Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Dennis Cimino

Fukushima and the Future


  1. Another great show. Thank you for telling it like it is.

    109 Locations whence Jews have been Expelled since AD250


    250 Carthage
    415 Alexandria
    554 Diocèse of Clermont (France)
    561 Diocèse of Uzès (France)
    612 Visigoth Spain

    Reference sources for the above. click on the link for every single reference sourced:

  2. The expulsion Edict of 1290 kicked the Jews out of England, they didn't get back in until Oliver Cromwell was persuaded to allow the Jews to return to England in 1656. The Jewish bankers of Amsterdam could offer Cromwell the finance he badly needed to fight his wars with Spain and England was in very poor financial shape due to nearly three decades of civil war. These Jewish bankers from Amsterdam set up shop in London and within a few years had established the bank of England and gained control of the City of London. It is these Jews who spread to America and ran the north American slave trade.

    The Khazarian Rothschilds arrived in England in the late 1700s. They became powerful within the British Empire due to the American Revolution. The British needed troops to put down the revolt in the 13 colonies so the Crown hired mercenary troops from the German state of Hesse. The Rothschilds were the personal bankers of the Elector of Hesse, so it was the massive influx of British gold to hire the Hessian mercenaries that kicked off the Rothschild rise to power. However, the American Revolution was created by agents of the Rothschilds, they provoked the revolution in order to profit from the resulting conflict. The Revolution would have failed without the Hessian troops because the majority of the colonies was loyal to the Crown, but it was the bad behaviour of the Hessians and the outrage of the colonists at the use of foreign troops against them that allowed the Revolution to become a popular movement and eventually triumph.

    This pattern of provoking a war then profiting from it was repeated by The Rothschilds over and over, the War of 1812 is one example, another is the Napoleonic Wars, which culminated in the Battle of Waterloo. The Rothschilds in London spread the false news that Napoleon had won the battle, which caused a stock market panic, stockholders dumped their stocks and the Rothschilds gleefully bought these stocks up at a cheap price. When the real result of the battle reached London, the stock market immediately recovered and the Rothschilds made millions by re-selling the stocks they had just bought at well below market value.

    I'm working on an article about how WW1 was planned and orchestrated bt the Rothschilds, seeing as it's the 100th anniversary of that conflict which set back European civilisation by decades and murdered tens of millions. WW1 was the beginning of the creation of the State of Israel and the Zionist domination of Western society.

    1. Well: and Edward.

    2. Utter Bullshit by Tarpley. As usual, he's trying to pin the blame on someone else in order to exonerate his Zionist masters.

      Edward VII was NOT the architect of WW1 and if you entertain that theory for even a second Clare, you are tragically misinformed.

      WW1 was a Zionist Rothschild creation that had been planned since the 1890s and started in 1914 because the Federal Reserve had to be put in place first as the funding mechanism for the war.

    3. Ian, I do believe that there is some truth to what you say, but I also believe that the theory you espouse is an exaggeration. it is a theory that has come along on the interpropagandanet, and on Youpropagandatube.

      There are many factors at work in all major historical events. Wars have been a part of the human condition as long as there have been humans, and since long before the advent of modern banking.

      I believe that the maniacs that seek global domination now are doing all they can to make themselves look far more powerful than they really are. And one of the ways they try to do this is to re-write history and try to take credit for far more than they really were responsible for.

      There were many factors at work in the American Revolutionary War. And the War of 1812, and the Napoleonic Wars, and so on. Age old rivalries, desire for more land, power-lust of a madman, the desire to end slavery, the desire to annex Canada into the United States.....

      History is an evolving organism, with no one primary force, save for the need for history to evolve in the first place.

      Now, with all of this being said, it is clear that in more modern times, in the times of the wars I have mentioned, the bankers have certainly played a significant role. To be sure they will seize upon any possible moment to prod and push the populations into wars so that they can gain more power and control. Of course they buy off certain political and military leaders and pay them to do the dirty work. For sure they use their media control to convince the general populations to accept and even demand war.

      But they could not do this unless all of the other conditions necessary for the possibility of war were already present.

      I would also suggest that the more recent in history the war, the greater the effect of the bankers in bringing it about.

      Back in the 1700s and 1800s they pushed and influenced to the extent that they could. But again, there were so many other factors present that to suggest that these wars were simply concoctions of the bankers does not seem proper to me.

      With World War I, I think it is clear that the bankers played a much bigger part. I do not recall his name, but the Foreign Minister of Austria-Hungary was certainly an agent of the Rothschilds.

      As for World War II, ago old antagonisms and hatreds of course played a role, as did desire for more land, and the power of a madman. I believe that Hitler, the diabolical super-genius that he was, made his way to to top of a beaten and broke country honestly. Once he was there, though, he suddenly found enough money to build up a massive army. It is safe to assume that he got it from the bankers and was told how to spend it if he wanted to keep getting more of it.

      So, yes, the bankers play a role, and an ever increasing role, but they do not simply snap their fingers and exert complete control over the evolutionary patterns of history and war.

      This is a lie, designed in my opinion to make them appear stronger than they really are.

      And they do not only try to take credit for history and war, these maniacs, they try to take credit for earthquakes, hurricanes, everything!!!

      Well, I do not believe they have this much power. But I do believe that they are trying to get us to believe it.

    4. You are perfectly correct, the conditions for war much already exist in the form of tension of a racial, nationalist or other basis. The bankers can then work to increase this tension until war is fomented.

      I can make a good case for the majority of wars since 1700 being the work of the bankers. It was the study of the Boer War many years ago that first lead me to realise that most of history is a lie. In the case of the Boer War, there was some tension between the Boers and the British, they had already fought one small war but the second Boer War was the product of the machinations of Cecil Rhodes and he used a method tat is similar to what has been done in Syria in the last 3 years. Rhodes hired a bunch of mercenaries and sent them into the Boer States with the stated aim of causing the British settlers in those states to rise up and seize power, it was called The Jameson Raid. Of course, these 400 mercenaries were doomed to failure and were surrounded and captured in short order by the Boers. Rhodes was delighted, he now had his cassus belli for war, he trumpeted to the British press about this grave insult to the British Empire and soon he had his war. Rhodes was, of course, an agent of the Rothschilds. The Boers had gold and diamonds, so a large part of it was due to sheer avarice, but there were other important factors - the Boer States had an independent banking system with a state-owned central bank and a debt free currency backed by Gold (the Krugerrand); just like Libya and Iraq in more recent times. Also, the Boers themselves were fiercely independent and were not prepared to allow the international banksters any control over them at all, they were the descendents of Dutch Calvinists and French Heugenots woh had fled Europe to be free of the usurous Jewish bankers. In the case of the French Heugenots, it was due to the crushing of their class of small farmers by the French revolution that caused them to depart. Everyone thinks the main target of the French Revolution was the Bourgeoisie and Aristocracy, it wasn't, it was the small land-owning farmers, they were attacked as a class in the same way that the Bolsheviks destroyed the Kulaks 150 years later after the Russian Revolution.

      Even the US Civil War was provoked and prolonged by the Zionists. Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, the book that supposedly 'exposed' the horrors of chattel slavery in the South was the wife of a Rabbi. She wrote the book without ever having crossed the Ohio River into the South and it was all a pack of lies, gross exaggerations based on tales she had heard. When she met Lincoln he greeted her as 'the little woman who brought us this great war'. The African slave trade was run wholly by Jews and if left alone, would have died out by the 1880s anyways. The Jews in Washington deliberately provoked the South into secession and then financed both sides. In 1862, the Jewish Confederate Judah P Benjamin arranged a 7 million USD loan from Jewish bankers in New York to enable the South to keep fighting another 3 years. So that war was provoked by the Jews and then prolonged by them. It should have ended in 1862 with a compromise peace The massive wave of scurrilous 'carpet baggers' who came down to the South after the war to exploit and cheat the Southern people were mostly Jews and the Ku Klux Klan was actually more formed to deal with these Jews then it was to promote oppression of Blacks. During the war, both Grant and Lee had to issue orders banning Jews from the army camps to prevent them exploiting the soldiers.

      I'll leave WW1 for the time being because it is something I am tackling at great length, being the war which was most clearly manufactured by the Jewish bankers and I have full proof of this from books and publications from the 1920s, very solid info from long before the internet age.

