Monday, June 23, 2014

Al Whitney / Frankly Speaking

Emergency Powers / Aliens and Moon bases


  1. Another corruption is that the U.S. government is unfair to small businesses as Alex Jones and others have pointed out. At the same time the government should provide free health care and a basic income for all adult citizens. So I'm politically both left and right. :-)

  2. I strongly believe that Frank is correct about there being a white version of physics and a separate black (shadow) version of physics. Think about it: are the monumental problems in trying to unify quantum mechanics and relativity because of a sound scientific foundation OR because the public version of physics is a deliberate diversion and a detour?

    1. Actually, prejudicial scientific interpretations come quite naturally and become conspiratorial of attitude and attacks, without special co-ordination from someone else. However, there also seem to be actual coverups in parts of science not from natural mean-spiritedness, but as part of growing "military-industrial" and cultic intel types of black projects of all kinds.

  3. Thank you, Anders. The Maxwell equations showed that free energy from the zero point energy is possible, and the equations were mutilated to removed that conclusion.

    1. Partly true, but in fact Maxwell was also AGAINST some of the ideas he was working from. He proved only some of Farraday's work. There were anomalies in Farraday's work unaccounted for, and Tesla also worked from more than Maxwell covered.

      I discussed a tiny bit of this in my presentation at 9/11 Vancouver Hearings 2012, about Judy Wood's postulate based on her reading of the evidence she considered for 9/11.

      It is in Part 2, if I recall, that I discuss the Tesla and Maxwell material. If I recall, I put in some references re. Maxwell, or else it was that some of the references on Tesla white fire also discuss Maxwell.

      Right-click format u like to save and read.

  4. Anders Lindman said : "At the same time the government should provide free health care and a basic income for all adult citizens. "

    "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat

    regards, onebornfree

  5. @Onebornfree The reason for why I believe in a basic income is that automation, like robotics and artificial intelligence will take over more and more jobs. At the same time the government should ensure efficient and fair free market economy.

  6. Clare Keuhn has asked me to post this on her behalf:

    (Anders, I can't get my reply to publish to your 1st comment, so I've asked Jim to put it up.)

    That means you're with FDR: the rights of business to do well and ppl individually having the right to healthcare (Medicare4All) and economic rights. Rights are goals for policy. - againstausterity . org / program is the modern form of the sense of the constitution and its updated expansion to direct awareness of individuals doing well.

    1. @Clare Keuhn I don't know much about politics. I would want fair free market economy plus a robust social safety net. It's like a combination of both left and right.

    2. Hi. Name is Kuehn (typo from Jim was Keuhn). UE is a diphthong.

      Hi, Anders: your "fair free market" is only possible in economically viable states, or situations which were not called states but were healthy family or clan units in ancient times. Other than that, business cannot flourish well and of course each business can hire mercenaries and become local raiders or worse.

      So the idea is not "free from all restrictions to any business prospect" but freedom to flourish -- basically as we have now, but with more protections for the small bus.

      All of this is what FDR did in all-but-formally nationalizing the Federal Reserve (by telling them, and they were scared so they listened a while, to issue tranches of credit to production through states with federal bonds). It is also what Lincoln's greenbacks and the founding fathers were in general proposing in kernel form. Kennedy's policies were moving that way.

      Tariffs not free trade allows freedom to trade but not harm local economies as much; freedoms to flourish also helped by making sure of other things.

      A good overview of the "mix of left and right" (i.e., positive modern nation state) is promoted at

      For a bit of the idea, you can also understand the founders on different angles of the problems using this little poster:

    3. @Clare Kuehn My proposal is to have a basic income and on top of that a free market economy. I think technological progress will make that possible.

      "An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant,[1] or citizen’s income) is a proposed system[2] of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere." --

  7. Anders Lindman said :"@Onebornfree The reason for why I believe in a basic income is that automation, like robotics and artificial intelligence will take over more and more jobs."

    Are you saying you are a "Luddite"? :

    or, perhaps, a "Neo- Luddite" ? :

    Enquiring minds want to know, Anders ! :-)

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. No, I read that the Luddites were against technology taking jobs. I for one welcome our new robot overlords. Just kidding. More seriously I'm very pro technological singularity. But that also means that the job loss problem needs to be solved.

