Forensic Observation: Small Observations Can Yield Huge Facts

Seemingly unimportant observations can be single-handed proof of enormous facts. Five examples, with many more possible to anyone who wants to look.

Many observable facts around us are small enough to be overlooked or dismissed; but some of them are — all by themselves — keys to enormously useful, fascinating, and important conclusions that we otherwise might never learn.

Crime shows demonstrate the power of investigators to use solitary, minuscule, and even microscopic evidence to conclusively prove larger and more important facts — facts surrounding events, implicating evildoers, proving guilt, protecting the innocent, etc.

Before television, it was Sherlock Holmes who paid careful attention to ostensibly insignificant details in order to draw out conclusive and pivotal implications.

We can do it too.

Generally, we think of this kind of “forensic” observation as the exclusive domain of experts, whether those in possession of advanced technologies or those possessing unique, personal genius.

But we can all do this for ourselves and — if you’re not afraid of looking — you will suddenly find yourself accumulating chunks of important, enlightening, and sometimes life-improving or life-saving knowledge.

I was late to this party.

In the movie, The Truman Show, a TV interviewer asks Christof, the creator of Truman’s fake world:

“Why do you think that Truman [who symbolically represents you and me, by the way] has never come close to finding out the true nature of his world?”

Christof replies:

“We accept the reality of the world with which we’re presented. It’s as simple as that.”

Short clip here:

In Truman’s case, it took someone outside himself to wake him up to the possibility of things not being what they’ve always seemed.

Similarly, I didn’t discover the unexpected nature of this world on my own and maybe never would have. It was many years before an accidental exposure to certain lies and evil-do broke through my conditioned self and got me curious about the extent of various falsehoods we never think to question. From that time on, I increasingly started keeping track of dots and connecting them, focusing through and beyond the veneer of everyday life into the unexpected reality behind facts, narratives, and events. There’s real stuff to be found.

—

BELOW ARE FIVE (NOW SIX) EXAMPLES:

The following examples are based on observations from personal life or from uncontested, mainstream reporting, and each have enormous implications if you look at them closely, even if just for your overall view of the world. There are undoubtedly innumerable instances of such observations.

For each example, the single most important thing is to ask yourself: “Can I think of a serious and legitimate explanation for this?” If you can’t, it doesn’t mean I’m asserting that my interpretation is correct. It’s possible to be presented with something you can’t explain at first, and then think about it or do a bit of research over time and decide later what you think of it.

But you should at least allow yourself to see the contradiction in each case and honestly attempt to explain it to yourself.

[NOTE: Each of the first five topics are treated in more depth in my later post, “Response to a Detractor.”

—

List of Examples:

EXAMPLE #1.  Do you ever see broken jet trails in the sky?
EXAMPLE #2. NASA recently admitted something very surprising.
EXAMPLE #3. Astrological predictability.
EXAMPLE #4. The Sun and the Moon. (Another statistical anomaly.)
EXAMPLE #5. Building 7
EXAMPLE #6. Object on ISS passes straight through another object. [ADDED ON AUGUST 6TH, 2025]

EXAMPLE #1.  Do you ever see broken jet trails in the sky?

Aside from normal jet trails that are short and that evaporate quickly, you often see trails that don’t evaporate but that linger and criss-cross in the sky until crosswinds eventually scatter them into wide stretches of cloud cover.

Here’s the weird thing:

Occasionally, here and there, you’ll see one of these long trails sputter to an end, leaving empty space in the sky, and then see a new trail sputter to a start and continue on. [More specifics on this type of sputtering break, as opposed to an evanescent break, is detailed in “Response to a Detractor.”]

What can explain this? How can exhaust coming out of an engine stop temporarily and then come back on again if the engines are running the whole time? How frequently do you think jet aircraft turn off their engines in mid-flight and then turn them back on again? When was the last time, travelling by air, that you suddenly heard the engines fall silent and then re-start again? Is that something that you would do in your car, racing down the highway at 60 miles an hour? Would you throw the gear into Neutral, turn the key to the off position and then turn the key back on again to re-start the engine and throw the gear back into Drive?