    5. Ian- Thanks for these informative posts on history. Your information is consistent with what I have uncovered.

    6. Cheers Amanda. History is my subject and it is through the study of history that I became interested in modern-day events, quite simply, the Zionists and other nefarious groups keep repeating the same games over and over, whether it be South Africa in 1900 or Libya and Syria in the 2010s.

    7. Ian, I love to study history as well. I used to study metaphysics, and was most influenced by Hegel.

      For Hegel, history is the gradual development of God's self-knowledge, playing out in and through individual consciousnesses.

      It is a great dialectical pattern unfolding in time, as God gradually becomes manifest to himself.

      It is Reason itself working itself out in time.

      Do you any thoughts about this sort of idealistic metaphysics?

      History seems to be a logical, unfolding developmental process. It is not a random sequence of events I do not believe.

      I think it is the battle between good and evil playing out. Because existence is ultimately rational I do not think it can self-destruct.

      I foresee a new power structure taking effect at some point. Almost a sort of Armageddon leading to a new world order, but of course a benevolent one, not one controlled by the dark forces.

    8. I'm afraid I have no knowledge of metaphysics at all and very little of philosophy either.

      Hegel's hypothesis regarding history is intriguing though.

      Personally, I think that human nature, being what it is, means that the same type of events an circumstances which lead to those events keep recurring, therefore a knowledge of history is the best way to guide yourself into the future.

    9. Ian, I am very aware of Useless Grants problem with the tribe but unaware as to Bob Lees. I know a little about the War of Northern Aggression, being a lifelong fan of Pete Longstreet and the ANV's 1st corp.

      Could you perhaps expand on this a little?

    10. Hi Chris.

      Been a while since I read up on this matter. I have read estimates of the number of Jewish soldiers who fought for the Confederacy that range from 2,000 to as high as 10,000. It has been claimed that the Confederate Army & Navy were more tolerant of Jews than the Federal forces were. Longstreet's chief commissary officer was a Jew, one of many Jews who held high rank in the South.

      However, it seems, from the many sources that mention it, that anti-semitism in the South grew gradually during the war, to the point were, at the end of the war, it was widespread and Jewish soldiers were buried in a separate cemetary. I am not sure why there was a rising tide of anti-semitism in the South as it seems the Jewish soldiers of he Confederacy fought well. However, such sentiments usually have reasons behind them, I suspect it was due to similar reasons as the anti-semitism in the north - Jewish peddlers carrying on in unfair trade, Jewish traders in cotton and molasses exploiting the situation to their own profit.

      I don't have any concrete info to share I'm afraid, other than having read many times that anti-semitism grew steadily in the South during the war.

    11. Indeed Raphael Moses was a most interesting person. Kept Longstreets command alive after they were abandoned by Bragg during the Knoxville campaign.

      Always struck me as odd as to how the 1st corps commissary officer ended up running with Jeff Davis and the gold, when the rest of the command was strung out between Farmville and Appomattox fighting for its very life. With no food

      Did you know Longstreet was telling Lee to just up and take gold from whoever was hording it? He seemed to have a pretty good idea of where it was at. Ive often wondered how the hell that came to pass. Where would Pete Longstreet get info as to where gold was being hidden in the winter of '65?

      Never thought of Raphael Moses before. That would make perfect sense, wouldn't it?

    12. Ian, Stooy44 is right that there are many players and conditions which go into making things happen or piggybacking on them. In fact you say he is right in turn, and in doing so, perhaps unwittingly, you are agreeing with Tarpley (albeit adding to what he's saying).

      Tarpley is emphasizing (overemphasizing, but importantly talking about) Edward's connivance toward a WWI condition with Wilhelm.

      You can add in the Zionists of the banks, and the other bankers and ideologues of Europe, for sure. But WWI was largely conditionally set up by petty economic and personal malfeasance at Edward's constant hand -- using and being used by City of London types, including Zionist types, probably, too.

    13. Rubbish Clare, utter rubbish, clearly you have no idea at all about how WWI came about.

      It was decades in the planning and created by the Zionist bankers, the reason it started in 1914 was because they had to establish the Federal Reserve first.

      Tarpley is introducing Edward as a culprit purely to mislead people away from the Zionists who he works for.

      Chris, I suspect Moses is where Longstreet got his info from, and yes,while the remnants of the ANV were fighting barefoot with empty bellies Moses was running away with Jeff Davis and the last 40,000 in bullion from the Confederate Treasury.

      I think the real role of the Jews in the Civil War, or rather the politicking and intrigue that went on behind the War is still under-researched. Judah P Benjamin is a figure that needs to be looked at more closely, as mentioned, he arranged for a loan of 7 million dollars from the Jews in the North in 1862 in order to keep the Confederacy afloat, which I think, was just a cynical prolongation of the slaughter rather than an attempt at preserving the Confederacy.

      I think one of the overlooked reasons why Lee ordered that terrible assault at Gettysburg that became known as Pickett's Charge is that he was well aware that the Confederacy was bankrupt, so he threw the dice. Longstreet of course, was dead set against it but failed to push his case forcefully enough and I suppose the reason for that was he too, knew the Confederacy's coffers were empty. If only Stonewall Jackson had been there, things could have turned out so different, he, for me, was the true genius of that war and I expect he would have persuaded Lee to let him outmaneuver the Federal forces rather than make that bloody assault. With Jackson fit and present, that campaign might have ended in Washington rather than Gettysburg with a very different outcome.

      To paraphrase Shelby Foote, before that war, the US was a plurality, after that war, it could only be thought of as a singularity. I have a strong suspicion that the US and the world would be a better place if the plurality had remained, which is what the Founding Fathers intended.

    14. The other thing Benjamin did was blow up Longstreets Western Concentration campaign following Gettysburg. That was the final death blow for the South, militarily, as far as I am concerned.

      As far as who was the better Corp commander.

      I dont think Bernie Bee's sobriquet 'there he stands like a stone wall' was given because he was happy seeing old Shoebox on the back side of Henry Hill.

      Shields whipped ol Blue Light at Cedar Run, where Jackson tried to blame Garnett.

      At Second Manassas Jackson failed to pull up on Longstreets left (after being ordered) and allowed Porters regulars to hold off Hood and Wilcox and allow Pope to escape.

      Jackson talked Lee into the debacle of taking Harpers Ferry.

      It was from Jacksons HQ that that the infamous lost order was written. Harvey Hill wasnt even attached to his command at that point. Longstreet ate his copy

      At Sharpsburg Jackson left the field at 7:30 am for 'refreshments'. Returned in the afternoon to lead an ill advised flanking move on the Federal right, which he gave up before he started.

      His faulty dispositions at Fredricksburg (he wanted to set up behind the North Anna and pouted when he wasnt allowed to) allowed Meade's division to break his first line and was saved by Jube Early timely charge

      At Chancellorsville he took twelve hours to make a flank march (with guides and cavalry) that was only two miles longer than Longstreets move at Gettysburg. The move that Pete made in four hours with a faulty guide and no cavalry.

      And dont get me started on Jacksons performance during the Seven Days.

      His behavior at Mechanicsvills was cowardly, (he went into camp at Hundleys Corner within sound of the guns) as was his behavior at White Oak Swamp where he couldnt be awakened to seal off the Federal retreat and this led directly to the slaughter at Malvern.

      Jackson set the timetable for the whole campaign and failed to meet it on every occasion

      Jackson was hell on wheels chasing the B team up and down the Shenandoah, not so much when he had to cooperate with the rest of the army and actually fight the AOP

      Longstreet screwed the proverbial pooch at Seven Pines. And blamed Theo Holmes. No two ways about it.

      He should have resigned his commission at about noon on 3 July, 1863. That would have been about the only way to stop Marse Robert from what he was about to do.

      Longstreet had the bad sense to throw in his lot with Sam Grant and the republicans post war.

      The South never forgave him.

      Jackson and Stuart (both subpar commanders, imo) were fortunate enough to die during the war and were immortalized in the 'Lost Cause' mythology.

      Poor Pete, commissioned from Alabama, by way of Georgia and South Carolina, never had a chance against the Virginia lost cause PR machine

    15. Ian, are you zio-nuts?

      Do you not know that tracing general banking (including Rothschilds) wishes does NOT preclude personal motives of Edward in manoeuvring for WWI to bust central Europe through playing his cousin Kaiser Wilhelm's anglophilia toward Wilhelm's own destruction?

