News:

this is a news item (test)

Main Menu

PIED PIPERS - IS THE ALTERNATIVE RESEARCH COMMUNITY BEING MISLED?

Started by milk, February 15, 2012, 05:07:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

milk

QuoteI would cite them but you failed to present any "facts".

Sinewave go back and read what I said you'll find if you look there are the facts, such as, the frozen human scotched by fire as the promo video on BD Radio.


QuoteYour last statement had me in stitches, couldnt have put it better myself in response straight back to you.

  Appeal to ridicule fallacy. But you cannot show where error is. Cite the facts instead of ad hominim attacks to the man. That shows you to be questionable, because you do not provide evidence or tear apart what I have written, by using what I wrote and providing contrary data to support your argument.

I didn't think anyone actually did the, "your wrong because hahahaha, fallacy" being its the most cringe worthy of them all.

M O'D

#16
PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST HAS BEEN MODIFIED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE CONTENT OF THE PROCEEDING ONE. IN THE INTERESTS OF BALANCE, I HAVE INCLUDED ANDREW JOHNSON'S CRITIQUE OF RED ICE CREATIONS BEFORE HENRIK'S RESPONSE.

  ::)
Quote


Red Ice Radio is a service which provides regular downloadable interviews with "alternative knowledge" researchers. Some interviews are free to download and some are split into 2 or more parts with the second and later parts only available to paying subscribers for download.

Red Ice Radio provides a very interesting and varied set of audio content – and the interviews are normally of good quality, as Henrik Palmgren is an informed researcher who is not afraid to explore the various "rabbit holes" that present themselves to us.

I was interviewed on Red Ice Radio  in 2010, to  talk about the subjects of Chemtrails and 9/11. I met Henrik Palmgren at the 2010 Arc Convention in Bath which was organised by Karen Sawyer. In the interview with Henrik, we talked about the 911 "Truth" Movement's cover up of 9/11 Truth – especially the cover up of the "energy connection," which is indicated by the involvement of people such as Steven E Jones in both "Cold Fusion" (LENR) research and the bogus "thermite" theory that he initiated in 2005.

Dr Judy Wood, has, of course also been on with Henrik at least twice to explain what really happened to the WTC. She went to some trouble to provide Henrik with an electronic copy of her book "Where Did The Towers Go?," to enable Henrik to study this before the first interview, which took place before the first batch of printed copies became available. (Henrik was also sent a hard copy before the 10-year anniversary - which was when the 2nd interview was done). Almost everyone who reads this book will understand what happened to the WTC on 911. It is not a theory nor a hypothesis. It is not an "idea" and it is not speculation – it is a collection of diverse evidence, along with a scientific analysis of that evidence. Some of the evidence in the book was included in Court Submissions in 2007 – 2009.

A Danish chemist named Niels Harrit has just been featured on Red Ice Radio. [Edit:the Harrit interview page does link to my own interview and Dr Wood's].  Harrit is one of many who is keen to ignore and ridicule evidence. I corresponded with him just before writing this article in 2008 about the cover up of Dr Judy Wood's court case, but I did not name him in the article. Harrit makes ridiculous suggestions about "tons" of thermite being used to destroy the WTC. Mr Harrit seemed to "come on to the scene" soon after Dr Judy Wood's court submissions were made. He has continued to talk about thermite and nanothermite ever since, even though it can be proved from basic observation that thermite had nothing to do with the destruction of the WTC (Dr Wood has addressed this evidence – or lack thereof - in her presentations). Harrit did contribute an affidavit to April Gallop's court case, but again all his statements were based on the use of thermite or some variant of it – which cannot explain the available evidence – or the observed phenomena.

Red Ice also recently featured Kevin Barrett who has admitted a "professional interest" in 911 research.

Kevin Barrett apparently does not understand Newton's 3rd law and therefore "does not really know" what happened on 911. Kevin Barrett also does not understand what bombs do to materials.

Henrik Palmgren has also in recent months featured Mark Gaffney and Jeremy "Alien Scientist" Rys who again do not seem to understand what thermite and hot explosives and incendiaries do to materials. They both refuse to acknowledge the effects documented in Where Did The Towers Go? and instead resort to either ridicule or mischaracterisation or blatant lies about what has been stated in Dr Judy Wood's research. Rys seemed more concerned about the loss of his YouTube channel than what happened on 911. The loss of his channel was in part the result of copyright claims filed by Thomas Potter against Rys's channel for defacing images of Dr Judy Wood's book and my book and using these defaced images in one or more of his videos. This is discussed in an article I wrote in October 2011.