Wouldn’t the practice of chemical dumping — chemtrails — explain this perfectly? What other explanation would be consistent with this rather commonplace break in the trails? Whatever else you may be able to come up with, this observation would certainly be consistent with the concept of chemtrails, the deliberate dumping of undisclosed substances into the atmosphere. If chemtrails are real, these particular jets would be outfitted not with seats and passengers, but with one or more rows of pressurized tanks of a some chemical payload. The likely explanation for why one occasionally witnesses a break in a jet trail would be tank switching, meaning that when the tanks along one side of the craft are emptied, for example, there would be a sputtering output of the last remnants left, followed by clean sky until a second bank of tanks is switched into the circuit — perhaps manually, perhaps by a vacuum-activated switch, or whatever — resuming the output.

Alternative theories? If anyone has an alternate theory of what could cause this trail-break phenomenon that isn’t just credulous or desperate invention, please share.

—

EXAMPLE #2. NASA recently admitted something very surprising.

The following link takes us to a short clip of NASA engineer, Kelly Smith, making a very strange statement:

NASA engineer, Kelly Smith, speaking about the Orion Project
https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY?t=4189

NASA engineer Smith, as well as astronauts aboard the ISS (also shown in the clip), are telling us that due to dangerous radiation surrounding the Earth (known as the Van Allen Belts, discovered in the 50s or 60s), we are only able to fly in low Earth orbit and cannot yet send people or sensitive electronics any significant distance from Earth. They have said — publicly — that until we figure out a way to get humans safely through the Van Allen radiation belts, we cannot move ahead with any mission to the moon (or Mars, presumably).

Even if you’re only in your teens, you should realize that there’s an adult-sized elephant sitting in this room. NASA used to claim that they sent manned missions to the moon, didn’t they? In the late 1960s. With old-fashioned technology and zero shielding. NASA claims to have sent multiple missions, including perhaps a dozen men, to the moon and back, with not a hint of radiation effects — not to the camera film, nor to the onboard electronics, nor to the human beings who went through this 24,000-mile gauntlet of extreme radiation twice each (on the way to the moon and on the way back.)

The question is: This recent statement by NASA directly contradicts the idea that we ever went to the moon. Are the Van Allen radiation belts extremely dangerous or aren’t they? And why is NASA pretending that we don’t remember the Apollo moon missions? If the Van Allen belts are indeed extremely dangerous — and we don’t yet know how to get through them — then how could the Apollo missions have ever taken place? No one would even have attempted them, nor is it likely they could have succeeded. Even if radiation sickness hadn’t sabotaged the astronauts’ abilities to merrily perform their duties during their missions, they certainly should have returned with terminal doses of radiation and extreme, evident sickness; and yet they’ve lived long, healthy lives since their return. Their camera film, too, “survived” without shielding.

These recent, public statements from NASA are so bizarre that one might ask whether this is NASA’s way of inconspicuously admitting that we never went to the moon. A non-direct admission by gaslight? Maybe this would explain why NASA told reporters years ago that it “lost” or destroyed every scrap of data related to the Apollo missions — erased hundreds of telemetry tapes, destroyed the blueprints for the space capsule and probably all other equipment, etc., etc. Because it wouldn’t have survived later scrutiny.

The only other explanation I can imagine is that the Apollo missions are the biggest example of the Mandela Effect ever recorded, though I don’t think this is what’s going on.

If anyone can explain these statements about not being able to go to the moon because of the Van Allen radiation belts, please comment.

—

EXAMPLE #3. Astrological predictability.

This one is likely to trigger derision from establishment science fanboys and fangirls, but it’s actually among the simplest, most directly perceivable proof there is. We’re getting our conclusion straight from the simplest of scientifically valid probability calculations.

We all know, of course, that astrology is bullshit. And one of the reasons we know that is because many of us once had a teacher who mocked astrology by clipping horoscopes from tabloids and showing us how their extraordinary vagueness made them applicable to everyone, regardless of sign. “Ha!,” he probably said.