    2. It is the investors who start the production and create the "jobs". If you want to get rid of the jobs, just get rid of the investors. What can you do without any tools? Chasing rabbits and digging roots? No investors=no jobs. Too few jobs=too few investors/investments.

      If you want to breathe, you have to eat. If you want to eat, you have to produce. If you want to produce, you have to invest. No investment-> no production-> nothing to eat.

      Or, another popular way, is to get the Gov to plunder someone that already has produced, and hand it over to you - very popular alternative strategy that kills the investors and causes job loss. It isn't the robots that is doing this.

    3. Look, I'm not interested in debating any people who think hurling insults and calling names is a valid method of making a point.

      Why are you so very emotional, btw?

    4. El Buggo:

      Stop whining and deal with the issues under discussion coherently and rationally. This forum is no place for over sensitive and psychologically damaged cry babies like you. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Professor Fetzer has made it clear on this forum and elsewhere that he wants reasoned and mature debate and not the posturing and mindless piffle of simpering prima donnas and wannabe economics or otherwise "experts".
      Now, cut your bullshit and deal with the matter in hand. Address the facts!!

      Let us have no more of your histrionics and foot stomping tantrums!

      Dry your eyes and get on with it!

  8. El Buggo said:"Look, I'm not interested in debating any people who think hurling insults and calling names is a valid method of making a point.Why are you so very emotional, btw?"

    Speaking of which, where's Greenhorn disappeared to?

    Did he finally explode or spontaneously combust? :-)

    Oh well, never mind, Bug, this Corr fellow looks like a good Greenhorn stand in for the time being. :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

  9. Dear Professor,

    First, thanks for all of the interviews you do and your hard hitting articles on Veterans Today.

    But please, please don't make your guests read URLs during an interview. Instead, have them send you an email before or after the show with the links, and then you can post them here. Listening to someone read a URL is just about the most tedious thing ever.

    Your Entire Listening Audience

  10. Clare's (relayed) posting shows she's been influenced by the very sincere, against-austerity message of Webster G. Tarpley (whom I also admire). In the event that Clare and Webster had time for a serious private discussion, back at the Vancouver Conference, I would have loved to listen in and maybe participate.

    Yes, I know Dr. Tarpley's message didn't go over very well with the intense Blame-Israel-First orientation of most of the presenters and attendees, but his top priority has never been the blame game (against ANY malefactors) anyway. He continues to this day to preach his primary message of investment, growth and productivity for every society -- but not at the expense of others through imposed austerity and warmongering.

    And since there are always oligarchical factions busily at work to impede progress, concentrate wealth and impose privation and violent conflict, Tarpley doesn't shrink from digging into and calling out what they're up to and who they are. But his insightful, intuitive and well-documented exposing of criminal political conspiracies always is but a means to what he sees as a higher end: Prosperity, peace and justice -- to be shared among an ever-widening share of the population.

    Of course, this sounds like an impossible, utopian pipedream when viewed from the ideological, compassion-free perspective of Ayn Randian Libertarianism.

    Hence, Tarpley and his folowers (who right now are deeply, passionately involved in some local elections, supporting, against all odds, genuine populist candidates against Wall Street-funded sockpuppets) may look like abject fools, particularly to certain parties who are just as anxious to destroy Israel as its Talmudic murderers are to exterminate their Muslim neighbors.

    (And Clare, when you get your Internet access restored, I have an urgent message waiting for you.)

    1. "Blame Israel first"? You completely ignore that there is a mountain of evidence implicating the Mossad in 9/11. See, for example, "Israel did 9/11 -- all the proof in the world", Nicholas Kollerstrom, "9/11 and Zion: What was Israel's role?", and "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots" (with Preston James). What I find offensive is your willingness to suppress evidence and shill for Israel by diversion. While I like Webster, his evasion of Israeli complicity at The Vancouver Hearing was palpable. I was truly taken aback. You appear to be two peas in pod in this regard, which is disappointing.

