Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Electronic Harassment / Mind Control / Subliminal Programing

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-03-2014, 03:25 PM   #581
mountain
Senior Member
 
mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,493
Likes: 17 (9 Posts)
Default

I admit, this has to be the creepiest thread I have seen!

I just hope that folks would take the time to skim through all of the revelations that was made about not just the one portrait of the Queen, but the many others. Alarming just how much time and detail they put into their surroundings that are connected to occult knowledge.
__________________
<3 ~ Peace & Love ~ <3
mountain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2014, 01:48 AM   #582
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain View Post
Great finds, Size! And wonderful to see you back! <3
Quote:
Originally Posted by yass View Post
Good show, good example! (@They Live!) Keep it up SOL and ditto glad to see you back with us. I hope you're rested up good.

I'm gonna say it (ahead) because I never know when you're gonna be leaving until you've gone:

Take your time going but hurry back!


Right back at ya, ladies!

---



Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain View Post
I admit, this has to be the creepiest thread I have seen!

I just hope that folks would take the time to skim through all of the revelations that was made about not just the one portrait of the Queen, but the many others. Alarming just how much time and detail they put into their surroundings that are connected to occult knowledge.
Speaking of creepy, here are some self-portraits by Cecil - 'close friend of the Queen Mother' - Beaton,
the photographer Annie Leibovitz admitted she was trying to emulate when she created this:















Last edited by size_of_light; 11-03-2014 at 06:02 AM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2014, 03:16 AM   #583
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

In the below portrait, a figure - likely Beaton himself - appears as a reflection in
the mirror behind the Queen (between the letters T & R in the word 'PORTRAIT').



This is obviously intentional - a point confirmed beyond all doubt by the simple fact
that this photo made the cover of the book on his Royal work (the publisher would
not have selected an image that demonstrated the photographer's ineptitude.)

From this we know that the Queen approved of the use of reflected figures in the
backgrounds of her official portraits decades before Leibovitz came on the scene.



More Beaton imagery below and the depth of his fascination with mirrors, and with
the themes of multiple personalities, hidden forms of control and the presence of a
'shadow self' becomes clearer...

Thematically and compositionally, the Mystery Figure portrait - a Leibovitz homage
to Beaton - merges seamlessly into this body of work.


















Last edited by size_of_light; 11-03-2014 at 06:05 AM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2014, 08:14 AM   #584
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

Early in the thread I noted the apparent, suspicious lack of online exposure of the Mystery Figure portrait
in stories covering the Queen's historic sitting for Leibovitz; while the other three photos in the official quartet
were attracting plenty of attention, this one alone seemed to keep being omitted from articles and exhibitions.

I've come across a couple of recent examples though, where beyond just reversing that situation, the
Mystery Figure portrait is being solely used to represent Leibovitz's entire career body of work!

From the Australian Women's Weekly, March 5, 2014:


http://www.aww.com.au/news-features/...r-famous-work/


From The Telegram, June 7, 2013:


http://www.thetelegram.com/Living/20...N.S.-gallery/1


This one is also interesting for how unusually close to the portrait the women posing for the press photo is standing as she views it; any closer and she'd
fog up the glass and go cross-eyed:



Her odd position reminds me of a Photoshop mock-up well back in the thread in which I composited a man very close to the portrait in a gallery
setting and wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
Based on the complete absence of any controversy whatsoever surrounding the contents of this portrait prior to sugarray first raising the issue on this forum, it would seem reasonable to conclude that if the photo ever was put on public display (and it's unclear whether that has been the case), then every single one of the people who viewed the image must have shuffled up to it, gazed in slack-jawed stupor directly at the non-human entity and then shuffled away again without even registering that anything paradigm-alteringly abnormal was being presented right in front of their eyes.



Every single one of the clueless fuckers must have missed it!




Given that we now know that the portrait has indeed been on - at least limited - public display, and people have had the opportunity to get up close and personal with the image and scrutinize it in such a detailed way, the question must be spluttered out in exasperated disbelief:



How in the hell did she and every other clueless, hypnotized fucker miss this guy?!?