And if astrology is bullshit — which it must be because scientific establishment derides it — then it should not be the case that anyone can correctly identify the sun signs of strangers. Assuming for the sake of argument that all births are evenly divided across all twelve months of the year, then we should be able to say with confidence that, on average, you’d should only be able to correctly identify one strangers’ sign for every twelve strangers you approach; that is, you might correctly guess a person’s astrological sign by pure accident only out of twelve attempts. (Minor adjustments to those odds make no difference — let’s say that even 2 out of 12 would be expected on average.)

Observation: Have you ever known a person who can correctly predict strangers’ sun signs after just moments or minutes observing them or interacting with them? I do. I’ve seen this happen to the tune of 7 correct identifications out of 10. This is an honest figure which doesn’t throw out misses to skew the result.

I’ve also seen this done with what they call the “Life Path” number in numerology, believe that or not.

The question is: if you’re one of those people who can guess people’s signs or if you’re one of those people who know someone who can do it, how can you explain these odds? What could produce this level of statistically improbable, even impossible, astrological identification?

I can think of three explanations: (1) It’s a con and the strangers are in on it. For me, I know that this isn’t it, and so do some of you. (2) It could be that these people are merely psychic, and that they’re not making identifications based on characteristics observed in the person, but instead just know when people were born regardless of these. This explanation — the existence of psychic ability — would be a fascinating conclusion in itself, and it may even be true in some cases; but (3) the people I’ve known who identify signs correctly give reasons for their guesses that are based explicitly on characteristics and behavior, which — in their case — points at astrology itself being largely accurate and real for most people. And I speak here of birth chart astrology. Popular, tabloid horoscopes are as fake a thing as there is, best I can tell.

Can anyone come up with some other explanation for these impossible odds? Comment if you have some thoughts.

—

EXAMPLE #4. The Sun and the Moon. (Another statistical anomaly.)

Observation: This is something we’ve seen every month of our entire lives and which stands out particularly clearly during solar eclipses. The sun and the moon, from our perspective on Earth, are exactly the same size. (Bad faith quibbles about precision down to the hundredths of a percent are irrelevant.)

When you think about the explanations we’ve been given about the creation of the various planets and moons of the solar system — that the Sun, Earth, and Moon were created from random, chaotic accidents of collision or accumulations of matter, etc. — a curious person might wonder at the extreme unlikelihood of this perfect, supposedly accidental equivalence of size between our sun and our moon.

Chance and accident could easily have made our moon another size, smaller or larger than it is. Even slightly larger or slightly smaller would be enough to notice when seen at moments of eclipse. It could have been 1.1 times larger, or 1.2 times larger, or 1.3, or 1.4 or 1.5 times larger, and likewise in the other direction. And there are so many potential sizes in between that the odds of the moon just happening to be the exact same size as the sun is markedly unlikely.

Put another way, there are many specific sizes the moon could have been, but only one that would match the sun’s exact apparent size from Earth.

You could roughly calculate the odds of this by comparing the number of reasonably possible sizes the moon could have been and comparing it to the single perfect size it just happened to be. This would be like putting, let’s say, 170 black pebbles in a bag along with one white pebble and having a blindfolded person reach in and pick one out at random.

The odds greatly favored a moon that was any size but the exact same size of the sun, and yet these two bodies came out as regular and perfect as two U.S quarters in the sky.

To me, this is strong, prima facie evidence of deliberate design. It need not be anyone’s particular god. I don’t care if it was the demiurge or Yahweh or aliens or the figment of a universally hallucinated experience or the design of the builders of a postulated computer simulation. Whatever did this, there is a tiny chance but almost none that it was by accident. If you agree with this, take this into account as you think about the world and your place in it.

EXAMPLE #5. Building 7

During the afternoon of 9/11/2001, during the mainstream coverage of the 9/11 “attacks,” the BBC made a highly unusual mistake that was widely noticed and that they’ve issued defensive statements about ever since. Building 7 (also known as the Salomon Brothers building) was one of the several buildings in the World Trade Center complex that had not been hit by planes or exploded by bombs, and which had merely some fires on a handful of floors and some very minor exterior damage by a piece of metal that fell from one of the twin towers. Despite the strenth of the building, it suddenly imploded into its own footprint late in the afternoon, at approximately 5:20pm.