    2. I did have an extended discussion with Webster, Andy. - You can message me through Jim (he can fwd it) or tweet me and I'll follow you and you can private message me there. My e-mail is not public. ----- Jim: the issue with "blame" and whom to blame "first" is about how wide the vision is of the person blaming/ accusing (even with evidence available). So: Webster's main point was that there is an ongoing set of geopolitical checks and balances, emanating from what I call cultic intel banskter consortia, but Webster calls British-American-satellite hidden powers, and others might simplify (oversimplify) to the Rothschilds nexus. Israel and Saudi Arabia are both owned in different ways by these elements, whatever one wants to name them. So finding Israel influences in US, and Israeli complicity for 9/11 means very little to the bigger picture of WHO APPROVED IT ALL AT THE HIGHEST GEOPOLITICAL LEVELS and who helped the main players and fanatics (even if the latter were Israel and USA). -- You do not go into Saudis or British and funding enough, in my opinion and, per his talk and his private convo with me, also in Webster's opinion. He does not deny Israel's role; though he does downplay it maybe a bit TOO much.

    3. I strongly suspect Webster Tarpley is performing gatekeeping and disinfo duties for the Israel/Neocon axis. I have felt this way about him for a couple of years and nothing he has said or don has diminished that view.

      The vast majority of people in the alternative media are gatekeepers/disinfo agents/limited hangouts.

      It would be ludicrous to think that, if the CIA can control the mainstream media and completely infiltrate it, then they can't do the same with the alternative media too.

  11. Andy Tyne said: "Ayn Randian Libertarianism"

    Sorry to have to break it to you Andy, but as a former "hard-core" libertarian myself [now loosely self-described as an "anarcho-capitalist"],I have to tell you that Ayn Rand's politics has virtually nothing to do with Libertarianism, especially these days, with the now post Rand/Branden , L. Peikof- run "Objectivist" movement [ which also , BTW,officially endorses the state of Israel].

    Regards, onebornfree.

  12. Here's Frankly's long-ass url:

    Doesn't convince me at all, I've seen a lot of supposed moon base or alien ship on the moon photos and never been impressed.

    1. Ian,

      I'll respond in more detail at the end of the work day. For now, google "karl wolf alien bases on the moon" and listen to the testimony of Karl Wolf, USAF about his experience with the AF technician who was airbrushing out photos from Lunar Orbiter.

      Also google "donna hare alien bases on the moon" and listen to Donna Hare's testimony.

    2. I don't put much stock in the testimonies of people when it comes to ufos, aliens and similar. For one simple reason - a lot of them have been exposed as liars. A classic example being Jim Penniston of the Rendlesham incident. He has completely fabricated his story and it includes a lot of complexity, he even wrote out a lot of notes including binary codes - all of it nothing but lies.

      The image that shows this 'moon base' is of poor quality, there have been several subsequent lunar imaging missions that used higher quality imaging equipment. If the same anomalous feature can be found in at least one other image of this part of the moon then you have a case, if not, then it simply isn't convincing.

    3. Ian,

      Remember that to have a scientific view on an issue, you can't say "I won't believe it no matter what evidence is provided". That's a religious point of view, not a scientific one. That's called "pseudoskepticism".

      Keep in mind that Karl Wolfe has a checkable background from USAF, and he said that he was exposed to a technician with an internal secret policy of airbrushing out alien bases from Lunar Orbiter imagery in 1965.

      Donna Hare worked for Philco Ford and she said that it was openly talked about at NASA in the 1960s.

      Also, consider the argument that a dead rock like the moon should not be censored at all. And for NASA to release images with airbrushed or blurred out parts is an admission of guilt.

      Please see this:

      The historian and author Richard Dolan, when he set out to do his research 20 years ago, didn't ask "are UFOs real"? He asked "did the National Security apparatus of the US and world take the issue of UFO's very seriously"? And the answer is in his book UFO's and the National Security State.

      The National Security establishment of the US and the World does not waste it's time worrying about weather balloons.

      When you look at the global cause of skepticism about this subject, it's based on the idea that interstellar flight is impossible. Ben Rich of the Lockheed Skunk Works openly stated that "We now have the ability to take ET home." He also gave details of man-made UFOs and extraterrestrial UFOs.

      Remember, Ian, that logically, if there is even a paperclip or a ball bearing that is alien, then there are aliens. It's actually more logical that they ARE here, than that they AREN'T here.

    4. As I said, so many of these people have been exposed as liars that I need to see corroborating evidence to be convinced.