Footnote: Interestingly, despite assurances by the Art Gallery of Novia Scotia that the donated works would go on public display 'later in 2013', and then in January of 2014, the exhibition continues to be delayed for unspecified reasons. No opening date has yet been announced.

Last edited by size_of_light; 04-04-2014 at 09:37 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-2014, 10:52 AM   #585
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

In 2010, it was revealed that a portrait of Queen Elizabeth I - unseen by the
public for almost 90 years - was beginning to display two curious pentimentos
(earlier images that have been painted over and then begin to show when the
surface paint degrades).



The less publicized of these concealed images was discovered by X-Ray and showed:

Quote:
a portrait of an unknown woman [that] lies underneath Elizabeth. Her head is
higher and she’s facing the opposite way.[...]you can actually see her eye and
nose in the left side of Elizabeth’s forehead and temple where the paint has
chipped off. It looks like an absorbed twin.

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/5028

Image altered by Gallery to illustrate secondary face

The History Blog (http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/5028 ) appears to
reflect the official consensus view of the newly-emerged details when it states:

Quote:
[...]the painter is unknown, but he’s definitely not the same person who would
paint Elizabeth on the panel later. It’s very thoroughly painted but not quite
complete. This lady is wearing a French hood, a garment fashionable from 1570
to 1580, so she might have been on the recycling heap for 10 to 20 years before
getting royally repurposed.
Perhaps this 'recycling' notion is wrong, however - or is a conscious deception
by the establishment - and the painting was deliberately layered in the way it has
been to conceal a profound, esoteric reality within the work that was intended not
to be uncovered for centuries.

After all, doesn't it seem unlikely that a royally-appointed portrait artist - even
back in the 16th century - would use a second-hand panel for the most prestigious
commission of his career? More implausible still, is the alternative scenario - that
Elizabeth I herself supplied the panel for the portrait but could not source a new one.

Compare the 'split-personality' effect of this painting to some of the self-portraits by
Cecil Beaton - close friend of the Queen Mother and favoured royal photographer for
40 years (more examples in posts #582 & 583 above) - whose work betrayed a
deep-fascination verging on an obsession with this same visual theme...



Coincidence, or are both artists and royal insiders communicating the same secret meaning?



The other pentimento in this painting was the one that attracted the headlines in 2010
and showed that Elizabeth -

Quote:
[...]was originally depicted holding a coiled serpent in her hand instead of the innocuous
nosegay she holds now.

...

The serpent was a symbol of wisdom and reasoned judgment — as on the rod of Aesculapius,
the physicians’ emblem — so that’s probably where our unknown artist was going with
the imagery. He changed his mind, though (possibly in consideration of the common association
of snakes with the devil and original sin), and quickly painted it over with a strangely-shaped
but perfectly inoffensive little bouquet of roses.

Paint analysis shows that the snake was definitely made at the same time as the rest of the
portrait. There is no varnish between the snake and flower layers, so we know it was painted
right over.

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/5028


Oddly, the creature has the body of a snake but the head of a lizard or dinosaur:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...izabeth-I.html

If this head were viewed from a front-on perspective, might it resemble the visage of
the Mystery Figure?





Another interesting way the Leibovitz portrait is potentially linked to the Elizabeth I
serpent pentimento is the painting of Queen Alexandria on the wall above the fireplace
beside the Mystery Figure mirror:



Alexandria's personal favorite item of jewellery was said to be a snake bracelet that she
was often portrayed wearing:




Last edited by size_of_light; 14-04-2014 at 09:22 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2014, 04:19 PM   #586
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default


Queen Elizabeth Lute Miniature,
Nicholas Hilliard, c. 1576
Berkeley Castle.

http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/elizface2.htm





Animation - allow time to load...


Last edited by size_of_light; 16-04-2014 at 04:51 PM.
Likes: (1)
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2014, 04:29 PM   #587
bikerdruid
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: north peace bioregion of north america's great boreal forest
Posts: 27,115
Likes: 611 (379 Posts)
Default

wow.
this place just get weirder and weirder.
bikerdruid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2014, 03:52 AM   #588
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
wow.
this place just get weirder and weirder.
- said the cop searching your basement.