Back to the Red Ice interview with Mr Harrit. Near the end, Henrik Palmgren does bring up Dr Wood's research.

However, like so many other people,  Henrik mis-characterises the content of Dr Wood's book as "ideas" or "theories" - this is not what I would expect of an honest alternative knowledge host/researcher who has had time to study the evidence. It is yet again worth re-iterating that some of this evidence was submitted to court, unlike the thermite "evidence". Harrit also starts lying by saying he was not aware of the evidence in Dr Wood's research – I made him aware of it approximately 5 years ago. So, are Henrik and Harrit both suffering from amnesia?

What is the point of things like Red Ice Radio? For many of the topics covered, there are large swathes of speculation, where things are not proved – and opinions are essentially the main points of discussion (which is fine). However, Dr Judy Wood's research does not revolve around opinion – as I have repeated many, many times it is a presentation of 2 sets of evidence which, in parallel, prove what happened to the WTC. This is quite clear to most people who study this evidence for long enough. Dr Wood and myself told Henrik the essentials of this over 3 years ago. I am therefore pointing this out to suggest that to let Harrit, Barrett, Mark Gaffney and Jeremy "Alien Scientist" Rys spread disinformation without properly calling them out strongly indicates to me that Henrik is no longer interested in the truth of what happened on 911 – he is more interested in the Red Ice "vehicle" than stating clearly where lies are being broadcast. I know I might sound too harsh or judgemental, but we do know what happened to the WTC now - so to characterise knowledge as "theory" is dishonest. Henrik should know better.

Perhaps, as far as Red Ice goes, this shows that being immersed in "conspiracy culture" affects your memory or your ability to reason and you can end up not knowing up from down...? When I posted this on my Facebook Page, people thought I was being unfair to Red Ice/Henrik. They seemed to think that Niels Harrit (and essentially Henrik) were "expressing an opinion". Of course, this is true – to an extent – but let us make sure we distinguish between opinion, evidence and fact – and note where a cover up or censorship is occurring. After all, if Henrik is letting these folks on for 2 hours to express opinions, why doesn't he invite someone like George Monbiot on to talk about how Al Qaida did 9/11 and how CO2 is a global threat? After all, it's folks just expressing an opinion - so what's wrong with that?

Some people may wonder why I go to the trouble of posting articles such as this. The reasons are:

1) We know what happened to the WTC on 911 and that knowledge is crucial in looking at the future and understanding the current state of our world – weaponised free energy technology, held by a hidden group, was used to destroy the WTC - and this should be disclosed to everyone. There is no issue that is not affected by this knowledge.


2) To effectively disclose this information, I feel compelled to make sure everyone realises how the cover up of the information proving point (1) is done. I hope to show how people are easily persuaded that evidence is "opinion" and that conclusive analysis is "speculation". People like Harrit and Henrik Palmgren have – wittingly or unwittingly – helped to confuse speculation with proof and they have also allowed the presentation of speculation as if it is proof.

For those interested in further details of how the 911 disinformation works, please see my free eBook, videos and audio versions of "911 Finding the Truth".


SOURCE: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=375&Itemid=60


HENRIK'S RESPONSE - though, going by the use of the third person and emotive defence, my guess is is that his wife wrote the email...
Quote

From: [mailto: ----@redicecreations.com]
Sent: 03 June 2013 22:09
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com
Subject: Red Ice Radio joins the 911 Disinformation Promotion Brigade

Andrew,

You should be ashamed of yourself for writing such garbage about Red Ice after all our years of hard work and dedication. And especially after we were nothing but kind and helpful to you. In turn you behave as a fearful worm, trashing us behind our back because you KNOW the truth about 911. Well how nice for you to be so certain. How enlightened you must be to determine what is theory and what is knowledge.

Why are you so fearful to even listen to another person's point of view? Time and time again we have said just because we interview someone it does not mean we agree with them. In fact, we did Judy a favor by interviewing Niels. But you lack the capacity to even begin to understand that principle. You lack the capacity to understand what really occurred at the end of that interview.

