I took a shot of that DARK TURQUOISE car…yes, it is more of a ‘blue colour’ than usual - but certainly not as ‘blue’ as the PHOTO that I then took…the car now looks simply BLUE with no hint of GREEN at all…and as I hold up my LCD to view the image that I had taken alongside the car, that I can see, in situ in the car park…I got annoyed…

…is it the camera? Not necessarily…if I play around, taking shots of objects…adjusting the light and the location and angle of the camera…I can approximate the precise colour that I am seeing, with my own eyes…but it takes time…

Funnily enough - and I tried this out ages ago whilst taking a photo of an object, from my flat window -- down below upon the street…I moved the camera to where my eyes had been and then took a shot…and it wasn’t the same at all, in terms of colour or in terms of DISTANCES…which you all knew it wouldn’t be, in terms of colour…because there are many other factors involved….LIGHTING being the most obvious factor…and then put simply:

A CAMERA cannot function like a human eye…it is FAR less sophisticated a ‘mechanism’.

It cannot take ‘photos’ of reality in the way that a human eye can….and that is something that the POLICE/INTELLIGENCE are interested in…okay ‘eye witness accounts’ have been pilloried in so many ways because a person‘s ‘front alter‘ interferes with what is reported back…but when you can take a programmed ill cult slave back in time…and get them to describe in detail what they have seen…they are far more accurate than a camera…the only problem is - how good are they are description? For example, you need a massive colour swathe of tonal values - if you want them to isolate the precise colour that they saw, in relation to the object that you are interested in, etc etc.

MCDONALD had wanted me to look into this further, in relation to ‘THE CAMERA LIES’…

For example - when I took the CAMERA photos of the CROW in the distance by the caravan site…to the left of the MARTELLO TOWER.

I took an overview photo of the entire scene - where the crow was and the Martello tower…

Then I put the camera on ZOOM and took a photo of the crow on top of his pole.

You have seen the photos - I had to put in a small RED ARROW to point out the location of the crow in the ‘overview photo’ of both where the CROW was and the MARTELLO TOWER.

I then magnified the photo of the ‘crow on his pole’ to give a clearer image of this funny bird.

Now, if you had only seen the photos - you would imagine that this CROW was a long way away…

…that wasn’t true.

What I was seeing, with my own eyes…was that CROW lifting its wing up…and I wasn’t using any ‘superhuman abilities’ to do so…that is what I SAW…but the camera didn’t pick it up at all…the camera only picked up a ‘black speck in the distance’ which was hardly noticeable at all.

That is why the damn bird sounded so LOUD and it was very loud indeed because it wasn’t far away at all…although if you had only seen the photos and not been ‘there at the time’ - you might think that the CROW was miles away…it wasn’t. I could see it clearly, ducking and turning its head….waving its wings about.

That is the DIFFERENCE between the HUMAN EYE and a CAMERA.

The CAMERA focussed upon the foreground pole…a middle ground…and then the background (where the CROW was) and the image was composed from the 3...the photo concentrated upon foreground…you could see the middle ground almost as it was…but then the background…was microscopic. Totally unlike the ‘reality’ that a human eye sees…we can see BACKGROUND in a way that a CAMERA is not capable of doing…we see it ‘far more close up’.

Computerised foreground, middle ground, background.

That 3.

That TRINITY of foreground, middle ground and background.

Yet the human eye can pick up so much more…that crow in the background was as ‘large’ to my normal human vision…as the magnified ‘snip’ that I was to create, from a zoom lens photo of the crow (in 12x) on the pole.

HUMAN BEINGS are not computers.

Computers and microchips…and cameras are very simple apparatus…and in NO WAY do they match the skills of a human mind and body.

The HUMAN EYE is amazing in its ability to capture ‘all events around it’…foreground, middle ground and background…in a way that CAMERAS are not capable of doing.

FRANCO ZECHHIN had talked to me about the above…teaching me about how to use a camera and the first lesson was a basic understanding of this mechanical device…that it could act like your ‘eye’…but in order to use it as such, one had to KNOW ITS LIMITATIONS…what it can and cannot do - it is not like the human eye - it cannot take what you see…because what you think that you are taking as a photo…is not what will appear as the ‘photo taken’ unless you understand the limitations of this mechanical device and can compensate by adjusting how you use the camera….and that is what FRANCO was interested in…producing photos that were taken as if they had been SEEN by the HUMAN EYE….and he figured that after so many years, he had mastered that one…he could use a camera as a ‘human eye’…but it took years…it was a CRAFT…and you had to use an SLR…a real skill…a profession…’media cameras’ that cost £1000s were no good because they worked on automatic and therefore the images that they took - were beyond the control of the photographer…the colours, the distance between foreground, middle ground, background…the lot.

