a little skinnier
- All shots of her are pretty far away with no audio. They did, however, selectively release "private footage" filmed at different time or day at a time it was more sunny out.
It's just so weird to me. She's clearly alive and a functional human being, why maintain this aire of secrecy and just be normal for once?
For the record, I previously thought she was dead and royal family had been trying to cover it up. This appearance just leaves me scratching my head.
News article from earlier this year about a Princess Kate public appearance: https://www.news18.com/viral/kate-middletons-new-pic-shopping-with-prince-william-has-everyone-saying-thats-not-her-8820609.html
My guess is tension between her and William. Possibly he was having an affair or beating her (hence the sudden hospital visit in December, when he might have gotten carried away). She wanted out, but the royal family didn't want a scandal. It looks like she's playing along for now but keeping a notable distance from William.
Solid theory.
No, she's still dead. If you've seen some of the latest DeepFakes, they're nearly flawless. I am reliably informed that you can look up some celebrity DeepFakes on porn sites to see some of the recent efforts. Quite... uh... sufficient to purpose.
It's becoming commonplace these days for dead people to still be "alive", at least as far as the public is concerned. Hunter and Joe have been dead since before "Biden" was inaugurated. Gavin Newsom has been dead since late 2021. RBG and QE2 were both dead for about a year before it was ever announced. Hillary was executed just before the 2016 election. Putin has had a body double since way back in 2013 (although I do not believe he is dead).
The state of the information war is that you aren't supposed to believe any of this is possible. Shill posts can be easily identified as simply denying the possibility outright without addressing any evidence, or by diverting to another direction of inquiry. In conspiracy circles, such instances rise and fade, but the pattern is that even most conspiracists go back to generally accepting the people as alive.
So it isn't who might have died and when, or if it's even possible to fake their continued existence and how, but the goal now is to gaslight you into rejecting the plausibility entirely. No need for any complicated and troublesome hand-waving in that mode.
Are they always deep fakes or do they use masks? There's a Biden interview video with very clear two-toned skin on the neck. I'm thinking they'll use an actor for the debate, but I don't know how they do the voice. Who is QE2? Hint please
Easy one first: QE2 = Queen Elizabeth II.
As for simulating the continuing existence of a person, they use a wide variety of methods, as convenient, to keep the psyop going. We're familiar with the overt ones--masks, body doubles, DeepFakes, Photoshop, etc--but some of them are very subtle indeed.
Take the example of the least effort, most convincing: you'll see an article about an appearance a subject made somewhere, including a picture. Well, that proves it, right?
It would be easy enough to take an old photo, Shop it a bit to make it look like the place they were supposed to have been, and give it a phony caption, but the really funny thing is that I've never seen that. They just use an old stock photo and label it "Stock photo", or they don't label it at all, or they put in a photo without the subject in question, or they do not include a photo at all.
All these things serve to convince the reader the subject is still alive. Of course they are! Their death was never announced, was it? The absolute key is that no one is actually looking, but their subconscious absorbs the "evidence" all the same. I'm not special, I'm just looking.
There are endless variations on this theme, such as someone mentioning their encounter with the subject. The latest iteration on this--and it is absolutely effective--is that the news will "leak" that the subject has done something bad or embarrassing. Conspiracy theorists jump on it like a duck on a junebug, just as they are meant to.
Finally, as much talk as there has been about DeepFake, the voice aspect has been around even longer but somehow, strangely, never gets any play even in conspiracy circles:
After 20 Minutes of Listening, New Adobe Tool Can Make You Say Anything (Vice 11/5/2016)
There's sort of a funny coincidence about the date of the article. That's right at the time of a big election, and a huge controversy at that time and continuing until present is that one of the candidates had "said something on a hot mic" about "grabbing women by the pussy". Yet you will never hear a conspiracy theorist (who isn't me) question the authenticity of that clip.
That really should tell you something about how the human mind works and the state of "conspiracy theory".
EDIT: I take back what I said. There was one time I saw them Photoshop a recent event, and that was Gavin Newsom's 2022 re-election. There used to be a set of these, but they've black-holed them all. The remaining Shopped pic of his "victory speech" is here:
Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis victory speeches pushed wildly different views of ‘freedom’ (San Francisco Chronicle 11/9/2022)
The other major paper just went with some kooky random pic, who even knows if it's real:
California voters elect Gov. Gavin Newsom to a second term (Los Angeles Times 11/8/2022)
Bizarre when you actually look, isn't it?
Thanks for the detailed response. I didn't think they'd use AI for voices, because that means the TV crews and interviewers are in on it, too. I would think there would be whistleblowers by now, but I suppose people have disappeared for less. You have a good eye to see through that Newsome Photoshop. You're right that most conspiracy theorists would not question at the level you are.
Just show us the evidece of these deaths.
Something happened to her that took originally an "unestimable amount of time to fix", hence pulling from public and all the lies.
Battery? Nervous breakdown? Depression? Suicide attempt? Something else?
Those who know don't tell .
how the fuck would anyone posting in this forum know
Maybe not everything is a conspiracy. Ever thought about that?
I have, and I disagree.