So what if we interview someone who you don't agree with. Next time, we will be sure to call you and ask first to see if it is ok with you Andrew since you know the truth.

So what Henrik called Judy's work a theory because at the end of the day, it is to us. Have you seen the energy weapon with your own eyes? Yet you become high strung like a little neurotic puppy, peeing on the floor when something doesn't fit in line with your belief or threatens it. Most of life on this planet IS speculation, ideas, theories. You lack the ability to be a rational human being, let alone kind to your fellow truth seekers. Instead you are quick to judge and slander. That speaks volumes about who you are.

"I know I might sound too harsh or judgemental, but we do know what happened to the WTC now - so to characterise knowledge as "theory" is dishonest. Henrik should know better."

Oh so we all know what happened with all certainty now, hu? Wow, what arrogance. You do not even know Henrik, other than the kindness he showed you....not to mention years and years of his hard work making it possible to interview researchers. In fact, Henrik was the first to interview Judy! Yet you the enlightened one, trash a kind man you do not know personally telling him who is disinfo and who is not. You accuse Henrik of being disinfo. You are so far gone while you accuse us of not being able to reason.

"Perhaps, as far as Red Ice goes, this shows that being immersed in "conspiracy culture" affects your memory or your ability to reason and you can end up not knowing up from down...? When I posted this on my Facebook Page, people thought I was being unfair to Red Ice/Henrik."



Of course people thought that because you are being out of line completely but you cannot even see yourself! You say "immersed in conspiracy culture" (after years and years of programs on a variety of topics) yet you yourself behave like a religious zealot in your remarks, gone beyond the point of being able to see up from down. 



Instead of being an arrogant truth fascist telling other people what they should do or what they should think, look at your own self Andrew. Learn to be a big man and let others make up their own minds and live their own lives. It is YOU who is spreading disinfo about a man (and others who help that man) who you do not know. Your words will have consequences by your own doing.


QuoteNew: Commentary - Andrew Johnson's False "Disinformation" Claim Against Red Ice Radio - June 5, 2013

In a recent article by Andrew Johnson, he claims that Red Ice Radio is part of a "9/11 Disinformation Promotion Brigade." In this commentary Henrik Palmgren explains why Andrew is wrong in his accusations. A common misconception and trap that many people fall into when contradicting material is presented, is to assume that it's designed to intentionally or unwittingly mislead or otherwise attempt to confuse the audience. It is neither to confuse nor intentionally spread "disinformation" as Andrew suggests. The process of letting the audience actively participate in the research process on their own is done for very intentional purposes. We believe that this is the most effective way of letting everyone utilize their critical abilities; as opposed to being spoon fed a biased, slanted view. Presenting opposing viewpoints is essential for people who want to both exercise their ability to deduct and choose what material they themselves want to further research and verify. Red Ice Radio, has from the start, held a position that nothing presented on the program should be perceived as the ultimate truth. We have frequently mentioned in our programs and commentaries that the purpose and function of this approach is not to offer a preconceived idea, but instead it forces people to think for themselves about every issue they hear. We think that the ability to make a judgment about the material should fall in the hands of the audience, not the program directors, editors or hosts.

http://www.redicemembers.com/secure/commentary/index.php


Andrew's response to the above:



QuoteThis is a response to a Red Ice posting, which is itself a response to my article entitled Red Ice Radio joins the 911 Disinformation Promotion Brigade. Let me say at the outset that I am upset at the way this has turned out and I agree with what Henrik says in his audio segment that this amounts to more "infighting" [or, that is how it appears to most observers] and this is not a good thing. My original posting (and many like it) is/are born out of frustration in relation to the 9/11 cover up.

Before responding to Henrik's "deposition" in more specific terms, I will state that:

1) It is true I did not contact Henrik before posting my article (because I was so upset with the Harrit interview and other interviews) – but neither did he contact me before posting his deposition.

2) I do not consider that Red Ice, as a whole, is spreading disinformation. The title of my article was "Red Ice Radio joins the 9/11 Disinformation Promotion Brigade" (notice the 9/11 in there?)

3) My article is specifically about 9/11 – and what we know – Henrik does not seem to like me stating that certain things are known (and  yes, there are other areas of 9/11 research – and other topics that shows such as Red Ice cover - where things are not known).