      Also, so many documents have been proven to be forgeries I put little faith in documents either.

      Therefore I would insist on seeing multiple evidence sources that are able to be cross-referenced and stand up to the closest scrutiny.

      To be honest, I place more stock in the ancient materials such as the intriguing stone carvings of South America an Egypt that appear to show spacemen and flying objects than I do anything from the last 60 years.

    5. How about just taking the issue of airbrushing the Moon photos taken in isolation? At this point, we aren't talking about bases yet.

      Two whistleblowers, Karl Wolfe and Donna Hare, both corroborate each other on the issue of airbrushing bits of Moon photos.

      Meanwhile, here is an example of an airbrushed/photoshopped Moon photo:

      Ian, the photos showing the smearing and airbrushing "clicks" in with Karl Wolfe's and Donna Hare's testimony! There's your corroboration.

      Ian, WHY is a lifeless object like the Moon being airbrushed? Why can I see one part of the Moon, but not certain carefully selected parts? In makes no sense, unless NASA/DOD is **covering up** an object, that is certainly life-oriented. Why cover up an unimportant piece of geology?

      You don't have to believe the document, rather you need to ask an inferential question. I think that by blurring out photos of the Moon, NASA/DOD is speaking quite eloquently.

    6. Apart from the testimony of those two 'whistleblowers' what evidence do you have for airbrushing of the moon photos?

    7. How about this?

      These are airbrushed moon photos.

      And here is a report about the 1994 Clementine mission and the fact that 170,000 images were made available to the public out of 1.8 million photos, and the rest were classified.

      Why classify photos of the Moon?


  13. Onebornfree said : "Ayn Rand's politics has virtually nothing to do with Libertarianism,"

    To further clarify, Rand _has_ , via her novels, often served as an initial impetus/starting point/inspiration for many libertarians, and will probably always so do.

    Regards, onebornfree.

  14. Jim the "Blame Israel First" crowd is a one-trick pony, very likely made up in large part by a toxic mix of genuine neoNazis and Mossad/Sayanim/Hasbara-specialist Shills, posing with their swastika-adorned garb just as intensely as Hoover's FBI moles of yesteryear swelled the membership rolls of the KKK, the Yippie/
    Weathermen Underground, and the USA Communist Party.

    Just look at the mess that's engulfed American Free Press, which sometimes does very useful investigative work and at other times engages in orgies of self-discrediting. And then there's the substantial coterie of Jew-hating, Israel-bashing groups that go much further "over the top" in their foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric, which works very well in causing decent Goyim to turn away in horror, and in stoking the militancy of any "chosen" who are NOT Sayanim -- against considering ANY legitimate criticism of the Zionists' long history of genuine criminal behaviour.

    OF COURSE Israel, its fanatical-bloodline devotees, and those Congressional whores either beholden to its largesse or fearful of its blackmail played key roles in both the 9/11 plot AND its coverup. But they were far from alone in planning for, and benefiting from, this massive and blood-drenched scam of false-flagged war and astronomical profiteering. There were plenty of top-level Gentiles, in the military/industrial/financial colossus, who also signed on to the plan and may have felt utterly commited to accede for Masonic/occultic/Jesuitical, as well as pocketbook/stock-profile reasons.

    Yes, Tarpley knows this very well, but his pathological fear of being labeled an "anti-semite" (tm), combined with his extremely nuanced understanding of world history and contemporary geopolitics, does make him shy away from the "third rail" of always blaming Israel FIRST.

    Tarpley's greatest fault, IMHO, is his own, (albeit shared with his estranged mentor, Larouche) compulsive practise of ALWAYS blaming the (British) BANKERS FIRST!!!

    So ol' Webster could use a bit of broadening indeed, despite the brilliance of his work, overall. And his Machiavellian admiration for brutal autocrats (as long as they improve their country's infrastructure and battle the banksters) could use some tempering, as well.

  15. The URL for the majesticdocuments document that I referred to is:

    1. Are you aware of the study done by Carol Chaski, Ph.d linguistics studies. Her computational stylometric method achieves an accuracy rate of 95%.

      Micheal Heiser, Ph.d hired Chaski to do an analysis on the MJ12 documents.