      And do you not know that Tarpley is no zio-denier, but does not take it as far as you in blaming everything on Zionism, which he is allowed to do, for even if you were right that practically all things big and bad are Zionism or honourary Zionism (people duped by Zionists), and you're not -- there are multiple reasons for most of these big conspiracies, some of which are Zionists working for their own ends, and not always towards Israel but just for money and power --

      yes, even if you were completely right, that does not make Tarpley DELIBERATELY obscuring your "truth".

      Please, gain some balance.

  3. I seem to recall Webster from the Monty Python 'Travel Agent' sketch.

    Mr. Bounder: Anyway, umm, you're interested in one of our holidays, are you?

    Webster Tarpley: Yes, that's right. I saw your advert in the blassified ads.

    Mr. Bounder: The what?

    Webster Tarpley: In The Times Blassified Ads.

    Mr. Bounder: Ah, The Times Classified Ads.

    Webster Tarpley: Yes, that's right. I'm afraid I have a speech impediment. I can't pronounce the letter B.

    Mr. Bounder: Uh, C.

    Webster Tarpley: Yes, that's right, B. It's all due to a trauma I suffered when I was a sboolboy. I was attacked by a Siamese bat.

    Mr. Bounder: Uh, ah, a Siamese cat.

    Webster Tarpley: No, a Siamese bat. They're more dangerous.

    Mr. Bounder: Listen, can you say the letter K?

    Webster Tarpley: Oh, yes. Khaki, kettle, Kipling, Khomeini, Kellog's Born Flakes.

    Mr. Bounder: Well, why don't you say the letter K instead of the letter C?

    Webster Tarpley: What, you mean, pronounce "blassified" with a K?

    Mr. Bounder: Yes, absolutely!

    Webster Tarpley: Klassified!

    Mr. Bounder: Good!

    Webster Tarpley: Oh, it's very good! I never thought of that before. What a silly bunt.

  4. Both Jim and this Dennis are mindboggling incompetent when it comes to Ionizing radiation.

    Take this "tons of radioactive water poring into the sea each day".

    Well, how much natural radiation is the in a liter of seawater? About 20 Becquerel. So in 1 km^3 there are 20 billion Becquerels. What is the consecration of this emission in Japan and what is the quantity? How many Becquerels each day? And how many km^3 of natural radiation of seawater does this equals? We do need numbers here. We cannot treat this issue on a purely emotional basis.

    And then calculate the fraction of the increase on the Pacific Ocean There should be about 650 million km^3 of seawater in the Pacific. Tables:

    These hysterical hyperventilating bed-wetters use this grossly erroneous Linear no-threshold model when they shall calculate these unbelievable gigantic numbers of victims. Really, really important to understand how this model came about:

    I wish everyone would read this masterpiece on LNT and radiation, also by Zbigniew Jaworowski:

    For those of you that are suffering from radiophobia, I think it will be good for your nerves if you watch this documentary on that Chernobyl has become a wonderful wildlife preserve, with all kinds of cute and cuddly animals there now:

    1. Now thats funny. Whats not funny is I live in the western US.

      After listening to Dennis, I was talking to the cat (he doesnt talk back) telling him we had to decide whether we wanted to try and bug out for Patagonia or go down like gentlemen with the ship. We are both a little long in the tooth for 'bushing it', so it looks like we get cooked.

      Then El Buggo said its cool, so I breathed a sigh of relief and opened up a can of tuna for Maxwell.

      Then I saw you pointing out that El Buggo doesnt believe in nukes. Dad used to tote those things around in B-50's, B-47s and B-58s, so I know they do exist.

      So I snatched the tuna away from Max, told him bad kitty, and asked him what the hell are you doing? You want to kill yourself?

      Its been a busy morning, lol

    2. I'd go see if the local Army & Navy has any surplus radiation meters.

      I don't find anything about this subject amusing, but your post was. :)

      You have my warmest regards and I hope you stay safe. BTW, if you go to Patagonia, a knowledge of Welsh and a love of rugby would be good things to have. ;)

    3. STFU
      rat brain

      Whoa, Ian, you are spewing sewage all over the place here. You are over 50 years old Ian, and you should know you shouldn't behave like this? It looks like you have run out of arguments here! And now you are into Hasbara technique#1 instead.

      Why do you bring up the missing Ground Zero in Hiroshima here too? We cannot discuss that subject all over the place. That question is related to these neutron mini-nukes demolition fantasies. But feel free to point out the missing Ground Zero in any films of photos from that event. I told you I cannot find it (and neither can you).

      We live in a sea of radiation - radiation is everywhere. But if the erroneous LNT model is used for calculating victims., the estimates will be ridiculous overblown.

      Also somewhat relevant: Is “Radiation” a Scam? by Gordon Duff:

      One thing is whether this exotic metal can heat up with a moderator. Another question is whether this metal will explode big time! Exactly how do you know that this isn't just some fiction?

      A new nuke hoax video here if interested (21:41):

    4. Hi CChris,

      Well, how did your father know that that nukes he toted around would work as expected? Would be extremely helpful if you could point out Ground Zero in any photo or film from that event. Go to google images and find it for us? Ian cannot find it either.

      Small doses (<100mSv) can be good for you chris. It can definitely not be ruled out:

      I suggest you read and study the links I presented. How this LNT model was born is extremely important. Also lots of other relevant and important stuff in those links.

      If you are a nuke hoax denier, why wasn't Hiroshima buried under concrete for decades then? As I understand it, they just rebuild the city. Not much complaining on radiation that I have heard.

      You really need to do some calculations here. This subject cannot just be decided purely on an emotional basis.

    5. No Ian, its not funny in the least but one has to try and keep a sense of humor about it.

      Perhaps its payback for my Dad actually being in the 509th for a bit when they transitioned to the B-47 at Pease AFB

      If Dennis is correct and he sounds sincere and grim to me, then the clock has already struck.

      He understates the apathy/not knowing/caring around these here parts. If our wonderful president went on the air and announced it...I dont really know if anyone would pay the slightest bit of attention. Seriously. They dont want to know. Aggressively, dont want to know.

      Its beyond appalling.

      So, here I sit in the central/eastern Mojave desert. One water supply...Lake Mead. A huge body of water that has been under bombardment for nigh on to three years. Have to drink it, bathe with it, prepare food with it. For these same three years. Staying out of the rain here is no problem, there isnt any. Hasnt been any for...about three years.

      Coincidence? Maybe. Ive only scratched the surface on weather weapons. Im hoping somebody is sending at least some of it somewhere else (Sorry Canada)

      Brother man, I do so appreciate the regards and hope of safety. But if Dennis is correct and Ive thought the same thing for quite some time....then its buenas noches, amigo.

      You guys wont really miss us that much, lol

      Be interesting to know what the Chinese think about all of this

    6. Well El Buggo, since you inquired. My father got the fun duty of being tdy'd many times and ordered to fly through radioactive clouds taking radiation samples after the really big tests.

      He died at 58 of three types of rare cancer.

      He and my mother used to regal me with stories of coming to the Mint or the Horse Shoe Hotel in Las Vegas, getting a room on the top floor facing north, partying all night long and topping it off with watching the above ground tests just over the top of Sheep Mountain. They would see the flash and then a little later the cloud.

      A good friend of his (dead of cancer) got the privilege while being an artillery officer in the Army to lie in a trench right underneath one up at Yucca Flats.

      Guess they could have been lying to a little kid. They were pretty serious men though.

    7. Just discount whatever Buggo has to say as he's thoroughly discredited due to having consistently pushed the 'nukes are just a big hoax' BS for months here. Obviouly, you are well aware that nuclear weapons are very real, therefore there is nothing Buggo has to say that should interest you because he is an adamant pusher of nukes being a hoax.

      I have zero respect for him and suspect he's a disinfo agent.

    8. Sorry chris, I don't buy that the radiation he allegedly was exposed to cause the cancer. What doses was he exposed to? In what dimension? Radiation causes cancer has been stated millions of times at least, But no adverse health effects have never been demonstrated below 200 mSv. Can you at least read Wikipedia on Radiation Hormesis?.

      It might be they told another version of these fishing stories.

      Can we start with locating the missing Ground Zero in Hiroshima? After all, that story might be the biggest news story in the 20th century, and the first and most important public demonstration of this claimed invention.

