Small Scale City Models. What do we know about them?

The below image was posted on my profile by @Bethenny. This is in reference to the below article:

I can't say that the thought of city models did not cross my mind before, but I don't think I've ever given it a serious thought. Meanwhile there appear to be reasons to investigate further, and the topic is legit, imho. After all, we do have hard to explain videos like the one below.
Really, why would they build a city model, and then film it being destroyed by fire?

At the same time, the photograph in question appears to be too detailed (water stains on the roofs, random dirt, etc.) to be a model. Additionally, we have videos of the alleged pre- and post-fire 1906 SF.

On the other hand, the "model theory" could probably explain the speed of rebuilding and a few other things.

KD: What are your thoughts on this? Meaning that some photographs of the cities are depicting models, rather than actually existing cities.
It's quite plausible this model theory, the imediate question in my mind would be, why would a city model be photographed and published as the real city? Possible cover up for destruction of old world grid or something like that?? Hell, more questions than answers
It's quite plausible this model theory, the imediate question in my mind would be, why would a city model be photographed and published as the real city?
What comes to my mind is this. We have a hypothetical city with no known history (or the history of its construction cannot be revealed for one reason or another). If this city is officially destroyed on paper, and then officially rebuilt... we have a city indoctrinated into the system.

Then again, there could be questions asked by people like us - who built the previous city, and where are all the construction docs. But we are a minority.

I honestly do not know what the purpose could be.
This question makes me think of one of the many forged/faked/manipulated images of the "Nukes" Hoax. (Of course, they simply used plain incendiary fire bombs, as they did all over Japan in general, no nukes.)

So, perhaps this photo is merely a real image of Americans standing on a hill, overlooking Hiroshima. In which case, the image would be simply showing us an actually burned by plain-old-fire Hiroshima. In which case, the image doesn't need forgery, they simply attached a real photo to the "Nuke" Hoax. And yet, this image appears to me to be a model due mainly to the building/thing near the man's hand. It seems too close to them, as if they are NOT standing far away on a hill. Thus, this looks like a model.

Whether or not this is a photo of a model, or a photo of actual Hiroshima, either way, Nukes don't exist. This image I'm posting doesn't matter, since ALL the Nuke design/testing/aftermath images are faked. I'm simply saying: when I think of the idea of models, my mind automatically recalls the following image. (As well as the obvious FOR-SURE models of "homes" they used in their "Nuke Test" propaganda films.) Someone, please post that for-sure-wooden-model "house/barn being blown away by a 'nuke test' film".

So, about Bethenn's confident claim, well: yes & no. That "1877" inscription DOES look kinda' model-ish. But, there are details within the largest TIFF version of the SF photo, seeming to show it's NOT a model.

Still, this is a nice chance for us to post various "official photo" images which appear to be mere models. So here are 2 differently-cropped versions of the "Hiroshima aftermath" which appears model-ish to me:



Note: this "wooden model" technique will only be found in propaganda images created before modern CGI. From the '90s, they've had the ability to use CGI to create their models: shown in their 2001 "9/11" movie.

Speaking of this idea of models being used in official-story hoaxes, this Dresden image looks model-ish:


One reason is: where is the junk? It seems to show mere buildings, without sufficient items/bodies/stuff. Just as in a similar way the CGI folks who created the "9/11 aftermath videos" didn't add in enough stuff. True rubble images should have had lots of elevator cable, carpet, furniture, bodies, not just steel beams.