      She conclusions revealed that all the documents were fakes.

      Heiser demonstrates her methods. An discusses Stanton Friedman's analysis.

      The Majestic 12 Documents- Michael S. Heiser

    2. Keep in mind that Robert Wood and Ryan Wood have had professional document analysis done. That's looking at the physical evidence that is material to the situation: the onionskin paper, the ink, the writing style, the terminology. Please see:
      "The critics arguments are often speculative".

      Let's also not lose sight of the whole picture: if even one piece of evidence is right, then there are aliens.

      I have so far shown:

      - Photos of Moon bases

      - Airbrushed/photoshopped photos of the Moon that show ** the intention to hide something **. Why hide dead geology of the Moon?

      - Numerous authority figures and people in the know, including leaders in the astronautics community and whistleblowers.

      - Documents detailing the National Security apparatus' involvement with UFOs and the coverup.

      - Richard Dolan's book includes numerous FOIA releases about ET origin of UFOs.

      - Night Vision videos showing antigravity craft derived from Alien UFOs.

      -- Newspaper reports that pre-date the coverup in 1947.

      This is absolutely overwhelming evidence that makes a skeptical position untenable.

      The evidence answers Enrico Fermi's question: If interstellar flight is possible (even with conventional technology) then "where are they"? The truth is that they are here, and were always here, and a lot of mysteries get solved by adding this to the world-picture.

    3. Yes, the MJ-12 documents are fake, I have seen a hell of a lot of documents about UFOs and aliens exposed as fakes.

      Antigravity technology exists and has done since the194os, having been invented by the Germans; the US Air Force got hold of that technology and had their own working system by 1953.

      Tesla's work with electromagnetism is important and the whole reason why Einstein's model of physics has been promoted, while Tesla's has been denigrated is to mislead people and hide the truth. Einstein was a fraud, Tesla was the real genius of modern times and his model of physics, as well as his work on electomagentism and gravity should be studied.

    4. " looking at the physical evidence that is material"

      Any good forgery would have included the correct physical aspects.

      "Night Vision videos showing antigravity craft derived from Alien UFOs."
      How can any prove they were "Alien UFOs"
      by watching night vision videos.
      Did the Aliens wave or something?

      I have seen many UFOs. I felt that they were reading my thoughts. I am still not convinced any of them were "alien".

    5. "Why hide dead geology of the Moon?"

      There is obviously an agenda being played out. To make us think aliens are real.

      " Photos of Moon bases"

      Taken by the same people who faked the moon landings.

      I am not saying there is not aliens. I am just not convinced.

      Look at the pattern of UFO sightings. We got the 1950 models. Which look like Ford-Ts of flying saucers.

      Then Billy Meier comes along showing off the 1970 models. Ever since the models keep getting updated.

      I guess looking stylish is important to the aliens. They have to keep up with the times.

      It smells very human to me.

    6. " Photos of Moon bases"

      If they are bases on the moon. It seems with modern telescopes. That amateur astronomers would be flooding the internet with photos of alien bases.

    7. Unless these bases are only on the far side of the moon.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

  18. Andy Tyme said : "And his Machiavellian admiration for brutal autocrats (as long as they improve their country's infrastructure and battle the banksters) could use some tempering, as well." 

    Just "some tempering" eh Andy? Hah!

As is the case with practically all so-called 9/11 "truthers" [conservatively, 99% of them]; that is, with both the "high profile/well known" ones [comparitively speaking] - such as Fetzer, Jones, Gage, Wood, Hall,Reynolds,Johnson, Kalezov etc etc., and the completely unknown, such as yourself Andy, and most, if not everyone else here posting, [eg random picks: Lindman,Kuehn,Greenhorn , Dean, etc. etc.], as well as the two featured guests for this particular show [I'm guessing], Tarpley is just another, same old same old, "dyed in the wool" apologist and promoter of the state itself; that is, he, like the others briefly listed ,as well as thousands upon thousands of other "9/11 truthers", is a statist [i.e. a believer in the religion of the state]- one who is [perhaps] genuinely horrified by the exposed crimes of the various nation-states, but who then illogically, but perhaps comically,[ and either way, with a straight face], continues to propose/promote his very own imagined, "perfect" system [that would work "oh so well" in his "minds eye"], for running everybody else's lives according to that "mind's eye", the way they all "should" be run, via, [tah-dah!], the very institution[s] and their sycophants that have, in every case, perpetrated the very crimes being exposed/uncovered at sites such as this one .