    9. Exactly haw do you know Ian, that nukes are not just some fiction? Because of all those public demonstrations? Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why cant you just point it out for us then, in any film of photo , Ground Zero in Hiroshima? Why cant you do that Ian? We know you cant, and why is that? Everyone knows there should be a Ground Zero in Hiroshima. Must be terrible for you nuke hoax deniers that you cannot even demonstrate that! No wonder you are so pissed and grumpy, Ian.

    10. El Buggo, Ian and others keep saying that there would be no ground zero from explosions that far above ground, but rather that the effects would spread in radiation, not in the look expected of a blast. I don't know if it is true, but to keep saying they should show you one is to miss their rebuttal. Find something which shows that a blast site would happen if it were that far off the ground.

      By the way, El Buggo, do you deny the existence of nukes or just their use in Japan? It may be nukes were not ready yet then.

    11. Sure. first let me state...Im not trying to convince you of anything. You asked me a question and I told you what my parents told me. I wasnt there.

      Ive not a clue what his doses were. I was 17 when this huge strong man just withered and died in five months. He felt completely betrayed by the government that had him drop bombs all over women and kids in Germany and damn near caused him to drop hydrogen bombs on Cuba.

      You will never appreciate how close we were.

      Hiroshima? Dude. It was air burst and it wasnt really that big a bomb as bombs go. A little better than 10 kilotons. Thats bus fare for these things

      You'd be a lot better off barking up the Nagasaki tree. 22 kilotons. Fair sized pop there.

      Why did they build over radiated ruins? I dont know. Maybe because there was somebody telling them it was ok and radiation in small amounts is good for you.

      You wish to spread the word about fake nukes? Bully for you.

      I hope your right man, I really do. I'd be just overfreakingjoyed to have my head up my arse on this one

    12. Clare, the smoke plume rose to 40000 feet. It must have consisted of something else than hot air. We are talking about several thousands tons of substance from the ground, and there should be some traces of that huge reported mega explosion in Hiroshima, but there isn't any in any films or photos of the event. It cannot have exploded THAT far up in the air with that huge smoke plume. Just have a look at the very clean streets. A mega explosion should have blasted debris outwards from the epicenter and into and over the streets. Hiroshima looks exactly like the firebombed Tokyo and Yokohama.
      Technically I cannot deny nukes, however, there isn't any credible evidence for their existence. We cannot rule out that they are fiction.

      If Hiroshima wasn't the first nuke blast, exactly when was it then, and where? When did they stopped faking it, and when was the last time they faked it?

      Here is Groves and Oppenheimer standing in the Trinity crater that went off 100 feet above ground according to the reports. How deep and wide is it Clare? about 1 foot deep and 30 feet wide. Why are there still mud and sand there? etc, etc:

      We are talking about really simple stuff here Clare. Everybody knows there was a Ground Zero in Hiroshima. That was where the term was coined.

    13. Thanks chris.

      I don't doubt what you were told and the he was pissed on the Gov, etc.

      Chris, this mega explosion should at least have left some or any traces of any mega explosion in any of the photos or films of the event, but there isn't anything anywhere that illustrates this. There is absolutely nothing, and that is my point - nothing, nowhere. Clearly, the city was firebombed like Tokyo and Yokohama. No doubt about it if you just would trust your own eyeballs and not the billion reports.

    14. Well I guess first we have a difference in understanding. To me, ten kilotons is not a mega explosion. Its just not that big. And as an air burst, you would see most of the damage expressed as shock wave and fire. You would need a ground burst to do what you are describing. Which is why you use air burst nukes. So you can occupy the ground afterward.

      Ok maybe not you but some poor soldier.

      If you want to ruin something you pop it off on the ground.

      The only big craters you see up north of here are the underground tests. They have what you describe. The above ground, low kiloton air bursts I just dont think leave that big a mark.

      Now you start talking about megatons, thats a whole different thing. But low kilotons? Im not so sure.

      What about all the folk in Hiroshima that said it was a one big explosion? Ive never had a nuclear weapon dropped on me or been firebombed but I believe I could tell the difference.

    15. Maybe Chris is right about what kind of blast would be seen, El Buggo.

      I would tend to agree that the IMPRESSION we all have is that there "should" have been more of a blast-centre effect on the ground, but perhaps the worst effects were the radiation and not a blast of trees, etc., especially for the actual explosive power.

      What was carried in visible clouds might well, being lighter, go big.

      I can see your points, Chris Amundson (and sorry about your Dad, no matter what!!).

      But El Buggo, I also see why you might raise the point.

      I mean, if a small kilotonnage of a blast makes a big explosion, and huge smoke plumes, then yes, one might wonder why the EMP and so on didn't blast down everything in one way.

      But ... there was plenty of damage, and maybe it IS actually what is to be expected of a low kilotonnage which expends much of its debris into the air?

    16. This debate is pointless, Hiroshima was real, Nagasaki was real and El Buggo is talking out of his rear end.

      He's working from the amateur hour BS of Simon Shack who's entire research method is to look at a few pictures then dream up a theory based solely on those pictures without bothering to do any proper research work.

      Yet again, I have to point out that the proper scientific method consists of doing thorough research and finding and considering ALL possible sources of info, then cross-referencing and cross-checking between all these sources, identifying points where the sources support each other or where they contradict. Only through following this method can a valid hypothesis be formulated. Once you have a hypothesis, you must submit it to peer review and as peers find flaws in your hypothesis you must further develop it by doing further research and finding more info that either supports or refutes your hypothesis.

      Shack didn't do anything approaching that, he just looked at a few pictures, decided the damage looked more like the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden than what he imagines the devastation of a nuclear weapon looks like and hey presto, he pulls the 'nukes are fake' theory out of his ass.

      It's laughable and all serious researchers shouldn't waste a second of their time even considering it.

      There is such a huge body of other information about Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Shack hasn't even considered or touched on, and what is the reason for that?

      There are only two possibilities:

      1. He's too arrogant, conceited and full of himself to bother doing any proper research work,he thinks he's sos smart that he can identify a hoax just by looking at a few pictures.

      2. He's deliberately promulgating a bullshit theory in order to mislead people.

      I am pretty certain the latter is the case and that Shack is an agent of disinfo being employed to spread false theories. The whole reason for his 'nukes are a hoax' BS is the use of nuclear weapons on 9/11. His employers don't want people to discover this use of nukes against the US people so they have tasked him with spreading the theory that nukes don't even exist.

      Shack is trying to persuade people that no-one died on 9/11, that we were played a 2 hour movie while the empty towers were demolished by dynamite behind a military-grade smokescreen.

      It's obvious that he's an agent of disinfo, sadly the truth movement is highly infiltrated by a great number of them.

    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    18. Thanks again chris,

      Re: ten kilotons is not a mega explosion. Its just not that big

      Well, the entire city was demolished, according to the reports, and the smoke plume rose to 40000 feet, contained several thousand tons of substance from the ground, so there SHOUL be some traces of that in any of the historical films of photos of the event.

      I recently discovered a demolished church in Nagasaki near Ground Zero there with those colorful church windows unbroken! Not ready to present that yet - stay tuned.

      The reported crater after Castle Bravo is reported to be 6,240 feet in diameter and 164 feet deep:

      Not credible that a nuke explode over Hiroshima and demolished the entire city without leaving any trace in any photo.

      Should be many thousand reports on ear drum wounds(?) and also many many thousand reports on wounds from blown in windows - but we do not have that either.

      Re: What about all the folk in Hiroshima that said it was a one big explosion?

      The area was totally controlled by Pentagon et al, so we only have one controlled source for all the million reports. Censorship in Japan after 1945 was probably even worse than it is in N Korea today.

      You may want to have a look at the place where nuclear revisionism started in 2005:

      Some review by

    19. Clare,

      Are we going to believe that a nuke bombing looks identical to, and is indistinguishable from firebombing now? Nukes=firebombing? No difference? There isn't any discernable differences in any of the published photos of the firebombed Tokyo, Yokohama and Hiroshima. No differences. Like what? Firebombing=firebombing=answer.

    20. Corrigendum: There are about 20 trillion Becquerels in a km^3 of seawater. So there is enough natural radiation in a km^3 of seawater to kill a lot of people if they had eaten all this natural pollution. 20 trillion Becquerels!

    21. El Buggo, we seem to have a problem here.

      I believe that you propound no nukes were used. I postulated that the bomb on Hiroshima wasnt that big of a blast. You assure me that it was. Real big in fact


      Guess right here I neednt put too fine a point on it.

      You sir, are describing a nuclear weapon.