And, let's remember to NOT let any purposefully/accidentally wrong-ideas take away from our discoveries. Meaning, avoid this: "SF image model" "Yeah" "Oh wait, no" "SF photo not model... so... Official story true." See, our discoveries built from thousands of image/video/story analyses, do NOT depend on any 1 image.
  • All "Nuke footage" is solidly proven fake. That discovery does NOT hinge "whether the above is a model."
  • All "9/11 footage" is solidly proven CGI. That discovery does NOT hinge on "whether 1 frame looks real."
  • All "Space footage" is solidly proven CGI. That discovery does NOT hinge on "whether 1 frame looks real."
  • All "Burned then instantly rebuilt" stories are solidly proven illogical, thanks mainly to KD, & SH members.
So, yes, let's share images on this thread which appear to show them using various models in past hoaxes. How about including various moon-models, & any instances of them using models instead of filming reality. But let's remember: StolenHistory discoveries do NOT depend on whether any 1 image was a model or not. :)
Last edited:
Apparently the amazing model of 1600 London, replete with chimney smoke, moving ships, and waving flags, in the opening and closing minutes of the 1944 British film "Henry V" was constructed of plaster in 4 months and was 50'x70'



Here the 1:50 Holy Land Hotel model of the Second Temple in Jerusalem

Holyland Model of Jerusalem - Madain Project (en)






  • 1701212893032.jpg
    86.9 KB · Views: 118
Last edited:
So, there is the idea of wooden scale models, and their subsequent technique of modelling via CGI.

From one of Aaron Dover's videos, I learned about the admitted existence of "6th of October City", where a huge outdoor (and indoor) Hollywood exists with the name "Egyptian Media Production City" with a "35 million square meters" outdoor studio, and a "5,000 square meters" indoor studio as well.


Here are key screenshots from Aaron Dover's investigation of "news footage of 2014 Gaza Bombing." Note, there are ZERO PEOPLE looking out any of the windows: there are ZERO HUMANS in this "city".

On 9/11 the CGI crew accidentally added impossible 4-meter-tall depictions, as Simon Shack showed. But here in the following screenshots, it is clear they just decided to NOT ADD ANY HUMANS AT ALL. Sure, most folks would hide inside, but there should be SOME folks seen in windows. There are NONE.

Though Aaron points out the Egypt outdoor studio, it also could be a mini-scale model, or simply CGI. Main point is: Aaron correctly points out all "war footage" IS FAKED - even about Palestinian victims. And regardless of which (model/studio/CGI) technique(s) they used here: I NOTICE ZERO HUMANS:



















































Last edited:
Well, Bethanny's initial suggestion was: the 1878 San Francisco Panorama was a wooden mini-scale model. That led to you reminding us there WAS a 1906 SF model-burning film, yet the Panorama photo seems real. That also led to you reminding us of the official Rising-from-Ruins "1906 vs. 1907, 1908 and 1909" images. And within that thread: you noticed it was strange that a "1906 film" supposedly remained "lost until 2018".

So on one hand, yes, it's possible for them to make a CGI video now, and simply claim "this film is from 1906." And on the other hand, yes, it's also possible the rulers in the 1900s and even 1800s had such technology. We're still wondering if the rulers who took control in 16XX or 17XX had AI to help forge all history stories.

I'm just suggesting that one particular "Hiroshima aftermath" image kind of appears like it might be a model. And I'm suggesting the one famous "Dresden aftermath" image also appears like it might be a model as well. And now I'm suggesting with much more confidence that the "2014 Gaza City Footage" 100% LACKS people.

Aaron Dover suggested the "2014 Gaza City Footage" was created using an outdoor studio: full-size or mini. And I'm simply suggesting they can use various techniques (and combinations) to forge any "City" "footage". And, whenever I think of them having faked "City" "footage", I can't forget they forged "9/11 NY" using CGI.

The 1906 video of a wooden-model being burned: is easy to say with confidence which technique they used. All of their other "city" videos might be using a combination: of mini-models, plus full-size studios, plus CGI.

To answer your question concisely: I wasn't suggesting it but it's possible they had CGI-like capabilities then. It's more PROBABLE they used mere mini-models in 190X, then later began full-size studios, and finally, CGI. The confusing problem is they can now use CGI to create "film footage" which they can claim is 18XX or 19XX.