How come? The people who claimed she was dead have been proven wrong and the people who said she was just taking some time out to deal with her illness have been proven right.
Because bro, the whole thing has been weird. From a doctored mother's day photo from Kate Middleton, to the very odd video statement by Kate that the family released, to the reports that she and Prince William were out shopping together when it clearly wasn't them.
Do you have any intellectual curiosity to step back and wonder why the situation has been so weird and shady.
The best theory that's being thrown around which was discussed on on reddit is that Kate and William are basically split and she wants out, and this is her way of staying out of his life or the royal family duties and still saving face for the monarchy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1dgf3u4/what_made_kate_middleton_play_ball/
Forget it's the royals, being able to discern bullshit in the media is a good skill to have and a worthwhile thing to talk about.
I'll give you similar statements to the one you just made ("The people who claimed she was dead have been proven wrong")
Maybe, maybe not, they are topics still worth discussing. Stop being so insular.
https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/royals/princess-kate-senior-staffers-havent-seen-spoken-to-her
You forgot senior staff was not told where she was and it was kept quiet from them for months.
I believe in conspiracies, but I also believe most of them work to our favor even if we never know how. Regarding gossip, talk is cheap when the story is good
Ones consent buying into the suggested "return" sold by another.
Aka responding by turning away from being (life) directed (inception towards death).
To few it doesn't matter whose return many await; only that each one responds in turns (circular reasoning) to suggested.
a) Watching suggested implies giving consent and focus towards it.
b) Royal/regis/reg - "to move (life) in a straight line (inception towards death).
Sleight of hand...king (whole) of kings (partials).
You didn't read my post
This dudes my new pick for biggest schizo on this site lmao
All his posts are weird like that. Curious what meds he is on.
a) Intelligence/understanding - "to stand under" implies submission of self to another when consenting to suggested.
b) Quotient/quoties - "how often"...how often one stands under another implies ones free will of choice.
I don't know what kind of drugs you are on, but mind sharing with the rest of us?
a) Nature shares everything (perceivable) with each one (perception)...anything suggested tempts one to not care about what nature shares.
b) Drug/droge - "to dry" tempts one to ignore being solid (life) within fluid (inception towards death). As in...waters above/waters below.
c) Rest implies cessation of motion, which temporary matter (life) within ongoing motion (inception towards death) cannot experience.
d) Knowledge implies perceivable...ones perception can only exist within all perceivable...so you do know. Others suggest IQ to tempt your consent to stand under (understand) again and again.
What the hell is wrong with you?
a) Hell - place where evil people go when they die
b) Wrong - something irregular, or incorrect
c) You - A person on the internet, perhaps troubled.
Bot
a) Can you show me a bot that can adapt to perceivable inspiration or any other artificial tool that doesn't require suggested information to respond to?
b) How is it that I can adapt piece by piece to what another wrote, yet most reading it can't see the "relation" of me taking apart what others put together to deceive them?
c) Please verify that you are a human...NIGGER. Congratulations; you're not a bot.
a) Right implies straight; wrong/wergh/wer implies turning; bending...
b) Being implies bend (life) within straight (inception towards death)...others tempt one to turn against one another.
c) Heaven vs hell and right vs wrong and me vs you imply conflicts of reason against others aka ones mind turned away from self.
d) THE implies ones consent to suggested the-ism aka ones submission of self to authority of another.
a) What if living (temporary reaction) implies within process of dying (ongoing action)?
b) What if place of being cannot change, since it exists at the center (matter) of change (motion)?
c) Who suggested you moralism (good vs evil) and progressivism (heaven vs hell afterlife) and why did you consent by choosing a side within the resulting conflicts?
a) Once again...wrong/wergh/wer implies bending (all perceivable through each ones perception) or turning (suggestion vs suggestion).
b) Regular (Latin regula) - "straight"...hence being with-IN (life) REGULAR (inception towards death).
c) Suggested correct aka com (together; with) regere (to lead straight) inverts perceivable...being (life) lead straight (inception towards death) apart from one another.
Few suggest cor/com to establish correlation aka interconnection among consenting many...in other words; collectivism.
a) Ones free will of choice to claim self as "me; myself or I" brands everyone else into a "you". If one lets go of self; then others remain ones (partials) within oneness (whole)...for all implies one in energy.
b) Person implies per sonos (by sound) aka SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire; whole; unbroken"...hence each one within sound (in sanus/insane) being single; partial; broken apart from one another.
c) Could few suggest ON-line and IN-ternet to distract many from discerning that ON (being in contact with surface) and IN (being within surrounding) contradict each other?
d) Solution (inception towards death) dissolves problems (life)...ignoring this establishes trouble/turbid - "confusion", hence fusing (fuse) together (con) the suggested information one willingly carries around/burdens self with as debt to others.
Sleight of hand... https://genius.com/Ryan-bingham-nobody-knows-my-trouble-lyrics
Trouble implies suggested information; knowledge implies perceivable inspiration, and baby implies baby-lon aka BA'BEL, noun (Hebrew) - "confusion; disorder".
Thanks for the inspiration. Great reply.