Quote:

Queen Elizabeth Lute Miniature,
Nicholas Hilliard, c. 1576
Below is another Nicholas Hilliard depiction of Elizabeth I from the
same period, known as The Pelican Portrait.


Quote:
Elizabeth I: The Pelican Portrait, c1575, attributed to
Nicholas Hilliard.

[...]There is a closed imperial crown over each shoulder.
The crown is on top of both a rose (on the left) and a fleur-de-lys
(on the right.) These represent her dynastic claims to both
England and France.


http://www.marileecody.com/eliz1-images.html
The bolded sections above tell us that in 1575, symbolism was
used in this piece to denote Elizabeth's right to rule over both
England and France.

Is it just a coincidence that the 'two-face' pentimento portrait
of Elizabeth shown earlier (post #585), features a lady 'wearing
a
French hood' only fashionable at the same time (1570 - 1580)
that this French-themed Pelican Portrait was created (1575)?

Or was it designed from the outset so that its deteriorating paintwork
would eventually allow the unknown artist to make the same symbolic
point found in the Pelican Portrait; that the sovereign has two identities
- an English face and a French one?


Last edited by size_of_light; 17-04-2014 at 01:45 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2014, 03:47 PM   #589
phreaky
Senior Member
 
phreaky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 534
Likes: 18 (12 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
I might be a bit late to the game with this, and not read the entire thread so apologies if anyone has already pointed this out, but about to leave for the weekend and if I don't post now I'll forget!

If you zoom in to the edge of the carpet to the right of the queen the carpet looks distorted like something has been edited out, badly. The red edge to the carpet is straight, but the inner white and gold lines aren't. Unless they're buying factory seconds from DFS I'd expect those lines to be parallel.
phreaky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2014, 03:26 AM   #590
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phreaky View Post
If you zoom in to the edge of the carpet to the right of the queen the carpet looks distorted like something has been edited out, badly. The red edge to the carpet is straight, but the inner white and gold lines aren't. Unless they're buying factory seconds from DFS I'd expect those lines to be parallel.
Well spotted.



The Queen's shadow just below the distorted area must have been photoshopped
in because she isn't really standing on that carpet; the photo is a digital composite:


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



That doesn't explain the shoddy airbrushing job you've pointed out though, because the Queen's outline has been blended with the background
shot well enough to make her presence there seem perfectly natural, meaning a lot of care and skill went into creating this image and such a
mistake with the carpet would surely have been corrected...

...unless it was intentional.


It is directly beneath the Mystery Figure and I get the feeling there is some kind of symbolism at work with the legs reflected in the mirrored
panel of the ornate wall cabinet, though have no idea what it might be.



I hadn't noticed until just now that the reflected legs are wearing high-heeled shoes.

Last edited by size_of_light; 18-04-2014 at 04:51 AM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2014, 08:47 AM   #591
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

Quote:

Queen Elizabeth Lute Miniature,
Nicholas Hilliard, c. 1576
Berkeley Castle.

Coloured title page of the Bishops' Bible, 1569, British Museum:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrai...h_I_of_England )




Animation - allow time to load...

Last edited by size_of_light; 18-04-2014 at 08:56 AM.
Likes: (1)
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2014, 11:37 AM   #592
fiok
Senior Member
 
fiok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 413
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The portrait of Elizabeth I with the pentimenti reminded me of the Rainbow Portrait by Isaac Oliver.



Here, Elizabeth is holding a (transparent?) rainbow and her left sleeve features a jewelled snake. The snake is not coiled, but somehow "knotted" or intertwined and holds a red ruby heart in its mouth. The common interpretation of the serpent as symbol of "wisdom" implies that Elizabeth subjects her heart (emotions) to wisdom or intellect. Just above the serpent’s head there is an armillary sphere, encircled by the band of the zodiac.





The painting is probably best known for the anatomical eyes and ears (and mouths?) that adorn Elizabeth's orange dress - the obvious implication being that she is omniscient - all-seeing, all-hearing.