    That institution being: THE STATE. 

If I didn't laugh, I'd cry. [Or laugh 'til I cried?]

    The state never has been, and never will be, the answer to any of the worlds problems, whether it be employment security, "fair wages" ," health care", a guaranteed standard of living, an honest monetary system, better "infrastructure", nor for anything else. 

The state[s] [yes, _all_ of them, worldwide, past present and future] are in fact yours, mine, Tarpley's, and everybody else's, biggest enemy in this life. 

    See: "9/11 Video & Victim Fakery and"The Matrix", Versus Your Freedom" : 

Regards, onebornfree.

  19. how many of you swallow this alien stuff?

    1. Depends what one means by "alien". Could there be inner- or alterterrestrials we denied?

  20. Colin, Ian, and Clare:

    Some more items here, if one looks for authority figures for credibility and confirmation:

    Douglas MacArthur: ""General Douglas MacArthur, quoted in the *The New York Times,* Oct. 8, 1955, said 'The nations of the world will have to unite - for the next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the Earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets.'"

    MacArthur is reacting to very classified information about the violation of the treaty apparently signed with Grays on Feb 20, 1954.

    Hermann Oberth, a father of astronautics:

    “We cannot take the credit for our record advancement in certain scientific fields alone; we have been helped.”
    When asked by whom, he replied:
    “The people of other worlds.”

    Winston Churchill

    "feared public "panic" and loss of faith in religion, newly released secret files disclose."

    Henry W. McElroy, legislator of New Hampshire House: He received briefing that Eisenhower met aliens in 1954

    Finally, some evidence of man-made antigravity craft, which were apparently derived from extraterrestrial craft. Here is a Night Vision video, that clearly shows a Delta shaped craft that is absolutely an antigravity craft. It can't be anything else. Please see 4:40:

    Ben Rich of the Lockheed Skunk Works said:

    1. There are two types of UFOs -- the ones we build, and ones THEY build. We
    learned from both crash retrievals and actual "Hand-me-downs." The Government
    knew, and until 1969 took an active hand in the administration of that
    information. After a 1969 Nixon "Purge", administration was handled by an
    international board of directors in the private sector.

    1. The problem with all this UFOs and Aliens stuff is that, from the very beginning, there have been multiple layers of lies and BS laid over the truth and every opportunity to mislead and obfuscate has been taken.

      MacArthur is a very difficult figure to believe about anything, he deliberately setup the defence of the Phillipines so that it would prove to be impossible to defend against the Japanese - it was a carefully worked out ploy by MacArthur and Roosevelt to allow the Japanese to gain impressive initial success in their drive across the Pacific and thus ensure the US public would be screaming for Japanese blood. Therefore MacArthur bears direct responsibility for the huge loss of military and civilian lives in the first two years of the war in the Pacific. He wasn't even a good general, his main skill being his ability to get his name an face on the front page of the newspapers - he fled to Australia and undertook a highly successful PR campaign while the men he abandoned were being subjected to horrific cruelty. If there was ever a political soldier who's word wasn't worth two cents, it was MacArthur.

      Churchill was an even less admirable figure, I could write reams about the mad schemes and murderous plans of the man; in short, he was a drunken old soak who had almost no scruples at all when it came to mass murder.

      So whatever either of them said, don't believe it unless you can verify it from multiple other sources.

      That sums up the problem with this UFOs and Alien stuff - it's a world of lies piled upon lies and inhabited by agents of disinfo to the point where you really can't believe anything unless you spend years cross-checking and verifying.

      If you bear in mind we still haven't got a clue what happened at Roswell after over 65 years of study, then you get some impression of how hard it is to find anything even remotely approaching an honest truth. Roswell provides us with several glaring examples of the scurrilous characters to be encountered, Jesse Marcels prime among them - he was a liar and fantasist who told his pack of lies decades after the event in some sort of attempt to win fame and perhaps fortune.