Anyway, I remain confident it makes sense for us to critically question ALL of their official "city event" videos.

ADD 1: I set up this video to start at 452 seconds: clicking play will show a 1/12-scale White House model:

ADD 2: And the same video to start at 302 seconds: clicking play will show a 1/24-scale New York City model:

Notice at 7:16 there is a brief shot of them blowing up (sideways) a 1/24 scale Empire State Building model.

ADD 3: I set up this video to start at 317 seconds: clicking play will show the wooden model they claim as real:

ADD 4: And the same video to start at 143 seconds: clicking play will show the house they based the model on:

ADD 5: I set up this video to start at 577 seconds: clicking play will show the VARIOUS models they damaged:

  • Step 1: Show real-size stuff being set up, with humans interacting to show it is real-size.
  • Step 2: Show mini-models in the process of being damaged by some "super-weaponry" means.
  • Step 3: Off-camera, damage real-size stuff using conventional means: make it look similar. Then, show that.
Actually, Step 3 is optional. Meaning: one can simply show the mini-models again. Viewers assume all real-size.

ADD 6: Here is an example of what we know about how easily we can be fooled by photos of miniature models:

Add 7: Here is an admitted miniature model (yet still quite large) used for the 1974 movie The Towering Inferno:

Last edited:
KD: What are your thoughts on this? Meaning that some photographs of the cities are depicting models, rather than actually existing cities.
As ever we are looking at digital imagery not original negative or print from negative. Digital is easy to convincingly fake which is the fly in the ointment. Most digital imagery is viewed on small screens so the scan resolutions are set low for most of it for this reason.

The only model I have been in touching distance of in real life which was realistic enough to my eyes to be mistaken for real was a four foot long HO gauge model layout of an American quarry loading railway setting.
The chap who built it and operated it sad it took over six months to get it to look the way it did working in his spare time and he was still not happy with it.

So there are highly skilled modellers for sure. Not sure someone being paid to model would produce such a level of individual detail quite honestly. Even the lighting was beautifully in scale.

In the shipyard where I worked there was a 3D model of the innards and hull of a T class nuclear submarine in sections. It was either one third or one quarter scale, cannot recall which, and was made entirely of perspex and wire ands purpose was to take the 2D highly detailed drawings and give the men doing the fitting out a three dimensional reference of what should go where and how they are connected.
Point of writing that out is these men and their predecessors also built ships models for display in glass cases in various parts of the shipyard.
From ten feet or more away they looked incredibly realistic.
Get up to the glass case and they became what they were, models.

Given some post or in processing fiddling about they could likely pass as a real vessel but the scenic painting they would need to be passed of as real would have to be top notch, but its doable

In regards the cities models specifically..
The questions that nag at me is who would gain from such efforts?
If the models are hiding an existing city then who is it being hidden from?
If the models are supporting the existence of city that didn't exist or one that didn't exist in that form then why go to such lengths? I struggle to see a gain.

An example of gain.
At the beggining of the Israeli show it was claimed an ancient church was obliterated. We were even shown footage of it being obliterated. Turns out it wasn't touched.
There the gain is incitement to outrage in whatever target audience the show was put on for.
Yes, why would they (which they did) create that "1906 Model of San Francisco Burning" video above?

And yes, why would they (if they did) forge various "Life in San Francisco before & after fire" videos?

Well, I guess that is the main question which Korben Dallas is thinking out loud with us over the years.

Currently, the logical hypothesis is: SF and other cities were emptied in a way different-than-claimed.

So, instead of usual war-initiating propaganda, this forgery would be past-event-hiding propaganda.

Add #1: Here's a model site found by searching for terms "scale" "model" within site:
Last edited:
@Observer, the link you provided sure does raise some questions in my mind.