      Yes sir

      I tried to walk you away from it but you werent having any of it

      Check and mate. Fun game any others?

    22. Well, chis, you declared victory rather quickly, but it is understandable when all you nuke hoax deniers have is a firebombed city and some Pentagon reports. Hard to defend this fiction then.

    23. Not a t'all, sir......I got you to crawl out on a branch and you sawed it off behind you.

      Now where I come from a gentleman admits when he's been bested. I had to admit to Clare, much as I dont like it, that she has some damn tough points in the PID controversy that I cant counter. Yet. Me and her arent done but for the moment, she has me at a disadvantage. Bully for her.

      Now dont be the rapscallion. I caught you fair and square on this one. Its far from being 'one of the 16 smoking guns that crushes the governments case', lol...but as a fng I had to tilt at somebody and draw blood.

      Nuke hoax denier...I like that. Won my first little bitty ribbon.

  5. fearfearfearfearfearfear and more fear.
    I don't believe a fucking word of it.

    I didn't think that you were the type to be said and lead by the nose dennis.

    I guess I was wrong.

    1. Well, Ian, Shack is a mixed bag; pshea has picked up some of the worst stuff there and in LetsRollForums, but that happens; it's how the uncareful ideas get onto forums usually, anyway. (Most things aren't spooks; lots of people really think these things.)

      However, you're right that pshea doesn't seem to understand any of the ordinary fears because of thinking "everything is all unreal all the time" (or nearly so);

      of course, the irony is that you and I would agree with him in some ways: we too, though with degrees of difference, feel that much of important history needs correction and is "fake", i.e., wrongly told.

    2. I've covered shack many times before, at the risk of repeating myself:

      The problem is Shack has discredited himself to a great degree by promulgating several utterly ludicrous theories about the fakery of nukes, the inability of rockets to leave the atmosphere, the fakery of satellites and many other inanities not worthy of consideration by serious researchers.

      There are really only two ways of viewing Shack:

      1. As an overly smug, arrogant idiot with his head in the clouds dreaming up ludicrous rubbish.

      2. As a gatekeeper who is deliberately misleading people with his ludicrous rubbish.

      Whichever is the case, Shack has virtually no credibility and his attacks have only diminished any remnants of credibility he had.

      At this point, I don't see how Shack can regain any credibility, he would have to adopt a diametrically different approach to research, he would have to adopt proper scientific methods, not least of which would be peer review.

      Instead of accepting peer review, which is essential, Shack has, instead attacked anyone who dares to question his work. That alone is enough to discredit him and his work.

      Shack's work is so deeply flawed that it is invalid and can be dismissed, one of the main flaws is that almost the entire basis for his work is looking at pictures and deciding they are suspicious and must be fake. This is amateur hour stuff at best. A serious researcher considers ALL available sources of info and data, examines ALL of them, then tries to cross-reference them to establish points where they are mutually supportive and also areas where they contradict each other. Only by following this long-established scientific method can valid, sound hypothesis be established.

      If Shack wants to be taken seriously, then he needs to do some valid work. So far, he hasn't so can't be taken seriously. He has displayed shocking arrogance by reacting to criticism in the way he has - attacking his critics in childish ways. A serious researcher wouldn't attack his critics, he would respond to the criticism by doing more work to strengthen his hypothesis, widening the scope of his study to include even more data and info, by finding more evidence that supports his theories.

      Shack can't be taken seriously until he produces work that is worthy of a serious researcher and changes his methods an approach to scientifically valid ones.

      I, for one have little doubt that Simon won't change his approach or do anything to make his work more valid, whether that is due to his arrogance and incompetence or because he is a gatekeeper is open to debate.

      Why bother giving the time of day to sources like Shack and the Letsroll people when there are many far better, more reliable and solid sources available?

    3. Shack's basic work stands, not what he THINKS is his basic work (that all was pre-planned).

      His work includes excellent demonstrations of faking of an impression within Media sources; this means different kinds of faking: sometimes it is outright doctoring, sometimes it is doctoring with layers, sometimes editing, sometimes co-ordination which should not normally be going on.

      This is a major discovery (for most people to know); it of course makes him smug and arrogant.

      Where he falls down is where he is most exuberant, unfortunately: that composing an overall lie, an overall fake narrative had to -- in his opinion -- be not only roughly pre-planned, but totally pre-made.

      You and I know that, and yet you continue to talk of "his credibility" as if "he" were representative of one thing.

      He is not.

      His work is valuable in its own right WHEREVER IT IS SELF-EVIDENT OR WELL ARGUED, and is not valuable in any other places.

      Same with anything. It is just that he has taken a Sandy Hook-type of idea to 9/11 where it does not fit.

    4. Clare, I have a degree in Electronic Imaging, I have expertise in video editing, 3D modelling and rendering, all aspects of computer graphics. When I say Shack's work is rubbish, you should listen. He is using multi-generational low quality videos that have been transcoded several times, each generation introduced artifacts, so that by the time Shack gets is hands on them, they are so badly deteriorated that they are not worth analysing. A lot of the conclusions he draws from looking at these videos are invalid and demonstrate a lack of understanding and knowledge of video technology and computer graphics on his part.

      If he followed proper scientific methods, including peer review, then his theories would never have got off the ground because peers with expertise in electronic imaging could have pointed out his errors.

      I'm never going to get through to you that Shack's work is invalid rubbish, which is sad because it means you will continue to be misinformed about him and hold an untenable standpoint on his work.

    5. Clare,

      I don't think you should listen to Ian. I'm particularly troubled that Ian invoked his education and so forth to defend his point, yet he's wrong.

      The most critical part of Simon Shack's work, the jumpers and people hanging out of the WTC windows, DOES hold together. That is what is most important because that is meant to be the evidence of human life in the Towers. Shack has made his contribution, and it is very significant indeed.

  6. To suggest that radiation is not real / not potentially harmful is dangerous.

    This is very much in line with the whole "anything is believable / nothing is knowable," mindset / line of thinking, which is also very dangerous.

    Critical thinking does not mean rejecting everything as unknowable.

    Remember: "It is good to have an open mind but not so open that nothing stays in."

    1. Not many claim that radiation isn't real. The question is whether there is a threshold or not. To big doses is obviously not an advantage. What is a too big dose is harder to answer than you may think.

    2. Black and white thresholds (unless the threshold is 'zero') don't practically apply with something like radiation, which can have very complex cumulative effects that stretch out over a long period of time.

      Just as not exposing yourself to too many medical X-rays throughout your lifetime is a good idea; it's also common sense to apply the precautionary principle when it comes to human-created radiation being leaked into the environment. i.e., absolutely minimize it because we can. Who cares if some company takes a financial hit.

    3. I wish you would read a little bit on Radiation Hormesis, at least Wikipedia.

      Unfortunately, it has been rather difficult to demonstrate any damages in the real world caused by low doses. A low dose is what we can expect to be exposed to by nature. The people in Ramsar, Iran, receive abut 100mSv/y. No adverse health effects have been demonstrated there. There are lots of other examples.

      If some company takes a financial hit, that will ultimately lead to lower wages. Is that what you want? Smaller paycheck because of your nerves?

    4. Why don't you make yourself really useful then and go clean up Fukushima.

    5. The Petkau Effect:

      Low dose radiation does a lot of harm to cell membranes.

    6. Pesants,

      They may just pump all the radioactive substances right into the sea and there will not be any demonstrable damages to any one or anything.

      Have you done the calculation on how many km^3 of natural radiation in seawater this reported emission is equal too? Is it 1? Maybe 2? How much and how many? Then divide that number on the other 650 million km^3 of seawater in the Pacific to get the fractional increase in the ocean. I'll promise you will get a ridiculous low number. Table above in my first post.

    7. A. Peasant,

      Re: The Petkau Effect

      Don't know. There are lots of these experiments out there. I didn't find you link very credible. There are lots of hyperventilating radiophobia victims out there.

      Just a random quote here:

      “The ‘cancer dose’ that some people calculate assumes that even one ‘hit’ from a gamma ray can induce a cancer,” said Dr. Orient. “In fact, every cell in the body experiences 200,000 ‘hits’ per day from natural processes. Low-dose radiation stimulates the natural repair mechanisms.”