4) It is dishonest to characterise evidence as theory (and vice versa). This is what Henrik did in his interview with Harrit. He could have kept everything else the same – done almost everything else the same – but my main objection is that he did this. And,  in relation to the crime of 9/11 – and its investigation this, to me, is the most important thing. If this upset Henrik, or anyone, then I am sorry, but that is how things are for me.

Further Points.

5) Henrik's overall thrust in his deposition is inline with the email I received from Red Ice Radio a day or 2 ago (please see bottom). They did not respond to the 9-11 related questions I then asked in my follow up email (or at least, not yet).

6) The Red Ice posting does not link to my original article. My website is not mentioned (fair enough, folks can use Google – but I deliberately linked to ALL the important sources of information when I am writing articles like this).

7) In his deposition, Henrik  does not read out my article in full – he does not read out the opening complimentary and explanatory remarks about the nature of his programmes (which Henrik repeatedly states "I do not understand").

8) Henrik discusses that I mentioned we went to some trouble to get him a copy of the book. At the time, a PDF version was prepared specially for Henrik's interview. It is a 500-page book with 800 images (he does not mention this). We thought he had the same philosophy about knowing the truth as we do – so he would need the evidence to decide what the truth was. Henrik, however, apparently wants to remain "neutral" about what the 9/11 evidence shows (at least, on his programme). In doing this, in the Niels Harrit interview, he characterised evidence as theory and analysis as "ideas" or "opinion". Hence, it seems we were mistaken about "how his programme would work," in this case.

9) The title of my article is referenced quite a few times – and perhaps it is an inflammatory title – but, it is inline with what I have written up, in detail in "9/11 Finding the Truth" – where I have used similar titles for a number of the articles.

10) Again, my specific reaction to the Harrit programme was because it was about 911. I am also interested in many of the topics that Red Ice covers and for many, we cannot know as much of the truth as we can about what happened to the WTC. (This basically boils down to the amount of available evidence which can be studied carefully.) I do, by the way, understand Henrik's philosophy about the programme, but I don't agree that is appropriate to apply this same philosophy to the study of what happened at the WTC.

11) 9/11 was a huge crime - using black technology. It has affected the world more than probably any other topic discussed on Red Ice. Dr Wood has investigated a large part of this a crime (at the WTC site), worked out what happened and she has taken action by submitting the evidence in a fraud case. I tried to help. This is one key thing that Henrik did not really bring out in the deposition or posting (he mentions a phrase from my article about Wood's Qui Tam case, but no details). This is very important.

12) I was not attempting to discredit Red Ice Radio as a whole! I essentially said that in the opening paragraph of my article! (Also see point 2 above.) In my article I stated about him that it was dishonest to characterise evidence as theory etc. At the beginning, I stated "Henrik Palmgren is an informed researcher who is not afraid to explore the various 'rabbit holes' that present themselves to us." I hope people, as ever, will consider ALL the evidence available here.

13) Henrik suggests several times such things as "Red Ice Radio should be run the way Andrew Johnson says" (he doesn't say this exactly – I am paraphrasing). This is not what I am saying. In this area, I appreciate some of the points Henrik makes - and this is why I wrote, in my original article "I know I might sound too harsh or judgmental, but...". However, Henrik did not read out this sentence from my article. It is true that the Harrit interview page does link to my own interview and Dr Wood's. I  did note he had interviewed myself and Dr Wood in 2010.

14) I also never asked him to represent Dr Judy Wood or me. I can appreciate that what I wrote in my original article can be interpreted as suggesting that – but it does not say that! What I wrote above states that we can know the truth and speak the truth – and we can challenge those who are lying – as I am challenging lies here!

15) Henrik makes comments about asking for my "stamp of approval". That is misrepresenting what I wrote – see point (13) above.

16) I never asked them to censor or remove people from the "debate" or "discussion" – where did I suggest that? I expected Henrik to state that thermite could not turn the towers to dust. (Anyone can know this from simple observation!)  I see now that this was an unrealistic hope or expectation. Also, I did not suggest we should "not allow them a voice" I suggested he could use his own voice to challenge them when they are not telling the truth. Again, I am clearly expecting too much – and, as Henrik more or less says himself, this is where we disagree on our approach to things – and perhaps why I don't or couldn't do a regular series of podcasts like he does – because, I would quickly become unpopular (I didn't write and post this article to become popular, but to point out where people are not telling the truth about what happened to the WTC.) One observation is that it seems that many people turn to services like Red Ice Radio because they feel the mainstream media is not telling them the whole truth. Should it not be important to present the truth or refer to the truth when you can prove what it is?

