Here's another video (in 3 parts) to give some insight into how the fire was:
https://twitter.com/Truthpole/status/1691494473124245504?s=20
If it isn't clear Mathis' expertise in this matter is not very convincing. When reading it, and everything else, I recommend keeping not only your mind open but also the telepathic datalink mention in twh.pdf and to not become entranced by words/claims but stop and ponder/verify, does it make sense?
I will attempt to demonstrate some more problems in Mathis PDF file.
Are we supposed to believe the darker brown inside the road in the second pic is the fire vector,
burning this grass but just turning it from light brown to medium brown? I'll tell you a little secret:
when you burn dry grass it doesn't turn medium brown, it turns black.
Here's a photo of quite black burned grass that I came across: (source)
Stories have now been planted about âinvasive alien grassland speciesâ that supposed fed these fires.
But that again is just more words. There is no evidence of it here and these photos do not confirm it.
Have been planted? I suppose in his conspiratorial mind also Internet Archive has been tampered and can't be trusted?
Well, let's look at some of these tampered stories:
https://mauiinvasive.org/fountain-grass/
Huh?
Again I wish to point out this:-
Anyone who has done some photography knows that the color of the sea varies greatly from day to day depending on the lighting and the type of overcast...
They now have CGI that can create an entire fake world, as we know from Hollywood. They can fake
a whole island of dinosaurs, and entire cities on other planets, and this is nothing compared to that.
What exactly does that sentence mean? They can fake?.. Yes, but fake it to look absolutely real? Right now we are still at a point where fake / CGI usually can be recognized by experts.
The claim that "this is nothing compared to that" isn't true. If footage from Lahaina were created using CGI that creates a lot of hard to answer questions and that is NOT "nothing". Questions like who created it, when, how, how was it distributed, how come various news agencies footage/photos match each other? How long until locals see the footage and recognize it as fake?
More clues coming in today, Monday, as they are telling us only 2 of the 96 bodies found so far can be
identified. That's sort of strange, right, since they are also telling us many of them were incinerated in
those cars we keep seeing. So why can't they identify them from their cars? License plates and VIN
numbers burned right off I guess, even though the letters are raised on license plates to prevent that,
you know. Their teeth were burned right out as well, I guess, preventing use of dental records. So they
have to go straight to DNA. Hmmm.
It takes a lot of time and effort to go through the burned area and to identify persons. Sure, you can start with a car to get initial information who a person probably is, but that doesn't give 100% of a persons identify so you will have to identify from teeth/DNA etc...
But here is something I am being told by locals there: the
Natives like to torch old cars that are abandoned or worthless, or just unattended. It is a famous local
game, so Maui already had a contingent of burned out old cars available. Just a coincidence, I'm sure
So is he implying perhaps the cars we are seeing are some old burned out cars? That's a stretch.
We are told up to a thousand people are unaccounted for. Really? Tourists, maybe? Did they check
on the mainland? It looks like they are going to ramp the death toll way up, to make this look real and
create more fear, but that will just make the event even stupider. For I repeat what I said above: these
people were just a block or two from the ocean.
Looking at how quickly and surprisingly the fire arrived I would not wonder if the death toll is up to a thousand. Being a block or two from the ocean isn't comfort enough when you are engulfed in smoke and fire and suffer from normaly bias (or are a child).
Why would they sit in their cars and watch the flames
engulf them? How about get out of the stinking car and run down to the ocean?
Who exactly is he talking about?
We don't know how many died in their cars just at the waterfront. I believe it's very probably that someone might have driven all the way to the waterfront but then died in their cars there from inhaling smoke, etc...
Here's some footage that shows just how terrible it might have been to drive a car amidst the fires:-
https://twitter.com/ChNajem/status/1689785880049774592?s=20
Oh yeah, they are
telling us the ocean was on fire. Metal boats sitting in the water were burning, as so often happens. SO
THERE WAS NO ESCAPE!
No one has told us that the ocean was on fire.
Nor do we have exact information about the boats. Even if a boat is metal there's usually plenty of flammable stuff on it. Let's investigate!
Here's tugboat Roxie, all burned out... How can it ?? It's METAL.
Oh wait, here it is before the fire. What would happen if embers landed on that nylon/similar tarp?
from this article:- Can Wildfires Burn on the Ocean? Boat Video Sparks Maui Conspiracy Theory
"Lee Frelich, a fire expert and director of the University of Minnesota Center for Forest Ecology, told Newsweek via email that it is possible for fires to spread to boats.
"With the high winds blowing offshore lots of glowing red-hot embers could rain down on boats, and if they land on a flammable object on a boat, could start it on fire," Frelich said. "Also, for those boats very close to the shore, intense radiant heat from the flaming front could also start fires.