The painting contains a multitude of references to virginity, the moon Goddess Diana and the sun - the "Latin inscription 'Non sine sole iris' translates as 'No rainbow without the sun'. The Latin word "iris" refers both to a rainbow and the anatomy of the eye.

In 1986 Steven Dedijer, a Swedish expert in the history of intelligence, described the painting as a coded political statement about the importance of the Elizabethan secret service:

Quote:
Steven Dedijer argues that The Rainbow Portrait celebrates the effectiveness of English espionage as well as hymning the praises of the queen... The eyes and ears on the queen’s cloak, in this interpretation, do not represent her Fame, but the British secret service that has protected her and given her political guidance. The hidden theme of the painting, the appropriately coded message concealed within the code of courtly praise of a monarch, is that peace and national security can only be guaranteed by the maintenance of a totally effective, all-seeing, all-hearing intelligence service.
http://www.andrewgrahamdixon.com/arc...eadArticle/245

Overpainting and royal censorship of art were very prevalent during the Elizabethan period and nothing was left to chance. Elizabeth apparently enjoyed codes and ciphers and intellectual games. She set puzzles for her courtiers and they responded in kind. The Elizabethans loved impresas - visual-riddles containing classical symbolism and a Latin motto. Only the elite could solve the impresas and the masses would not have the insight or education to look beyond the superficial.

http://lostshakespeareportraits.blog...e-perfect.html
fiok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2014, 01:35 PM   #593
phreaky
Senior Member
 
phreaky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 534
Likes: 18 (12 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
The Queen's shadow just below the distorted area must have been photoshopped
in because she isn't really standing on that carpet; the photo is a digital composite:
It's weird how a proclaimed perfectionist would have so many errors in an image, especially a digitally created one as anything that is in there has been put there.

It's pretty basic stuff to understand how mirrors work, yet no one bothered to insert the back of the queens head? And why isn't there a reflection of the flowers directly in front of the mirror? Come to that why are some of them translucent?

It could be argued that the mirror is angled to not show the back of the queen, but if that's the case you shouldn't you see the vase? If it's simply obscuring its own reflection the mirror must surely be angled toward the camera?

Also it's showing the chandelier that's above her head, but not her underneath it?

Last edited by phreaky; 18-04-2014 at 01:37 PM.
Likes: (1)
phreaky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2014, 04:45 AM   #594
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiok View Post
The portrait of Elizabeth I with the pentimenti reminded me of the Rainbow Portrait by Isaac Oliver.



Here, Elizabeth is holding a (transparent?) rainbow and her left sleeve features a jewelled snake. The snake is not coiled, but somehow "knotted" or intertwined and holds a red ruby heart in its mouth. The common interpretation of the serpent as symbol of "wisdom" implies that Elizabeth subjects her heart (emotions) to wisdom or intellect. Just above the serpent’s head there is an armillary sphere, encircled by the band of the zodiac.



The painting is probably best known for the anatomical eyes and ears (and mouths?) that adorn Elizabeth's orange dress - the obvious implication being that she is omniscient - all-seeing, all-hearing.

Very interesting, fiok - I read your links and also the full Stevan Dedijer essay
(http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep2ded.htm).

I see the snake and the human eyes in the images you posted above merged
into one symbol and disguised in the below piece to convey the meaning more
powerfully and directly, but on a subconscious level.



The scholars will never admit this though because their main role is to act as
gatekeepers of such 'plain sight' secrets and deter the masses from trusting their
own faculties of cognition by offering up convoluted and ultimately banal interpretations
designed to foster the illusion that art analysis is some rare, boring skill only possessed
by an elite minority.



Note that the reptilian eyes are capped with larger crowns than the monarch
herself:



What is that, a fish, or some kind of strange reptilian creature draping over the
crown and peering out from the darkness?






If the soundhole of the lute were viewed as the mouth of the being with the reptilian
eyes, and the instrument's strings as the vibrations emanating from it, might the Queen's
finger at the end of these sounds be pointing up at the slit pupil to signify that particular
vibrations allow the creature to manifest?