17) Henrik talks about 911 Round Table debates – and how they would turn out. I agree with him about that! One only has to look on internet forums to know about this! (And of course, Mr Harrit mentioned the 911 Consensus Website at the end, so let me wish him luck!) When the truth and lies are set against one another, there will be disagreements, right?!?

18) Henrik is somewhat mistaken about "the other side talking to us" – we have talked to them in the past, and some of these conversations are documented in my book. Indeed, I referred to one such conversation (with Neil's Harrit – in 2008). Sadly, Henrik does not reference this in his posting or his deposition. He does not say "I did not realise Andrew had contacted Niels Harrit in 2008". And Dr Wood has quite correctly said in the past "The truth does not have sides."

19) Henrik makes a number of more emotive remarks, trying to suggest I have said things I have not said. For example, he says "When I read Andrew's material it's like other people should not be allowed to express opinions." This is not true! What I asked for in my article was for people to understand the difference between opinion and evidence! Also, when I was referring to George Monbiot, I was specifically referring to what we now know about 9/11 (and climate change). We know that Monbiot is wrong about 9/11! (That is to say, it isn't just that Monbiot has "another view.")

20) Again, let me re-emphasise that in terms of 9/11, we're talking about a crime – a crime that Dr Judy Wood and myself have investigated – and Henrik has (by his own admission) not investigated – at least, not to the same extent. Harrit, Rys, Barrett, Gaffney – and many others who talk about 9/11 have not put their evidence up to legal scrutiny (and incurred the associated costs, as we did). Instead, for example, Jeremy Rys has mischaracterised the evidence that Wood has submitted to court (describing it as "space beams"). Dr Wood's qualifications and experience are also overlooked. Out of all these people, in relation to 9/11, Dr Wood has the most appropriate expertise to determine what happened at the WTC!

21) Henrik swears a few times in the deposition and then, around the 30 minute mark, says I (Andrew Johnson) "toot this religiously?" Does Henrik think I should not tell people what I know is true? I should not tell them that the WTC turned mostly to dust? Instead, I should say "well, it might've been thermite, but if I don't include the thermite in my discussion, I would be being religious." What nonsense.

22) Henrik makes points about infighting – I agree with him on this, but why is he insulting me – isn't this "more of the same"? So what are the options when we know liars are receiving promotion? To "keep quiet"? Heck, all I did was post an article on my website. And, according to Henrik's philosophy about things, "it's just my opinion". Right? So why is Henrik so bothered about what I have written here? He should let people make their own minds up about it, according to his way of doing things? (Instead, he spends good portions of an hour attacking and insulting my character, whilst omitting important elements of my original posting.) Also, Henrik says that I do not know him as a person – and neither does he know me, yet he makes generalisations about how I must think.

23) Henrik later called me "childish" and then compares me to the Official Group that investigated 9/11. Wow – I must be powerful! He then later calls me a "truth fascist" – a very loaded term. But hey, maybe that's accurate. I suppose I'd rather be called a "truth fascist" than a "lie fascist"! Perhaps I should even take this as a complement... as it means I am uncompromising when it comes to the truth...?

24) Henrik, thankfully, reads out the conclusion to my article – but then kind of implies that I am wrong to be confident that I/we do know these things. He then mentions Richard Andrew Grove! He is not mentioned in my article and I have not referenced Grove's work anywhere on the site! I actually found Richard Andrew Grove's interview very interesting – but couldn't really make any useful comments about it, as I have not studied it in depth. I never said what I wrote about the WTC disqualified Grove's work! Why did Henrik include this? In referencing the other speakers, I linked to specific information and evidence about what they said and why I considered it to be disinformation. Henrik does not specifically mention Rys defacing images of our books and using them in the videos. I don't think he specifically mentions why I was so upset that thermite was being touted by Harrit as any kind of valid explanation for the WTC's destruction. However, Henrik does make some mention of how myself and Dr Wood have been attacked.

25) I am not afraid my conclusions will be discredited – I post them because I consider these conclusions and these pieces of evidence are important to our future – all of us. Henrik clearly disagrees – as there aren't any conclusions that he thinks are worth taking these sorts of actions over.