    2. Ian,

      There are big problems with your logic. The question of aliens is a simple yes/no question: Are ETs here in the Solar System or not? That's all. If you find that even a paperclip is alien, then the answer is yes. You're not even trying to see through disinformation, you're swallowing the bait, that "we can never know" if there are aliens or not. That's what the disinformation people want, and it's not logical.

      Here's some evidence that pre-dates any coverup.

      Here is an event from 1897 in Aurora, Tx from the Dallas Morning News:,_Texas,_UFO_incident#mediaviewer/File:Haydon_article,_Aurora,_Texas,_UFO_incident,_1895.jpg

      Notice that it mentions:

      - small humanoid bodies
      - hieroglyphic type writing
      - aluminum/ silvery metal construction

      This description "clicks" with a crash in Cape Girardeau, MO in 1941.

      The 1941 crash specifically mentions:

      - Egyptian-like hieroglyphics
      - Silvery metal contruction
      - Small humanoid bodies

      These incidents PRE-DATE any coverup starting in 1947.

      Saying the "we still haven't got a clue what happened at Roswell after over 65 years of study" is ** absolutely preposterous disinformation **.

      Please see two leaked technical reports on the Roswell crashed UFO on

      The fact that there is a huge coverup is not evidence against UFOs, it's evidence FOR UFO's. There is no need to cover-up NOTHING AT ALL.

      Finally, your comments about MacArthur and Churchill and evil that they have done obfuscates the issue. The question is: were MacArthur and Churchill telling the truth ** in that instance **.

      I think that people following this exchange can realize that I'm trying to see through the coverup, including even evidence that is not covered up (the moon bases, the antigravity craft).

      In this whole conversation, Ian, you've been going along with the coverup and helping the coverup. Using the same logic as the coverup. But you don't need to cover anything up if it doesn't exist.

  21. I don't doubt that aliens exist, however, I firmly believe that 99.9% of the supposed 'evidence' is hogwash.

    Majestic does exist, that much is sure, but beyond that, it's a deep onion skin of lies layered upon lies.

    I have my own theories, but I'm not inclined to share them as they are somewhat controversial and it's not a subject I am much inclined to put much effort into anymore, having spent plenty of time and effort on it in the past and as I said, most of what you can find in the way of 'evidence' is hogwash.

  22. Ian,

    Do ETs exist on Earth and in the Solar System? Yes or no?

    What is the Ian Greenhalgh theory for why Moon photos are airbrushed/photoshopped? Since you can see them with your own eyes, what is your explanation for why NASA/DOD released them while blurring out specific regions?

  23. ETs exist, I believe they come to Earth, maybe have a permanent presence here. I doubt they are in the form of little green or grey men in flying saucers however.

    As for blurring moon photos, it's too much of a leap to say that it is done due to alien bases, not enough info. Al we can say with any degree of certainty is NASA has not released some photos and has blurred some others, why is open to debate and without more info, any debate can only be on the level of guesses and supposition.

  24. This link Frankly provided is a good example of the low quality of much of the 'evidence':

    On this page they present this image and claim it is a classified picture of a alien base on the moon:

    Oh dear, how utterly laughable. That is very obviously an aerial photograph of a ruined fortification on Earth - just look at the fields and trees surrounding it, the very clear defensive wall with regularly spaced towers, it is obviously a medieval fortification. There's an obvious small lake in the middle too, so they are asking s to believe that there are bodies of water on the moon!

    1. I agree with your criticism of, it looks like earth.

      The point of the links is to show the blurred out photos, that was my intent.

      Ian, as long as you agree with ETs, and that they came to Earth, we are in substantial agreement.

      My view, on the next hour to be posted by Jim, is that the chances that ETs exist and are here is 100%, but that **all of the details** of ET life should be considered as 50-50. You said that 99.9% of the evidence is false, and that is tantamount to saying that there is a 100% chance of ETs on Earth and the Solar System, because only if the evidence is 100% false can you say otherwise.

      "Al we can say with any degree of certainty is NASA has not released some photos and has blurred some others, why is open to debate and without more info, any debate can only be on the level of guesses and supposition."

      What other theoretical possibility is there for why NASA/DOD would release photos with photoshopping/blurring, considering the Moon is lifeless rock? I invite all of the readers to ask themselves this question. The total amount of material brought to the Moon by the white world spacecraft is very small. The areas blurred are hundreds or thousands of feet across.