Int'l Phot-33.jpg

Deluge (Ned Mann).jpg

metroplolis-model set.jpg

A few days ago I ran into some miniature ship models with full size actual humans walking inside of those. As in wearing those ships around their waists while in the water. The ships looked pretty realistic. Now I can't find the source. It was one of the expos. May be it was the 1893 one, but I can't be sure. If you ever run into it, please share.

Edit: I guess I did save the image :))

@Observer, the link you provided sure does raise some questions in my mind.

A few days ago I ran into some miniature ship models with full size actual humans walking inside of those. As in wearing those ships around their waists while in the water. The ships looked pretty realistic. Now I can't find the source. It was one of the expos. May be it was the 1893 one, but I can't be sure. If you ever run into it, please share.

Edit: I guess I did save the image :))

Your last photo triggered a memory.
I've been at Peasholmes Park three times between late seventies and early two thousands and none of the versions of this battle I saw were anywhere near as dramatic or realistic as this one from 1962.

Would such an event be enough to fool the gullible if shot properly to exclude anything out of scale which would give the game away?

Oh and this one sprang to mind. Metropolis made in 1927.


Last edited:
So this is where empty cities of the 19th Century come from. Photograph a model from above, make it look like it's made from a magic zepelin, sprinkle a couple of real photos of people and carts with horses here and there, paint them when it's needed, copy paste them as much as needed to populate the photo, claim that every antenna is antique-tech collecting electricity from the ether, claim that people who build the models are giants from the Titan era.....and Boom!
You have a new conspiracy theory named Tartaria. Amazing. Now let's make thousands of YouTube videos on it to monetize it to death. lool

Thank you MifLetz, for having posted that video by Jon Levi, which led me to watching the following video:

This video literally contains "The Greatest Photo in the World" proving Grand-Canyon-like areas were brick.
The photo shows for sure the pre-reset (pre-plasma) structures were turned to "natural" looking dirt/sand.
The Derawar Fort having just some portions melted, while the rest fine, prove huge natural plasma-melting.
Meaning, it proves: that a beam came and indiscriminately turned SOME of the millions of brick to dirt/sand.
And proves to me the beam wasn't intelligently controlled: as the rest of the structure was allowed to stand.
And as the melted part looks EXACTLY like the Grand Canyon this proves to me Levi's "all was brick" theory.
This comment will now properly be moved by KD to a relevant thread, e.g. it solves the Sahara sand mystery.
I'm simply placing it here to begin, to show a step-by-step order of discovery, thanks to fellow contributors.
I now remember a "crazy" seeming lady online before 1998, claiming all Grand Canyon shapes were beamed.
In her theory, it was all Animal/Alien shapes which were hit on purpose with an erasing beam to hide reality.
It took me 22 minutes, but I successfully remembered her name: Wiolawa. Wow, our brains are truly amazing.

So she was right about reality-erasing beams, but now thanks to Jon Levi I realize Grand Canyon was bricks.
And instead of such erasing being intelligently done, Jon Levi's Derawar discovery shows me: it was natural.
Again, Derawar shows: if the beam was intelligently controlled, they would have melted the whole structure.
If I were controlling such a melting beam, intending to hide the whole structure: I wouldn't hit just a portion.
To me, that one photo proved beams turn bricks to dirt/sand, and such beams are uncontrolled like lightning.
Main point is: the damage we see in that one portion of Derawar is exactly what we see in the Grand Canyon.

Surely, I know it seems like Jon Levi (and I, a Levite as well) are making overly-confident grand conclusions.
I just instantly realized his calling this Derawar discovery "The Greatest" happens to be: absolutely correct.
Sure is surprising Jon Levi's 2022 discovery is sitting there relatively unnoticed & unappreciated by anyone.
Last edited:
The main building of the 3rd Temple as per Ezekiel 40-48 will be a tall narrow building 100 cubits tall and 20 wide (opinions of the cubit have it between 18 & 24 inches) and will have gates 50 cubits by 10 cubits. This may seem unaesthetic and structurally unstable, but this is the tradition