26) So, now, because I have posted these conclusions, I "am the enemy" – and Henrik has spent a whole hour responding to my article, attacking my character and my approach, whilst missing out important parts of what I actually wrote above (so I have had to invest more time in addressing these omissions here) – see point 22.

27) Once again, I am sorry if I have upset any Red Ice listeners or guests – or, basically, anyone. This was not my intent. My intent is to try and "keep the record straight" in terms of what happened at the WTC. In his discussion, Henrik does not make this his focus – but it is in mine.

28) In summary, my main criticism of Henrik, even if I wrote it "badly" in the article above, is this: It is dishonest to characterise evidence as theory (and vice versa). This is what Henrik did in his interview with Harrit. He could have kept everything else the same – done almost everything else the same – but my main objection is that he did this. And, because this is all in relation to the crime of 9/11 this is, to me, the most important thing. If this upset Henrik, or anyone, then I am sorry, but that is how things are for me.

29) Again, in this article, I am just expressing my opinion about the recent Red Ice 911-related Programmes – and I have not expressed opinions about other Red Ice Programmes. Other people can decide whether they agree with anything I write here!

Please remember that the important thing here is not Andrew Johnson or Red Ice Radio – it is the evidence of what happened on 9/11 – and what it means to our future.

In reviewing both Henrik's response, and my own, please consider if I have said anything which is untrue. Also please consider if anything Henrik has said is untrue.

Well, the response is longer than the article! I do hope it was worth you spending the time reading this... Here is the email I received from Red Ice a few days ago. A note is below that, then my response to the email. (My questions to them about 911 evidence have not yet received a response.)

So, there we have it. Both Andrew and Henrik claim to be passionate about the truth but which of the two is the clearest presenter of the facts, i will leave the attentive reader/listener to discern... but remember this, it does not matter what either of them believes - all that counts is the truth... ie that which happened.
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

#17
A year on from the last post in this thread, i offer this up for further consideration. Has milk's suggestion that Red Ice Creations is a disinformation construct been strengthened by the fact that, 13 months on, Red Ice Creations continues to give a platform to all and sundry, no matter how dubious their backgrounds and research?

By way of example, the latest interview with 20 year old Daniel Rayner, a self-confessed 'Anglo-Saxon', whose opening gambit about 'England' and being 'English' is replete with historical omission and attempts to paint a picture of these lands that completely ignores the true history of the ancient peoples may well be taken as a prime example of the Modus Operandi of Henrik Palmgren and his cohorts - ie, to create a soup that is a mixture of truth and disinformation that serves to leave the undiscerning listener in a mental fugue that clouds his mind and blocks his view of the truth.

There is much to question and yet there are surprisingly few critiques of Red Ice and Henrik out there that begin to tackle this thorny issue.

As Milk suggests, the logo and name may well be theosophical in origin and intent - especially given the predominance of Michael Tsarion as a 'guest' in its early days 7 or so years ago.  Tsarion, like Icke, promotes a theosophical/ New (C)Age take on the world...

Tsarion debunked: http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/special-posts/

Icke debunked: http://the2012deception.net/?p=348



QuoteShills and Half-Truthers

"Would that I could discover Truth as easily as I can uncover falsehood."

~ Cicero 'De Natura Deoram (44 B.C.)

This term refers to dis-info agents. Those that propagate disinformation (deliberate propaganda) as opposed to misinformation which is just wrong information spread by repeaters who are ignorant on the facts. Disinformation is sometimes referred to as counter intelligence. Shills are sometimes referred to as gatekeepers.

Their purpose is to distract, deceive, disengage, discredit, disempower.

All these people provide 85-95% Truth and then once gained your trust, take you off in the wrong direction with nonsense such as shape-shifting reptilians, crop circles, big foot, UFOs, Lockness monster, etc. These are fabricated nonsense which should be avoided. There are of course UFOs, you may have even seen them yourself, but all the intensive searching for Truth over the last 6/7 years tells me that they are man-made.

These shills are EXTREMELY dangerous to the cause!! They keep us contained in large dis-info nets to contain, de-fuse, suppress and dissolve the Truth. They keep potential Truthers from looking at the Jew agenda and all the time they are helping the elite Jews to kill time and therefore kill us! Precious time we don't have.