"Obviously, the further away from shore, the lower the chance that this would happen due to rapidly falling probabilities of a given boat being hit by the right type of embers with greater distance."
Wow, he said almost the exact same thing I would have said, and I'm just an amateur fire-expert-apprentice!
The article has the opinion of two other men, but I'm sure they are just WEF freemason puppets and lying through their teeth and Newsweek is numerically 6 6 6 if you squint /s
Dan Kashian, professor and associate chair of biological sciences at Wayne State University, told Newsweek via phone that the weather conditions in Maui reminded him of wildfires in Yellowstone National Park in 1988, and of the Peshtigo fire in 1871 that killed more than 1,200 people and destroyed about 1.5 million acres in northeast Wisconsin.
"There's no doubt in my mind [that fires can hit boats in the ocean]," Kashian said. "When you see that town cooked like that, that fire was raging hot and moving quickly and it wouldn't surprise me at all. Fire conditions are crazy sometimes."
Steady winds, hot temperatures and dry conditions can come together simultaneously to lead to devastation, Kashian said, adding that speculation remains on what prompted the wildfires to start.
Tim Brown, a research professor at the Desert Research Institute and director of the Western Regional Climate Center in Reno, Nevada, told Newsweek via email that it's possible for embers to get carried by strong winds and land on combustible material on a boat and ignite.
Do we need to analyze other individual boats? I don't think so.
I have been told this must be a directed energy weapon, or DEW; but no, until further notice my default
assumption is this is CGI. It is possible they burned some of the lesser buildings there the rich people
didn't want or need, but in my opinion there is almost no chance the entire town was flattened like this.
Wildfires don't work like that, burning right down to the ocean, even hitting the docks. Remember,
there is almost always a breeze coming in from the ocean, which would push any incoming fires back.
So most of it CGI? some lesser buildings possibly burned.
Is Mathis some kind of fire expert, and not just a CGI expert? Wildfires don't burn right down to the ocean?
Almost always a breeze coming in from the ocean? What? Even when there is a strong wind coming from inland and gusts up to 70mph?
The following has already been debunked. There are plenty of videos (in this thread also) showing how strong the winds were and meteorological explanations.
They are also lying to us about the hurricane Dora, saying it created hurricane force winds that drove
the wildfires. Except for one thing: Dora missed Hawaii by hundreds of miles and wasn't a strong
hurricane when it passed Hawaii on that worst day. It is just now cat. 3, two days later. In video on the
ground from that day we see flags and business awnings, and they obviously aren't in hurricane winds.
That bozo above fighting the fire with a garden hose isn't in hurricane winds either. We see winds in
some videos, but nothing hurricane level. And since Dora passed to the south of Hawaii, coming from
the west, the winds should have been blowing the other direction. Obviously, the fire couldn't come in
from the east on a wind blowing northeast.
Almost 60% of their readers chose DEWs. Judy Wood fans, I guess. But as usual, the correct answer
is not on their list.
5. There were no fires, it is all another CGI/Hollywood fiction. A movie sold as real
Wow.
He says the drone footage taken by Javier Cantellops is CGI and that he can prove it. He however does not prove it, just says "I simply went in and studied it closely."
I found a better quality copy than the one BBC had.
The part that Mathis claims is the same car pasted is at 1:05 and it's clearly not the same car. If you are not able to see that please tell me and I will make a detailed analysis proving he is wrong.
The black "dot" appears to be the gas tanks without the "door".
This video has another view of the cars at the beachfront
Here's an even better one. CGI? Did "they" bring in old burned cars like Mathis suggested?
Next comes this:
For anyone who has some knowledge in iron, rust, the sea it should be clear that a burned out car next to the ocean will start rusting in hours. The air is full of moisture and there's even salt in the air near the sea. Does not Mathis know this?
The X spraypainted on the car is obviously the authorities who are going through the cars and marking the ones they've checked. There's even video of this happening. How come Mathius doesn't know this either?
So not only is this CGI, it is very sloppy. Someone needs to instruct these computers to create more
distance between copies, since you have to be asleep not to spot this
Huh, such certainty, assertion, expertise.
Well, perhaps I'm asleep since I'm not seeing ANY tell-tale signs of CGI fakery, and I was able to find the high resolution images of them for some reason too, huh, strange. Well, what do I know about 'puters and computar graphics.
No one who is skilled in computers and computer graphics says things like:- "The computer just rotated it and scaled it. or "someone needs to instruct these computers to create more
distance between copies"
Depends. Show me some examples and let's discuss the details.