FRANCO ZECHHIN liked CONTROL of his medium…I suppose that he didn’t like to think that the MACHINES HAD TAKEN OVER…and that we were all ‘happy’ with a shoddy result that didn’t really reflect the REALITY that we were seeing…

How many of us use SLR cameras nowadays and ‘really learn the trade’?

I don’t. I gave up very quickly indeed.

My recent camera acquisition…because at last, I could afford one…and not beg my father to buy a cheap digital CHINESE brand in CARREFOUR at about 80 euros…(which were a nightmare for any computer that I used in relation to compatibility and downloads)…was a CANON digital and I figured…’yes, now I can take perfect photos at the press of a button’…but they do not really reflect what I have seen…the colours are different and the distances between objects are different…

What does it matter - you might ask?

It doesn’t matter at all, I suppose - if these cameras are only for HOLIDAY SNAPS…but if you are looking at FORENSIC EVIDENCE…you do NOT want to use this type of ‘automatic camera function’ at all…you have to ‘do it properly’…

Can a DIGITAL CAMERA do what an old SLR camera can do in terms of APERTURE, LIGHT METER etc? GILL says ‘no it can’t…so there you go.

OTHER NOTES:

Interest rates upon HSBC MASTERCARD…

I took out £200 over CHRISTMAS just in case I needed extra money - my benefits cut off etc etc…and I was charged nearly £10 for the month….I was sent a statement telling me that the HSBC would debit this from my account.

I was then sent a letter to say that ‘taking the money out of the cash point’ had cost me:

£5.98

This £5.98 has been added to the £200 but the HSBC appears to have got their sums wrong:

They figure that £200 + £5.98 = £206.83

“DEATH TO THEM ALL - THAT IS WHAT I SAY” (says HENRY and he will know what he has prepared for them in terms of gravestones).

My last bank statement only goes up to the 20th JANUARY and the ill haven’t taken that ‘nearly £10’ for the ‘loan’…as yet…so that will come with the next bank statement…

…and I can remember now…remote-viewing a SUE WALKER type in a ‘top meeting’ at the HSBC saying ‘if we release the DEBIT ACCOUNT and MASTERCARD statements at different times of the month - nobody will be able to guess (how much money we have stolen because they will be too confused by dates and figures to check)…she was SO pleased with herself…and so was the HSBC board of TOP DIRECTORS…yes, that was how they could STEAL even more money…go ‘entirely ILLEGAL’ within this stage of the planned NWO…(because everybody will be so under mind control and microchipped that they ‘won’t guess’)

So in summary - the HSBC charged for ‘taking the money out of the cash point’ as well as ‘interest’ for the loan of £200.

They don’t tell you that at the cash point. The cash point coyly states ‘you MAY be charged for this transaction’…and that is a weird point…what do they mean…either you ARE charged for it - or you are not.

The word ‘MAY’ suggests that some people are NOT charged…and OTHERS are.

I mean - what a ludicrous statement to put up on a cash point - ‘you may be charged for this transaction - would you like to continue…’

What sort of an ill BANKERS game, is this?

You are either charged for it or you are not, when you use a credit card and across the BOARD - so why this pussy-footing statement?

Is this another NPOWER “we make a sum up in our heads and charge you for it…type of business?”

If my MASTERCARD is under the name of LORD SAINSBURY - ‘may he be charged’?

EVIL MICE - if you steal, you know what happens to you and your families.

That is all.

OTHER NOTES:

Upon that note, DABYDEEN went through all of the EVIL MICE he had known and noted that they had appalling lives…everybody that they had ever loved or cared for, met frightful ends…their lives were filled with the most appalling trauma that didn’t affect the vast majority of the population…and he figured…”there is a NATURAL LAW at work here” and that was:

…. ‘even under ill cult rule, EVIL doesn’t pay”.

HUMAN BEINGS have a natural ‘bent’ to the good…and if they stay that way…their lives are not as ‘appalling’ as those who went to the bad…