Many people have said to me "Yea well they do give a lot of good information out and they are helping people realise there is an agenda". I won't buy into this argument whatsoever. Yes I know there are some of us who are able to escape this dis-info net, but we are small in numbers in relative terms.


"Anyone who stands in the way of Truth, at any level; and does not actively propagate the Truth they know and resist this tyranny at some level, is helping to create death, destruction and suffering. Therefore they are on the side of darkness and a traitor to humanity."

~ Digger


The other purpose of these dis-agents is to keep us in this scared rabbit in the headlights mode. "What can little ol me do?" They will bombard you with scary info which is to keep us feeling dis-empowered. They will bang on all day about the problems of the agenda, even if Icke talks about "Rothschild Zionism", he still keeps us thinking along the lines of the poor innocent victim Jews and those evil nazis. This is pure 100% disinformation! Please see the amazing work of  both http://www.zioncrimefactory.com and http://www.spingola.com for a more accurate take on WW2 and those 'evil' Nazis.

Another analogy is to try to view all of this truth-seeking like orienteering, in that we only need to be one or two degrees off course and we can easily miss our destination or target. So it matters not how much good information and accurate facts they are plying us with, because the point is they ultimately are keeping us away from finding the treasure. None of these shills are outright saying "IT'S THE JEWS".

In my humble opinion all these individuals are either shills or compromised half-Truthers

Alan Watt Woffles on for eternity, but dares not mention Jews in the whole conspiracy. Connects up with Alex Jones.

Alex Jones and his associates Prison Planet, etc. Very dangerous to Truth. His wife and children are Jewish. Aggressive fear-based material. Comes out with real clangers such as "The Arabs run Hollywood"

Anthony Hilder Same old story, prattles on about the NWO/Illuminati and makes money from flogging his videos.

Benjamin Fulford Listen to audio below.

Dr Bill Deagle Absolutely laughable material. Shil shill shill!!

Brian Gerrish Exposes Common Purpose and publishes his newspaper The UK Column; which is funded by Sheila Butler who is the daughter of Lord Kitchener, who set up concentration camps in the Boar War. And Sheila funds the BNP. Never touches the kosher side.

I have met Brian several times and chatted with him at length, in the early days before I was Jew-wise.

Brian also has a Jewish woman working for him (Kate), who posts what I feel is relatively Islamaphobic content. Is she another Jewish infiltrator? Does she filter his post? He also attended an award ceremony at a Scientology centre in Sussex to receive an award 'for his efforts'. I know somebody who witnessed this. Why on earth would anyone aware of this agenda attend such an event? Why would he accept an award?? Surely it is not about this. Not only that, anyone even slightly aware of this agenda should be aware that Scientology is a mind control sect which and would have no association with it.

He also has been on the Alex Jones show. Of course this alone does not mean he is a shill, as perhaps he just wanted exposure of his work. However I'm staggered he could not see through Jones. He also has had an interview with David Icke. Again this would not necesarily mean he is a shill. However I feel it is important to observe who people associate with.

http://diggerfortruth.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/10-reasons-why-im-sure-brian-gerrish-is-a-shill/

Charlie Veitch  Jewish guy conditioning truthers to hug police officers, to love our adversaries in a new age fashion. He also now believes in the official 9/11 media story.

Charlie Sheen Half Truther and mate of Alex Jones.

Christopher Bollyn As Jeff Rence. Linked up with Daryl Bradford Smith at one time and tried to side track Daryl.

David Icke aka Mr Lizard. [Please see my essay below 'Icke Synopsis'] The main thing with Icke is you just have to look who he associates with.

http://diggerfortruth.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/not-to-be-taken-seriously/

David Wilcock Please listen to audio below. He is involved with the dodgy Project Camelot crowd.

Dylan Avery Jewish producer of the film 'Loose Change'. All half Truths.

Eric Hufshmid Jew who infiltrated Daryl Bradford Smith from http://www.iamthewitness.com

Eric Von Phelps from 'Vatican Assassins' who blames the Vatican/Jesuits & Black pope etc for everything the Jews do including writing the Protocals of Zion. Ha- if it wasn't so serious.

Gerald Celente Gives consistant inaccurate information regarding financial forecasts. NEVER talks about  Jewish usury all the time he discusses the financial markets. Quite incredible really.