The anomaly is this: When BBC reporter Jane Standley reported on live television that Building 7 had fallen, the viewer at home could see the building still standing, perfectly fine, over her shoulder through the window behind her. That building did, however, “fall” — for no scientifically accountable reason — approximately 23 minutes after her report.

That clip can be seen here:

An alternate source of that video is also maintained at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/911WTC7BBC

The question is: How could a news organization know in advance that a perfectly intact tower would fall before it happened, and actually report it beforehand? Building 7 had almost no damage whatsoever apart from minor exterior damage from a piece of falling metal and several small fires on a handful of floors. Not only should the building never have fallen, it should also never have imploded as it did in a matter of seconds. Modern steel towers are not designed to catastrophically fail for minor events. If they were, insurance on buildings would be much more expensive and we’d have seen examples of such collapses over the decades. But steel towers dont’ spontaneously implode.

Forget everything else you know or believe about 9/11; just focus on this one fact by itself. How does a person make serious, intelligent sense of it? How could the BBC have a script in front of their reporter that names the time the building unexpectedly collapsed 23 minutes before it happened?

Related reports about this occurence:

https://trueactivist.com/911-how-did-the-bbc-know-about-wtc7s-collapse-23-minutes-before-it-happened-t1/

9/11: How Did The BBC Know About WTC7’s Collapse 23 Minutes Before It Happened?

by: Sophie McAdam Posted on September 11, 2015

At 5pm on the afternoon of September 11 2001, the BBC aired a live broadcast about the collapse of The Salomon building, usually known as World Trade Center Building 7 in the US. After introducing the topic, The anchor interviewed reporter Jane Standley at her base in New York, who described how the building had fallen. Halfway through the interview, the video link was suddenly lost.

That was convenient, really, because at the time of airing the report, WTC7 had not fallen at all. In fact, it would not fall for another 23 minutes, and it can clearly be seen to the top right of Standley as she conducts the interview. The BBC claimed that the satellite feed had an electronic timer that cut out at exactly 5.15pm, five or so minutes before the building collapsed for real. The tapes containing the report mysteriously vanished, only to come to light again several years later. The BBC said they had “been put back on the wrong shelf.”

No matter what they say, this clip (which was censored by Google in the aftermath) is an inexplicable piece of footage that should force all of us to ask some very difficult questions about whether 9/11 was planned by the government- and whether the corporate media had been told what story to spin way in advance.

There’s even a song named for Tower Seven, probably an attempt to keep this smoking gun in the public eye long after the government stonewalled it.

Ten years after 2001, an excellent group called Thievery Corporation created a cool-sounding instrumental song called “Tower Seven.” Perhaps it’s no accident that it’s from their album, Culture of Fear. Naturally, some of the comments under the video reference 9/11:

Appropriate and curious sound track for today, 09.11.23, regarding the mysterious “demolition” of WTC 7 which still remains a question?

Someone replies:

Remove your airquotes.

---

EXAMPLE #6. Object on ISS passes straight through another object. [ADDED ON AUGUST 6TH, 2025]

The following video is already forwarded to the observation I’m talking about.

It is clear. It doesn’t require careful looking or interpretation. An astronaut pulls himself through this open bulkhead within the ISS carrying a camera in one hand. As he pulls himself through, aided by the vertical handrail on the left, the camera in his other hand comes through — too close to the same handrail — and passes straight through it.

The video replays the event several times.

The question is, is it possible for two solid objects to pass through each other, and if not, then what could explain this?

One possibility is this:

Immersive technologies consisting of Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality are amongst the fastest-growing and fascinating technologies today. So what is immersive technology? To put it in a nutshell, immersive technologies create or extend reality. And this is done by immersing the user in a digital environment having applications in different domains. This technology is gaining momentum with every passing day and hour, transforming and helping us reimagine the future. Watch this video to understand what these technologies actually are and how they are useful.

This wasn’t the only example of such accidents. There are many more out there.

Something to look deeper into.

---

There’s more.

There are undoubtedly hundreds or more simple observations out there that would teach you stuff about your world. I’ll add more here as I have time.

---

Someone at Substack recently denounced everything in this article. My response is in the post linked below.