      The report also extrapolated estimates of average lifetime radiation exposures over a 70 year lifespan. The U.S. average is 180 mSv/life, Sweden is 410 mSv/life, Finland is 510 mSv/life, Chernobyl’s “high contamination” region is 480 mSv/life, Kerala, India, a coastal region, averages 1,600-14,000 mSv/life, and Ramsar, Iran averages 18,200 mSv/life

    8. This is my response to you. I wrote it 3 years ago.

      Money quote:

      "Because for -paths, if you can't SEE THE PROBLEM, it simply doesn't exist."

      no radiation, no problem
      no gatekeepers, no problem
      no trolls, no problem


    9. Really odd that you should be so scared of this radiation stuff. I'm still more afraid of my cat and my own shadow.

  7. In one of these podcasts Denis Camino recommends David Icke as a great perveyor of truth.

    I see him as dangerous since he falls squarely in line with the whole 'nothing is knowable' meme, while raking in huge coin...coin that is quite 'knowable' when it's sitting in his bank account.

  8. Replies
    1. You can post your reply in reply to your previous comment, so they don't get separated by others doing so. Just letting you know.

      Also: his last name is Cimino.

      "Camino" is a Spanish word for "path". It is cognate to French "chemin" (for road or path). Camino Real is the most famous use of the term in English, other than the open-source GUI Web browser now, too.

      Hope that helps.

      As to Icke:

      He is a very confused person in some ways, not always careful, but also very good about certain issues; he was an early pan-conspiracy-researcher popularizer, who took the big-conspiracy concepts that someone more scholarly journalistic such as Mae Brussel would handle, and catapulted them into the mainstream discussion more.

      He also is very dedicated and, for all his sometimes-intense and uncareful connection-making between facts, is actually quite right a lot of the time, in gist or in detail.

      He may not be the best source for each topic, but he is a good source, barring his mistakes, for getting some general information on many things at once, if one is careful with him.

      I don't think it's all for money.

    2. Well, personally, I think Icke was a better goalkeeper than he is a seeker of truth.

      He's an op, no doubt about it in my mind, straight out of the Tavistock/BBC/SIS establishment.

      Icke has very little credibility in his home country of England because of his background. Let me recap:

      He was a football player, a goalkeeper, most notably for Coventry City but never passed reserve status. In the 1980s he became a sports reporter and presenter for the BBC. Then, all of a sudden he quit his job and seemed to lose his marbles - he began proclaiming himself to be the son of God or somesuch and went around wearing shell suits of a particularly lurid colour, the colour being significant because he claimed it to have some empowering effect. He was a nutjob basically, oh how we all did laugh. He wrote a book or two, they didn't sell well, he was largely forgotten.

      Here he is in his Son Of God shellsuit wearing days being laughed at on the BBC:

      Fast forward a few years and he reinvents himself again as a conspiracy theorist, making really crazy, outlandish claims about reptilian overlords and the Queen of England spending her evenings under Windsor Castle in her true reptilian form drinking the blood of humans.

      Icke today is running a gatekeeping operation. Like all gatekeepers, he gives out a load of good info but mixes in a bit of bad info too so that the overall effect of listening to him is inevitably being mislead. You might learn a few useful things from him but in the en, he will lead you astray so that you never get to the heart of the matter.

      The other part of his role, and this is the most significant aspect of his work, is to discredit the truth movement by infiltrating it. In England, no-one is going to take David Icke seriously, so he is the perfect character to use to discredit the truth movement in the eyes of the general public. It becomes all too easy to dismiss something as 'more of that David Icke lunacy'.

      So don't waste our time with Icke, he's the worst possible figure to use as a source.

    3. Ian, please try to think through how people can be NOT a conscious gatekeeper, even if they are convenient to others because of their limits.

      Icke, for example, is a bit out of it in some ways; he blanks out during speaking a bit, sometimes; it's emotional.

      However, when he said the "Son of God" thing he meant, as he's said many times, that he is one with the universe as we all are, but that he felt a special connectivity, consciousness raising at the time. Nothing too unique in that.

      Also, he is uncareful in how he thinks about the alien issue and the history of myth, which does, by the way, talk quite a bit about strange beings, sometimes reptilian.

      Just because he feels one can see it "in the eyes of someone" that they are evil is not so odd. In fact, we all tend to "see evil" or "see good" in people's eyes and expressions. It is just that, like his "Son of God", initially expressed without caveats, his way of expressing the seeing of character in they eyes becomes literal (which is more deludedly crazy than it is just stupid as well); he then lays onto it his knowledge of a mish-mash of history of myth and testimony from putative trauma victims and putative contactee materials and MKUltra claimants.

      He sees a mish-mash.

      However, reality IS a bit of a mish-mash -- a bit, as I said -- and so, if a person IS rather aware of all that, and does his or her own research into the subjects he discusses, he or she will find much to ponder, as Icke has.

      Icke is not a great person to use as a SOURCE, but he is certainly aware of many things. Heck, though I am far more rational about the subjects, with caveats and careful nuance, people misconstrue me, too; some of what he says he has misconstrued and some of what he says gets misconstrued by the listeners/ readers.

    4. Clare, he's a gatekeeper, his role is to discredit the research community he has infiltrated, end of story, if you can't see that then you need to open your eyes.

      There is little more transparent in this world of conspiracy then David Icke, if you can't see through him then I have zero faith in your ability to decipher ANYTHING.

    5. I do not trust Icke. He is especially weak when he tries to do metaphysics. It seems to me that his goal is to associate himself with the legitimate seekers of truth so that all of us are labelled as kooks.

      The vast majority of his theory is not original but is taken from Blavotsky, and her theosophy.

      He also, like Alex Jones, deliberately exaggerates the power of the maniacs seeking global control.

      Icke, is in my opinion, an op.

    6. You're right stooy, his job is to discredit the whole movement by inserting his kooky self into the middle of things.

    7. Everybody who is a bit blanked out on issues you know to be more nuanced, or you think are caused differently, seems to be an op to you or Ian, yes?

      I have run down how one can tell that Icke is likely not an op; his errors and weirdness are, however, convenient to operators in some ways, I would agree.

    8. "Ian, please try to think through how people can be NOT a conscious gatekeeper, even if they are convenient to others because of their limits."

      Clare this is a pretty arrogant statement. Do you think that you are only one who thinks?

      What I have seen from your posts is that you are a contrarian...which is not very useful for discovering the truth.

      To discover the truth you need to take your ego out of it. You can't get so entrenched in a particular viewpoint. I have yet to see you make any meaningful concessions in your posts. Even Jim makes concessions and he's a brainiac extraordinaire.

    9. Aah, it's a time with Clare, she will just keep telling us we are wrong, we don't understand, our mindset is wrong, we don't have sufficient nuance, yada yada yada.

      Icke promulgates nuts conspiracy theories in order to make the truth movement look like a bunch of kooks. But Clare will just explain away things like Icke's crazy theories about shape-shifting reptilian overlords as 'weakness' and say we need to have 'nuance' to understand.

      In 1991, on Terry Wogan's TV chat show, in the middle of talking about football (the subject he was a guest on the show to talk about), he announced that he was "the son of God" and that Britain would be devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes (the UK isn't seismically active). He also began wearing all turquoise all the time and since then has devoted his life to informing the world that it's actually secretly controlled by evil shape-shifting lizard-people from the 4th dimension who travelled here from a rift in the space-time continuum near the constellation Draco.

      He's not crazy, he's following an agenda and that agenda is to discredit the real truthseekers and mislead the public. If Icke talks about holocaust denial, it's in order to discredit holocaust scholars, if Icke talks about the Rothschilds and the Council on Foreign Relations he's trying to discredit researchers in those areas.

      It's so bloody obvious and Clare need to understand that sometimes things are not very hidden, that psyops often work this way - hide a big truth behind a bunch of little truths, and you don't need to 'try to understand' or be 'careful' or have 'nuance' because it's right here in front of you, hidden in plain sight.

      Icke is a gatekeeper, end of story.

    10. I agree. Icke is certainly not crazy. He is very smart and he's following a carefully crafted agenda. This agenda serves the existing power structure, while purporting to try to dismantle / replace it with something that will benefit the masses / the greater good. For this reason I consider him to be a VERY dangerous person. Chomsky and Tarpley fall squarely into this category as well...very smart and serving a similar agenda.

    11. I very much agree, Chomsky and Tarpley are classic cases, they are both gatekeepers for the Israeli Zionist cabal, Jim Fetzer has done some very interesting work on Chomsky including an excellent refutation of his academic work on context and language.

      The mainstream media is under Zionist control, and I firmly believe that most of the alternative media is too. I further believe that the truth movement is heavily infiltrated by Zionist agents, Chomsky, Tarpley, David Icke, Alex Jones, those I am sure about, there are others that I strongly suspect.

      Just watch David Icke squirm when he was confronted by Jesse Ventura, it's bleedingly obvious that Icke is not on the level, he's become one of the most popular conspiracy theorists on the planet and rakes in a couple of million dollars a year, so his psyop has been very successful, he's done a huge amount of damage to the truth movement's credibility in the eyes of the public. Jesse made him look like what he is - a fraud.

    12. Yes, Alex Jones also. Two others are Amy Goodman and Norman Finkelstein...totally bogus, both of them.

      In my opinion, the disciplines of psychology and sociology are extremely well understood by the power mongers. Hence they are able to offer up such nasty mixes of fear, misinformation, truth, distraction, etc., etc. to further their ends.

      It's good in a way...keeps you on your toes, demands that you don't get complacent, naive, too trusting.

      Has anyone come up with a 'shitlist' (i.e., the most dangerous gatekeepers) and also a 'slightly stinky' list (i.e., likely gatekeepers)?

    13. Tarpley as Zionist gatekeeper? Are you out of your mind?

      Have you no subtlety?

      If I said that I don't see Jews who are Zionists as the main protagonists of 9/11, I could be blind to their role, undercounting their role, or just emphasizing something else.

      None of this would mean I am a gatekeeper.

      Chomsky is a blind, fatuous idiot of an intellectual except where it suits him to see a point, and as such he is so convenient to the elites he is promoted wherever they can. He may well be consciously keeping quiet as well.

      But Tarpley? Gimme a break.

      Ian, really: your "gatekeeper op" idea is really taking over your attitudes, and as you requested, I'll say: in my opinion.

    14. To suggest that Tarpley and Chomsky somehow don't know what they are doing is ridiculous.

      Both Tarpley and Chomsky are master obfuscators. Neither are idiots by any stretch. They know exactly what's going on. Nothing these guys say is an accident.

    15. Of course Tarpley is a Zionist gatekeeper, he's always pointing the finger at anyone other han the Zionists. That video Clare posted where he gav an hour long speech about how Edward VII was the architect of WWI was pure BS and I have more than enough solid proof of that from books written in the 1920s. The Zionists planned WWI back in the 1890s and that is easily proven,there are many scholars who have made the same case so Tarpley is clearly gatekeeping on that one, it's just one of very many examples of him pointing the finger in the wrong direction deliberately.

      This gatekeeping concept is not taking over my attitudes, it has been central to them for 20 years! I have been sure that Alex Jones was a gatekeeper ever since he first appeared on British TV in the 90s with a megaphone shouting crazy stuff about the NWO on street corners.

      Jones' method is to discredit the truth movement by appearing to be a kook in the eyes of the general public. For instance, he appeared on Piers Morgan Tonight to debate gun control. Morgan has featured some well-spoken, highly informed gun advocates on to his show to debate him on gun control. Jones was not one of these people. Somehow, he turned what should have been an impassioned defense of the Second Amendment into a rant against Communists, the British, and "suicide mass murder pills" (psychiatric meds), seeding his rant with so much misinformation that it started to look like he was launching a false flag attack on his own credibility. Just one example: He stated that suicide is the number one cause of death in the United States. False. Heart disease has long been, and remains, the leading cause of death for Americans. Suicide is somewhere around number ten.

      Anyone in the mainstream media wanting to discredit the truth movement just has to book Alex Jones or David Icke and sit back and let them talk. They are very good at what they do - mixing some good info with some bad and leaving the viewer with an overall sense of confusion.

      Look at Jones' coverage of Sandy Hook and Boston, you will learn very little about who perpetrated these crimes and what their agenda for doing so might be, it's all very vacuous and obfuscating. According to Jones and his staff at Infowars, both of these events were staged by...somebody or usher in gun control and draconian...stuff. Or something. The evidence in the Boston bombing amounts to some photos of random dudes. In the case of the Newtown shooting, Jones has not produced a single alternate suspect.

      Compare Jones' work on these subjects to that of people like Jim Fetzer, Sofia Smallstorm, Kelly from Tulsa etc. You don't need 'subtlety' to see there is a vast difference in quality.

    16. Clare, you state that we are all one with the universe. Do you mean this metaphorically, or quite literally? :)

    17. Jones is just another bullshit Texan. Trust me here guys

      We always like to say he's Sam Kinneson, reincarnated. Except Sam was quite a bit funnier.

      All Jones did was take Sams act and move it over to conspiracy theory. Its freaking sad.

      Every time I find a Jones follower I snatch them up, drag them over to a computer and force them to listen to Jim and then explain this is real stuff, what you were listening to is worse than the stuff its talking about. At least the people perpetrating this crap actually believe in what they are doing. Jones is just a sheckle (sp?) grubber.

      And he reflects real poorly on folk who are from Texas, like me.

      The guy is a clown. And his act is totally clown shoes. Just like Icke

    18. Amen Chris, I'm fully in agreement with you.

      I just wish Bill Hicks had lived, could you imagine a head-to-head with Hicks and Jones? Bill would destroy him on any given subject.

      Bill on JFK:

      I'll admit it, it was Bill Hicks who opened my mind to many subjects where we have been lied to. I'm pretty sure they killed him as he was incredibly dangerous, both hilarious and incredibly incisive, he cut through the official bullshit.

    19. Bill was a true American treasure. A brilliant guy. And obviously somebody that really had to go.

      Jones wouldnt have dared be in the same county, frankly

      To be fair I should state Jones reports stuff thats true. He turned me on to the spider-goat for instance. Ive used that one to blow many a sheeps mind and win a couple of little bets but thats small taters.

      On the day that Jones uses all that money and all that air time to convene a Texas Citizens Grand Jury and publicly indict Lying Bullshit Johnson and all parties that were accessories before and after the fact, up to and including the Pink Panther who never opened her pretty little mouth about the car stopping or any of the concerns Jack must have voiced about who he thought his enemies were, when Jones starts screaming about all of that on the radio day after day, I will stop referring to Jones as just another Bullshit Texan.

      His pussyfooting around on that case, as a Texan, with airtime, connections and influence is particularly infuriating to me

    20. Again, I'm in full agreement Chris.

      Jones has to give out a lot of good info, otherwise he wouldn't be able to build up an audience. That's how he works - give out good info but at key points mislead people. That's why he bangs on and on and the Illuminati and NWO but you will never hear him talk about Zionism and Israel.

  9. With regard to rubbing the peanut gallery*s nose in their messes, Ian, you are too kind.
    Outstanding interview Dr. James Fetzer.
    If I ever become eloquent, I hope to be able to communicate an image of out of control radioactivity as well as Mr. Cimino or Helen Cadicott. Mathematical progressionsand measurement as learned in Calculus class work well to provide a framework to understand the nature of the problem. Students should be given greater motivation to do well in this area. Dr. Caldicott is a little too nice to address the real problem behind the radiation. Though Arnie Gunderson has a most helpful attitude including the fact that something can be done, his participation in the spread of these fission death machines confirms his debt to us all, regardless of his present contributions. The debt owed by the engineers and promoters of commercial nuclear power is not being addressed in the least by most others. Steven Chu, Obama*s energy secretary last year, was last seen over in Tokyo extorting the Japanese to the tunwe that if they did not accept ALL financial and physical liability for the Fukushima disaster, no help would be forthcoming from the U.S.. Meanwhile, the Corium goes deeper and broader, and the contaminations to the oceans start to wipe out their residents, and hill folk. The Bush criminal cabal is in control of the White House and this Fukushima extortion. B.O. sucks on B.P.. Street language fits the bill here. Like Arnie Gunderson expresses, something can be done.
    As I have tried to communicate before, we MUST haul away the trash before the job can be given a chance to succeed. Containment safety is possible following Dr. Linus Pauling*s scientifically established guidelines, but the absence of criminal management is a must. Send the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds the bill before the liquidation of ALL of their assets for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. This is all possible.