      Also, keep in mind that the astronauts, in their secure/confidential conversations, alluded to life on the Moon.

  25. Frank, I think we fully agree in the most part.

    I am very sure there are aliens, I am very sure that they have been coming here to earth for a very long time and that our relationship with them is a lot closer then almost anyone realises.

    The problem I have is with the personalities that have come forward and the material that is available as evidence. I maintain that the vast majority of it is bunk, disinfo either put out to hide things or to make profit by scurrilous individuals.

    I am actually preparing a piece on a closely related subject, I don't want to say too much about it right now, as I want to fully explain the entire theory when I finally do put it out in public. It is rather controversial but I have a good deal of certainty that it is very valid.

  26. Ian Greenman wrote:

    "I am very sure there are aliens, I am very sure that they have been coming here to earth for a very long time and that our relationship with them is a lot closer then almost anyone realises. (...) I am actually preparing a piece on a closely related subject, I don't want to say too much about it right now, as I want to fully explain the entire theory when I finally do put it out in public. It is rather controversial but I have a good deal of certainty that it is very valid."

    How very exciting, Ian!

    So you have a "very valid" theory (of which you're "very sure") about aliens coming here to earth? Let's hear it - right now. Ian! Why are you withholding such precious information from the masses, you naughty boy?

    I just love your "very sure" line, Ian. You sound like a true academic... :-D

    Simon Shack

    1. Unlike you, Simon, I don't publish theories until I have don sufficient work to make them tenable. This work takes time and involves a lot more research and evaluation of data than you have ever undertaken.

  27. Ian Greenhead wrote:

    "Unlike you, Simon, I don't publish theories until I have don sufficient work to make them tenable. This work takes time and involves a lot more research and evaluation of data than you have ever undertaken."

    Good luck with your alien/ UFO research, Ian - I can't wait to read it! Oh, and don't forget to look into that very famous scientist / and "hugely authoritative" figure who reputedly oversaw the Los Alamos / Area 51 and all that :

    That's right : none other than ol' Ed Teller - "the father of the H(oax) Bomb" !... As Fetzer would say : "it all hangs together".

    Simon Shack

  28. funny you should mention dr. strangelove again.

    it just so happens that teller was a martian. he was a member of "the martians", the collective of mad scientists-performance artists from the former austro-hungarian empire. they usually ended up at places like the berkeley radiation lab. dr. strangelove started livermore with the old atom smasher himself, ernest lawrence.

    ian, when you ask the fine folks at google about mr. teller; make sure to ask about his grandson, astro. you see he happens to be google's very own mad scientist-performance artist.

  29. the hermann oberth mentioned earlier in the thread was also a martian.
    wiki also seems to know that he memorized jules verne's moon stories when he was 11 growing up in romania, that he was a science consultant for 'frau in mond', and that he took a young german junker under his wing.
    the junker's name was von braun.

  30. Jules Verne wrote the first book about video fakery. As it was before the tv tube was discovered, he was thinking about turning moving pictures into holograms. Not that he was wrong, just ahead of time, just like Mr Fetzer. He also wrote a book about travelling into the centre of the Earth. It's surprising NASA didn't go there yet.


  31. nasa has, of course, been vingt mille lieues sous les mers with their project neemo.

  32. What a genius ol' Jules was... Do you know that Monsieur Verne predicted in his "from the Earth to the Moon" sci-fi saga (1865) the exact escape velocity ("11 km/s" - or 33 times the speed of sound / or Mach 33...) now used / claimed by NASA?

    Officially though (in science circles), the "father of space travel" Tsiolkovsky is credited with calculating that 11km/s figure scientifically. That is... almost HALF A CENTURY after Jules Verne's 'lucky guess' !

  33. maybe ol' jules was the father of prescience; and therefore, le createur du roman pre-scientifique.

    i mean who else could've possibly known that 11 km/s would one day equal mach 33. it's damned uncanny.

  34. Nasa can negotiate all sorts of environments. Kind of reminds me of a duck. Sure, much less cute, but double sure, damn more annoying.

  35. JIM is an asset to your business, Homer Glen townhomes for sale He was attentive to our needs.