Glen Greenwood (tribe member) actingas a dis-info agent.

Gordon Duff Simply insane. Dis-agent.

Henrey Mackow Jew, giving half truths and distorted facts.

Ian Crane Ditto, does not touch the Jewish connection, despite skimming over zionism. His son works for a think tank!

J. Speer Williams Propagates anti-Hitler rhetoric. Claiming Hitler was a zionist asset.

Jack Blood More half truth and dis-info

James Corbett from the Corbett Report. Same story as Gerald Celente really. Icke prototes his work.

Jason Bermas Jewish producer of film 'Loose Change'. Full of half Truths.

Jeff Rence aka Mr Hairdo. Another egoist in the movement, propagating half truths and dis-info

Jesse Ventura Buddies up with Jones. never mentions the J word in the whole conspiracy...therefore has a TV programme on conspiracies. Utter bollocks.

Jim Marrs Again talks all the time about the NWO, but will never touch the J word

Jonathon Kay (Jew) Total shill exposing his dis-info on 9/11

Jordon Maxwell Mentions everything accept the Jews. Goes along with Zecharia Sutchin's material of the Annunakis.

Korey Rowe Jewish producer of 'Loose Change'. The film is full of half Truths. Not one mention of Jewish involement throughout it.

Lindsey Williams Another shill boy. All woffle and no substance. Just a gap filler. His favorite quote: "Get yer pen and paper ready – take this date down."

Luke Rudkowski From 'wearechange'. It's just one of those coincidences that he slips into every high-profile meeting again and again and again. Always just happening to get a short few words from the top. I 'think' he is Jewish.

Max Keiser Think he is Jewish?? Gives innacute information and never ever mentions Jewish involvement.

Michael Savage (a Jew whose real name is Michael Meiner) Dis-info agent

Michael Tsarion Alien galactic nonsense

Mike Rivero Another Jew distributing half Truths/disinfo.

Project Camelot team The all-inclusive couple, where everything goes. They are not selective in who/what they research.

Red Ice Creations They 'all-inclusive' – everything goes. No discernment in their information. From aliens, to crop circles and all the other conspiracy 'theories'

Rob Ravero Half Truther

Steve Qyayle Clear dis-info, steering people away from the judaic angle

Stewart Swerdlow Dodgy dis-info. Charges extortionate fees to propagate half-Truths. I think he may be Jewish??

Ted Gunderson Dodgy half Truth. In alignment with Alex Jones

The Young Turks Total shills, playing the kosher fiddle

Webster Tarpley Another half-Truther who just will not mention the magic J word. Yet makes a career from his work.

William Cooper I can't tell if he was a total dis-agent, or just got caught up in a lot of mis-info BS. He's dead now. He was shot on his porch.

Zecharia Sutchin propagates the Annunaki myth

Politicians/organisations and channels which appear to be batting for the Khazarian camp:

Al Jazzera – More half Truths

The British Constitution Group They will never touch the 'J' word.

Antiwar.com – half Truths

Democracy Now! More distraction. Why would we want democracy? Democracy is an invention of the JCN to control us, under the guise of giving us choice. More Orwelian distraction. More deception.

George Galloway He 'still' propagates the 9/11 story, yet suppossedly supports Muslims

Al Jazzera More half Truths

Neturei Katra a group of orthodox KJ trying to espouse that there is a definitive difference between zionism and judaism

Noam Chomsky a KJ controlling the dissent

Norman Finklestein a KJ controlling the dissent

Ron Paul    http://ronpauldebunked.wordpress.com/

Russian Television More half Truth

wearechange – Various groups. Bang on about the problems but never mention the Jews behind the problems. See Luke Rudkowski This does not mean the people at the lower levels are shills, they have just been hoodwinked.

bethechange group. Same as wearechange

Vladimir Putin

http://diggerfortruth.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/puppet-putin/#more-6660
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/22/252130/putin-seals-russias-membership-into-wto/

SO LONG AS WE TRUTHERS CONTINUE TO AVOID TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOT GET TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS AGENDA – WHICH MEANS EXPOSING THE JEWISH HEGEMONY, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO GET AWAY WITH THEIR CRIMES AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO SUFFER WITHIN THEIR JEW WORLD ORDER

http://diggerfortruth.wordpress.com/shills/
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted