Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Michael Sussman / Paul Craig Roberts / John Hankey

Thought crimes / War and Peace / JFK show #15 w/ Gary King features banned by Black Op Radio researcher John Hankey. John responds to the most resent attack on him by CTKA


  1. Poor Paul, poor Paul, he still believes that nukes are real. Jim should have asked him if he could locate any tracees of any shockwave in Hiroshima - that would have been fun!

    As everyone has to understand, they cannot report the biggest explosions in the history of war history and expect that rational people can make themselves believe that these reported mega explosions that destroyed entire cities didn't leave any traces of a shockwave on the ground. You will have to have a mind of a child if you can make yourself believe that!

    1. Watch the people in the foreground:

      They are horrified! Not.

    2. How the hell can you say what those people were thinking, you can't see their faces. Just more nonsense.

    3. Not any real evidence of a hoax, I know. Looks funny though. I have more hard evidence in the form of the supposed Trinity nuclear blast crater:

      Notice that the radial lines don't align with the center of the crater as they should had they been caused by an explosion. Probably a result of a bulldozer rather than a bomb.

  2. Gary, how about playing this after Paul Craig Roberts? It's from the ending of Dr. Strangelove.
    ? We'll Meet Again - Vera Lynn - YouTube

  3. Buggo: can u explain in ur own words, fairly briefly why there are no nukes?--which hits me as shock, I must say. But then, when I consider all the other outrageous lies I used to believe, I'm sure I wouldn't be surprised. I also think US may not have landed on moon, either. Ur comments, sir. Thanks. A.

    1. Dear apsterian, thank you for your very excellent question.

      Not so easy to adopt this idea that nukes are just another fiction - took me 3 years to grasp this myself. But it is not very technically difficult to see this. About as difficult as the LOLohoax.

      How the story begun is really crucial. And if you study the available footage of Hiroshima, you will not be able to find that the footage supports the notion that 1 big explosion destroyed the entire city. Firebombing is well supported though. So even if everyone tells you too look at the sky to see the flying dragon up there, you know they are lying - there isn't any flying dragon up there. Don't be a fool.

      Also have in mind that the US Military had total control on the story. They arrived in Hiroshima and could sensor whatever they wanted. They also had monopoly on all the info released. This is a hoaxster's paradise!

      If you study the story pre Hiroshima, you will see it is just like a movie script. We have this immensely huge task that had to be completed in oh so short time. But we had the hero's, you know, (basically a flock of jews) that with their typical movie-like talents and efforts completed the project JUST IN TIME. It ALL went so well, just like in the movies.

      The Hiroshima story is really crucial. After this reported event, everybody knew that nukes were real, like dynamite, and stated to spread the lie themselves. It was then much easier to maintain the Große Lüge. All they basically had to do was to release some Disney animations, and a few million reports. Then they got tired of that and moved the tests high up in the atmosphere, and after a while, underground, where we cannot see anything at all. Then they stopped, because it was too dangerous or something.

      If you can find 1 lie in this story, like the missing shockwave in Hiroshima, you got to understand that there can be more lies, and eventually you will see that the entire story is just another Big Lie.

      So we haven't really seen much, we basically only have these reports from these very controlled sources.

      Aristotle said: “If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development”.

      The worlds most prominent nuclear revisionist recently had a short appearance here:

      See for yourself what you can accept there.

      Here is 1 short&silly nuke video:

      Someone that also can present the case for the nuke hoax better than me:

    2. What a load of rubbish.

      This nutcase theory ignores a vast body of evidence, such as:

      - The physical evidence of nuclear explosions, which includes:

      the many craters that exist in the Nevada desert and Khazakstan as a result of the nuclear explosions carried out by the USA and USSR.
      vitfrified soils and rocks produced by the intense heat of these nuclear explosions
      the sunken ships in the lagoon of Bikini Atoll sunk in hydrogen bomb tests
      the large hole in Bikini Atoll created by a hydrogen bomb test
      the existence of radiation, fallout, rare isotopes and other by-products of nuclear explosions
      the huge numbers of birth defects in Khazakstan as a result of exposure of parents to the effects of atmospheric nuclear testing
      the seismograph readings that show earth tremors occurring at the same time as nuclear tests were stated to have taken place
      the huge numbers of birth defects and rare forms of cancer suffered by the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
      the existence of enriched uranium in hair samples taken from the parents of babies born with birth defects in Fallujah in the last few years
      the existence of a large number of decommissioned and rusting nuclear submarines at several sites throughout the former USSR
      the presence of persistent forms of radiation within the Chernobyl exclusion zone

      - The eyewitness testimony of people who were involved in the development and testing of nuclear technologies, people such as:
      Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli whistleblower who, in the 1980s revealed the true nature of the work being carried out at the Dimona facility in the Negev Desert and who has been persecuted and imprisoned ever since
      the tens of thousands of American, Russian, British, Australian and French ex-military who witnessed or participated in nuclear tests
      the writings of scientists who were involved in the development of nuclear weapons, in particular Andrei Sakharov and J Robert Oppenheimer, two of the leading scientists in the USSR and USA nuclear weapons programmes who later deeply regretted their involvement and spoke out against the nuclear arms race.

      That's very far from an exhaustive list of things that need to be considered and researched before being able to form a valid hypothesis regarding the existence of nuclear technologies but even this incomplete list clearly illustrates the massive task it would be to properly research the subject, for one person working alone, it would take a lifetime of dedication.

      Simply squinting at imagery then dreaming up a radical hoax hypothesis simply won't cut it, sensible, rational people should only consider hypotheses that have been formed from careful study and evaluation of a vast body of research.

      So again, I must point out that this 'Nuke Hoax' hypothesis is utterly untenable because he has completely overlooked the vast majority of available evidence and made no attempt whatsoever at applying proper scientific research methodologies.

    3. Ian, you present nothing new here. I have responded to this cut & paste several times. Now you are just spamming.

      How about you find or identify any traces of the shockwave in Hiroshima for us, in any of the published films or photos of the event? Why cant you do that? You simply can't, because there isn't any specific traces on the ground of these biggest explosions in the history of war, and that makes the story not credible. You want us to believe in some magic stuff here, Ian? A monster weapon without any traces? The evidence for his monster weapon doesn't hang together. And that is very important as we have learned. We cannot have huge holes in this story! There isn't any huge holes in the history of dynamite, because they don't have to leave big holes in that story (kind of confusing example this, I guess) - dynamite is real, nukes are fiction.

    4. You have answered NOT A SINGLE ONE of the points I bought up.

      Your pathetic attempt to claim you could dig those immense craters with an excavator and that cancers and leukemia could be caused by something other than radiation was utterly stupid and laughable.

      Bottom line, your Nuke Hoax BS is based on a squinting at a few old pictures and newsreels and is absolutely untenable because it ignores a vast body of other evidence.

      You simply don't have an argument, never have had, never will, therefore you're nothing more than a sick joke and utterly pathetic.

    5. Ian, among other things I have explained to you before is that sunken ships don't prove that nukes are real.

      If you want to dig a really huge hole, use a dragline excavator.

      When the story doesn't hangs together, and has huge holes, we don't have to check the rest of the story if there are crucial parts of the proses or concept that are missing or don't make sense, ie, a plane without wings will not fly, or, the biggest explosions in the history of war did not leave any traces on the ground.

      Will you comment on Anders excellent point above that the alleged Trinity crater was done with bulldozers and not some explosives? My best guess is that it was created with a pencil directly on the film.

      How about you make yourself useful for a change, Ian?


    6. I have heard that you are one of the most intelligent and perceptive listeners to the show and your comments are exceptional. Hard to believe that though.

    7. Comment on this observation by Anders instead, Ian - if you can:

      I have more hard evidence in the form of the supposed Trinity nuclear blast crater:

      Notice that the radial lines don't align with the center of the crater as they should had they been caused by an explosion. Probably a result of a bulldozer rather than a bomb

  4. Buggo, skeptics will embrace your argument when you undress it of its sarcasm, and when you treat you who you would persuade with respect. Is nuclear science real? where do you draw the line and what evidence points you in this direction? A PR move of superb psychological warfare if ever there was one: yet I do not you act as a dutiful ambassador of such knowledge even if it were true. And you would have to point to more than isolated pictures of specific bombings: we are did using a larger notion: that of the fission process and weaponization thereof. With respect, S.

    1. Thanks, Solfeggio.

      Well, not sure what the best strategy is here. I was looking for resistance, and therefore wrote in this sarcastic tone to get someone to bite.

      Is nuclear science real? I cannot argue that nuke power is fiction. The nuke hoax is riding on this core of truth, IMHO. After all, we have nuclear engineering, but how do you become a nuclear bomb engineer? Well, you first have to become controllable, and then you maybe will get a pay check from Oak Rindge or something very top secret. Nuclear bomb engineers don't grow in the wild.

      What's real and what's not? You need a moderator to slow down the neutrons to get the process going. Everything without this moderator is fake. More on this here if interested:

      Ionizating radiation is a HUGE SCARE. The immensely danger of this Ionizating radiation was basically decided by UN in 1959. It is definitely not based on observations. Zbigniew Jaworowski writes on how this scare was born here:

      "The linear no-threshold hypothesis was accepted in 1959..."
      "However, in the ICRP document of 1959 no such controversy and no hesitations appeared. LNT was arbitrarily assumed, and serious epistemological problems related to the impossibility of finding harmful effects at very low levels of radiation were ignored. Over the years the working assumption of ICRP of 1959 came to be regarded as a scientifically documented fact by the mass media, public opinion and even many scientists. The LNT assumption, however, belongs in the realm of administration and is not a proved scientific principle" - there is more...

      Re: And you would have to point to more than isolated pictures of specific bombings

      Hard to understand what you are writing here. Well, we have to begin with something. I'm attempting to create doubt on the official story here first. And this missing shockwave in the Hiroshima footage is very easy to confirm for yourself and a very substantial point. We can move on when you have grasped that point of course.

      You will look at the news in completely other way when you understand that nukes are just fiction. I highly recommend you look into this topic. Good luck.

  5. Jim, The level of outrage I felt when listening to Mr. Sussman explaining the details of Adam Hellers case can barley be contained.


    . Roadside stop and interrogation?
    . Confiscation of legally purchased fire arms at home without warrant?
    . 12 days of evaluation inconclusive?
    . Did not use class room as platform to express opinion?
    . Losing a tenured job?


    . Expressing through a private email account thoughts and opinions that are "unconventional" with a medium?

    What indeed is at play here? Great interview, but very, very unsettling.

  6. ian yo r being baited,,,',,troll @lert

  7. Buggo: I thought those were good vids u cited, BUT I'm not sure I'd be willing to bet against such weapons being real. Vids were persuasive, making good and interesting observations--but not sure if they're conclusive, u know.

    1. Thanks apsterian,

      Not sure what will work for you. Have you looked into the flock of jews that was involved in the Manhattan project? IDK. Can you find 1 nuke video that you are sure must be real? Check the audio too, very obviously faked in all of the videos.

      I suspect you have to work a little bit more on this. You will have to remodel much of your world view to be able to accept that nukes are fiction, and that may take some time.

      Maybe read and study the links here too?

      I am not the only one that understand that nukes are fiction, apsterian, and you will get there soon too I predict.

  8. Apsterian,

    are you...


    The imagery of the 'atom bomb' tests (purportedly performed all around the world) are nothing but cartoons / animations - concocted in a cinema studio. It really shouldn't take too much time for anyone to understand this - today, in 2014.

    It is now high time for all of this planet's population to wake up to the nuke hoax - and its obvious fear-mongering agenda.

    Simon Shack

    1. Shack is a LIAR pure and simple.

      This Nuke Hoax hypothesis is based on squinting at some videos and photographs and perceiving some inconsistencies that are perhaps best explained by deciding that the videos and photos have been faked in some way then jumping to the conclusion that if the imagery is fake, then the existence of nuclear technology is a hoax.

      Clearly, such a hypothesis is untenable because it is based on invalid research.

      In order to make his research into nuclear technology valid, Shack must greatly widen the scope of his research so that it includes a great deal of other evidence and information. Once he has carried out an exhaustive program of research that attempts to include and assess every possible piece of evidence then he can attempt to form a valid hypothesis.

      Unless Shack carries out a program of research which adheres to the proper scientific method, then his 'Nuke Hoax' hypothesis is not worthy of even a cursory examination, in short, it is just spurious nonsense that we shouldn't give the time of day to.

      Simply squinting at imagery then dreaming up a radical hoax hypothesis simply won't cut it, sensible, rational people should only consider hypotheses that have been formed from careful study and evaluation of a vast body of research.

      So again, I must point out that Shack's hypothesis is utterly untenable because he has completely overlooked the vast majority of available evidence and made no attempt whatsoever at applying proper scientific research methodologies.

      Why does Simon Shack promote his hypothesis that nuclear weapons are a hoax when it is very clear that there is a vast body of evidence to the contrary?
      Who would stand to gain from convincing people that nuclear weapons don't exist? - Obviously, it is those who are using nuclear weapons to commit horrific crimes of terrorism and mass murder.

      Shack is seeking to spread his 'Nukes are a Hoax' hypothesis because he is performing disinfo and gatekeeping duties on behalf of the Zionists and Neocons; he seeks to convince people nukes don't exist in order to hide the horrific crimes that have been committed using nuclear weapons.

  9. El Buggo wrote: "Ionizating radiation is a HUGE SCARE."

    X-ray radiation is definitely real. It's simply high frequency light. The danger of radioactive decay however has probably been exaggerated as a part of a huge fear propaganda scheme.

    1. X-ray radiation is real as dynamite, but the danger of Ionizating radiation is ridiculously exaggerated, about as bad as the global warming hoax, or even worse..

    2. You are such a shameless disinfo agent and the crap that you spew is truly unbelievable.

      Over 70,000 New Yorkers have been stricken with radiation induced disease as a result of 9/11. Tens of thousands of Iraqi babies have bee born with awful defects due to the radiation and fallout from the use of nuclear weapons in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere.

      Tens of thousands of British servicemen have been paid compensation for the illnesses they suffered due to exposure to the radiation and fallout from British nuclear testing.

      Hundreds of thousands of birth defects have been recorded in Khazakhstan due to he Soviet nuclear testing and millions of cancer and leukemia cases have been recorded there as a result of those tests too.

      So how can you state the risks of radiation are exaggerated?

      Hang your head in shame you piece of shit, you denigrate the millions of victims with your bullshit.

  10. RE: So how can you state the risks of radiation are exaggerated?

    Read my answer to Solfeggio and follow the link, to learn how that HUGE SCARE was born.

    You can also read Wikipedia on Radiation Hormesis for a much more sober view on ionising radiation.

    1. I'd like to expose you to a few million rads then you can tell us jut how much of a scare it is as you slowly die one of the most horrific and painful deaths imaginable, which is what happen to people who have been irradiated.

    2. PMS 24/7 said: I'd like to expose you to a few million rads

      We are talking about doses in mSv/y here.

      Have there ever been demonstrated adverse health effects for doses <200mSv/y? No - never. LD50 is at acute dose about 6Sv. Dose rate is very significant. 10Sv over 10 days may not be lethal.

      You have a purely emotional understanding of the issue, Ian.

  11. He sounds like a typical Ian supporter, ie, an other desperate mud thrower.

  12. Wow, at 45 minutes in, Paul Craig Roberts finally said the word "Zionist," after hearing him over the past few years in about 50 interviews. He has always preferred to say "Israel lobby," which is actually intellectually dishonest, because they call themselves Zionists, and the term Israel lobby can be used to misdirect away from inherent problems with the ideology of Zionism, as opposed to criminal actions by the current state of Israel.

  13. said: " Wow, at 45 minutes in, Paul Craig Roberts finally said the word "Zionist," ..."

    Superficially, Roberts talks a good game, but if you read/listen closely, he is, like Jim Fetzer and most others here, just another left of centre statist [and I'm not implying that "right of centre statists are any better], offering the same old tired statist solution[s] to almost every problem in the world he/they see - i.e., more government, for ever and ever, amen.

    Regards, onebornfree.