    Please consider this, Since queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip will be dying soon of old age, and their observations of the ancient religion and traditions of Egypt are held so dear by them, could it be that Agenda 21 is a clumsy smoke scree for the true reason for the destruction of the gulf of Mexico, earth quake and radical weather HAARP applications, Fukushima, genocide against middle eastern Semitic people, and other genocidal activity. The desire of queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip to bring as many of their subjects as possible into the next life is being carried out at their direction by Freemasons in the U.S. and Britain. True, Kissinger, a Rockefeller or two, Brzinski, and others want the natural resources for greed, but the deaths are for slaves for the British royals in the next life. Its been done many times before.
    The Stone of Scone and a few tons of concrete should block the door to their tomb.\
    The *elite* prey upon the ingenuity of the unarmed geniuses of the world. Like Chet Atkins sang, *There*s Going to be some Changes Made*.
    Nice job Dennis Cimino.

    1. Well, Lewis Howard, at least you are not of the increasingly "everything is done Zionists or honourary Zionists or pushed by Zionists" flavour which is increasing on this forum. (I have every awareness of the Zionist-participating stuff, both as backers and as doers, by the way, however.)

      As to the Calculus and so on, perhaps you will enjoy the mathematical discoveries and work I have done and just posted on my blog page:

    2. At least? What is the difference between the radical attacks against the U.S. and the world through the simultaneous destruction of close to a DOZEN fission power plants for purposes of dominating psychosis and for the purpose of creating millions of dead to accompany the near death queen lizard II and Prince Flipthebird in to the netherworld. Please understand that the royal couple use Christianity SOLELY as a brainwash and TRULY believe since they stole a rock(The Stone of Scone) from Egypt, they are true descendents of pharaohs and need millions of subjects to slave for them in this afterlife they fancy. It sure makes more sense than random attacks by terrorists or Agenda 21 through killing all biology on the planet. Total extinction would have resulted if all of these attempted fission plant destructions had been successful. Like the brilliant Mr. Cimino suggests, the degradation of biology from radioactive isotopes WILL continue to degrade and destroy for thousands of years UNLESS the filth and genetic slime directing the murerous thrashing about in the name of containment is aborted, scrapped, and a better plan instituted. the U.S. is being directed by a *Shadow Government* whose talents rival only street corner fences and crack dealers. We MUST find the power to get them OUT OF THE WAY.
      It does honestly seem to me that in the final analysis, the true reason for all the *End Times* HAARP, cheating, looting, etc. activity is to provide corpses to accompany the Lizard II and Flipthebird into the netherworld. Agenda 21 is not grandiose enough and obvious. Mass murder to accompany dying rulers into the afterlife has been done many times. It fits. Too many wankers sitting back and letting them get away with it.
      Queen lizard II and Prince Flipthebird with the Rothchilds is Zionism.

    3. What are these attempted destructions of fission plants you are talking about?

      The Stone of Scone has nothing to do with Egypt, it's red sandstone and was quarried somewhere in Scotland or Ireland. The reason why it was taken to England by King Edward is so that the kings of England could, henceforward also claim to be kings of Scotland as they would be coronated upon the stone.

      I think you're giving way too much credit to the British Crown, I don't think they have anything like the power and influence you suggest.

  10. I think ian and clare are both right about icke.

  11. Ickes is not a saviour. He is an educator and a good one. Sometime when you find yourself alone down a dark alley confronted by several potential murderers of unknown source or identity, and if you were a serious threat to a certain cabal, what your theme of recourse should be. I will give you a hint. Entertain the bastards. Been there.

    1. What, that makes no sense at all. Are you saying Icke is a gatekeeper or just an entertainer making good money from his antics?

  12. david icke and Richard branson are one in the same.
    don't believe it, research it.

    fakery fakery everywhere
    and we lap it up.

  13. Actually, I heard that Margaret Thatcher and David Icke were the same person. Only difference is that he has bigger breasts. Just like Henry Kisinger has bigger breasts than Cher. It's all very obvious. No research required.

    1. Have you ever seen them together? Coincidence? I think not.

  14. Have I ever seen the two breasts together? Well, in close proximity to one another yes, but not really 'together.'

    Henry Kissinger of course wears a Manzier to keep the jiggling under control.

  15. Have any of you noticed that for years Jones used to have Tarpley on as a guest quite regularly? It was great fun to listen to those mismatched pairings, because Tarpley was sincerely promoting what he saw as POSITIVE SOLUTIONS to America's serious economic and foreign-policy maladies, while the execrable Jones did little more than interrupt constantly with his doom-and-gloom rants that offer no hope at all short of civil war. Apparently (the closeted Ayn Randian) Jones couldn't stomach any more of what he saw as Tarpley's "socialistic" tendancies and seems to have terminated the relationship.

    I used to think Jones was an op; now I think he's just an entrepreneur -- sort of a secular televangelist who dishes out exactly what his target (ultra-alienated) audience wants to hear and is willing to pay for. As for Tarpley, I think he's essentially an honest, intellectual savant (and showboater) who has made certain compromises (going easy on Zionism in favor of trashing its City-of-London control centre) to avoid the "stain of anti-semitism" that would preclude his being welcomed in the few remaining "liberal" salons where he still receives invitations and support. Also, it's hard to believe he sustains himself solely by the income from his books. I suspect there may be some covert support for his modest lifestyle and costly world travels coming (indirectly) from such U.S. "rivals" as Russia, Iran and Syria. I like the guy for his amazing insights (despite some blind spots) and I hope he doesn't eventually get busted for "trading with the enemy".

    I also admire him for breaking free from the spooky thrall of his onetime mentor, whom he now dismisses, offhandedly, as being "too close" to Langley. ;)

  16. As for Dennis Cimino's becoming Dr. Fetzer's new crush, the podcast that started this now way off-topic thread featured an interview so devoid of Fetzer-ian resistance, bluster and robotic repetition (...yes, there were a FEW outbursts..) that it made me speculate how things might have gone IF Simon Shack had accepted our beloved-and-boundlessly-curious Jim's INITIAL invitation to appear on the show, many months ago (and well BEFORE all the insulting behaviour and hardening of positions had poisoned the metaphorical "well" of open inquiry).

    When you consider the utterly extreme (read MAD, if you prefer) conclusions of the well-informed, even if mistaken Cimino -- that the Japanese reactor meltdown will soon totally depopulate the entire earth -- and Dr. Fetzer's unchallenging, eager responses ("tell me more; tell me more") it does seem plausible, even probable, that Simon's comparably extreme claims (which I still support) of total 9/11 image fakery/media complicity would have met with a far different reaction than the entrenched derision of them that is now an essential element in the canonised, Fetzer zeitgeist (with which I also, mostly, sympathise).

    How striking then was the contrast on the Real Deal to the recent dogfight between the superbly-informed-and-reasonable Jim and the caught-with-his-pants-down, clueless M.C. Piper -- in which Fetzer's was the voice of highly-extreme-but-well-documented assertions, sadly met only with growling and sneering invective, spewing forth from someone who had previously distinguished himself with scholarly triumphs of his own investigative reporting.

    It would be quite entertaining, and possibly educational too, to hear next an extended conversation/debate about Sandy Hook/Boston Bombing fakery between messrs. Piper and CIMINO!!! Both appear to share a fervent, seething, deep-seated hatred of all things Talmudic, but would that rock-solid patch of common emotional ground be wide enough to host any differences that might subsequently erupt over just how massively extensive the Zio-owned media's deceptive practises have become in the post-9/11 cyber arena?

    Maybe John Friend could make the arrangements. That is, if the volcano-like Mr. Piper hasn't already banished Friend from AFP in like manner to the ignominious exile inflicted upon poor (thermite-sniffing, police-beaten) Christopher Bollyn.

    1. Excellent comments, Andy. Thank you -- and a good, fun read, too.

  17. Dennis and I go way back. I think we first met in relation to Pilots for 9/11 Truth. So I don't quite know what to make of Andy's commentary, except that my high opinion of Dennis Cimino is nothing new. I am a HUGE FAN.

  18. Stooy44 said:

    "I believe that Hitler, the diabolical super-genius that he was, made his way to to top of a beaten and broke country honestly."

    Diabolical? Wrong. Super-genius? You're right.

    "Once he was there, though, he suddenly found enough money to build up a massive army."

    Massive army? Nothing of the sort. Go read some non-mainstream (read: non-Jewish-approved) books and articles on the subject to learn the true facts. Adolph Hitler was not seeking war--it was forced upon him by international Jewry and their puppets in Great Britain, France, etc.

    "It is safe to assume that he got it from the bankers and was told how to spend it if he wanted to keep getting more of it."

    There we go again, with the utterly false "Hitler was a Rothschild agent" and related LIES.