Last edited by size_of_light; 19-04-2014 at 06:25 PM.
Likes: (1)
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2014, 12:21 PM   #595
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phreaky View Post
It's weird how a proclaimed perfectionist would have so many errors in an image, especially a digitally created one as anything that is in there has been put there.

It's pretty basic stuff to understand how mirrors work, yet no one bothered to insert the back of the queens head? And why isn't there a reflection of the flowers directly in front of the mirror? Come to that why are some of them translucent?

It could be argued that the mirror is angled to not show the back of the queen, but if that's the case you shouldn't you see the vase? If it's simply obscuring its own reflection the mirror must surely be angled toward the camera?

Also it's showing the chandelier that's above her head, but not her underneath it?
Yep, spot-on with all that; the only explanation for all those discrepancies is that everything in the mirror is a digital composite designed to not make sense.

I think it was done to provoke the curiosity of discerning viewers and help them realize they are looking at a puzzle to be solved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiok View Post
Elizabeth apparently enjoyed codes and ciphers and intellectual games. She set puzzles for her courtiers and they responded in kind. The Elizabethans loved impresas - visual-riddles containing classical symbolism and a Latin motto. Only the elite could solve the impresas and the masses would not have the insight or education to look beyond the superficial.

http://lostshakespeareportraits.blog...e-perfect.html

Last edited by size_of_light; 19-04-2014 at 06:02 PM.
Likes: (1)
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2014, 05:08 PM   #596
mountain
Senior Member
 
mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,493
Likes: 17 (9 Posts)
Default

Here is another curious portrait of Elizabeth I. Check out the myriad of strange creatures adorning her dress..



... and also who does the shadowy black hand she is holding with her right hand belong to?
__________________
<3 ~ Peace & Love ~ <3
Likes: (1)
mountain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2014, 05:13 PM   #597
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain View Post
Here is another curious portrait of Elizabeth I. Check out the myriad of strange creatures adorning her dress..



... and also who does the shadowy black hand she is holding with her right hand belong to?
Brilliant find!



- "She's just holding a pair of gloves! Get over it!"

Unfortunately, a majority of humans down through history has always lacked the
spiritual gonads to x-ray and conquer such stunted, superficial perceptions and elite
occultists know it.

Last edited by size_of_light; 23-05-2014 at 02:59 AM.
Likes: (1)
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2014, 05:38 PM   #598
abrilliantone
Forum Advisor
 
abrilliantone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Anti-Soul Mysteries Lab
Posts: 7,419
Likes: 142 (86 Posts)
Default

I mean the "symbolism" is right there in our faces. Yet people are having trouble "seeing" it.

Many researchers explain time and time again. That these so-called "Elites" uses symbolism to communicate amongst each other. And that those symbols often have double and triple meanings. The "evidence" is right there for any and all to see.

But I know that when the average person sees a picture of a snake. (Within Royal or Religious pictures) They just think it's a picture of a snake. Not knowing that picture holds far deeper a meaning. Then what it is lead to believe.


Thanks for all of the hard work on exposing those symbols. size_of_light
__________________
Quote:
“Any fool can know. The point is to understand."
abrilliantone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2014, 05:58 PM   #599
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abrilliantone View Post
Many researchers explain time and time again. That these so-called "Elites" uses symbolism to communicate amongst each other. And that those symbols often have double and triple meanings. The "evidence" is right there for any and all to see.
Right, and it's not 'fringe' at all to understand that point, since the art establishment earns it's keep by openly describing and analyzing the layered symbolism bursting at the seams from classical works of art...

...up until the point where that symbolism ceases to be brain-numbingly banal and boring and actually reveals engaging and instructive details like that of a disembodied hand emerging from the shadows and entwining with the hand of the reigning monarch of England in an official portrait.

Quote:
Originally Posted by abrilliantone View Post
Thanks for all of the hard work on exposing those symbols. size_of_light
Thank you; no sweat.

Last edited by size_of_light; 22-05-2014 at 06:33 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 12:38 PM   #600
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,285
Likes: 353 (215 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
Rest.

You've got a case of Ostrich Fever.

Re-post.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:37 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.