An Open Letter to Richard D. Hall (Richplanet TV)

A note to my subscribers: Before I launch into my communication with Richard D. Hall (of Richplanet.net), I need to apologize for the delay in posting this. Although most of my correspondence with Hall was back in March, it wasn’t until around July 1^st — after I viewed his recent lecture on space frauds — that I knew I had to blow the whistle on him. Until his lecture I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. But it’s been a couple weeks since July 1^st…

This sort of post is both difficult and satisfying to write, and in that sense is similar to my past posts exposing limited hangout/disinfo agents. The conflict is related to how much I’ve learned from the ‘target’ and the possibility that I’m wrong. However, in Hall’s case even if I am wrong about his motives, his emails still amount to a personal insult, i.e., gaslighting; as you may know by now, I do not suffer gaslighters well. Still, it’s easy to make excuses and put off an unpleasant task.

A good question…

The other reason for the delay has been my research into what’s going on in Antarctica. I’ve just about finished Michael Salla’s book, Antarctica’s Hidden History and assorted other lines of evidence. I will have a lot to say about the subject in an upcoming post.

To new subscribers (and old ones with as short a memory as mine’s becoming), it would be helpful in the understanding of this post if you’d view at least two of my videos showing (without doubt) fakery in Musk’s Falcon Heavy launch of February 6^th, mainly the ‘car in space’ imagery. The subject of this post, Richard D. Hall, viewed at least those two videos and refers to them below. Although there is little doubt that he viewed my other vids, these two, this one and this one are of special importance. (Remember to avoid the cherry-picking fallacy: If I’m only right about one thing, fakery is proved.)

An Open Letter to Richard D. Hall (RICHPLANET.NET)

I’m replying to your last email as an Open Letter out of frustration that I was not able to get what I consider straight answers from you on the key points. I believe that (what I consider) your deceptions fit into an overall picture of the ‘alt media’ – and especially those of the alt media who cover ‘space’ and its various facits – as largely (probably wholly) an arm of the deep state/intel services.

We have exchanged an even dozen emails (12 exchanges, about 24 in total) between March 9 and July 2, all being on the subject of Elon Musk’s Spacex launches, with me being of the opinion that they were/are partly or wholly fraudulent. I backed this up with a series of videos, at least some of which you viewed; your ‘observations’ on them were nothing short of nonsense.

This book is the most important limited hangout I’ve come across.

I have waited until now to write this post because I wanted to give you the chance of proving your veracity via your recent UK lecture ‘Space: The Final Frontier’, which you told me about early in our exchange, saying you would ‘expose’ Musk for what he is in that then-upcoming lecture. As we’ll see, you did no such thing but rather continued to either misdirect or outright prevaricate on issues about which you obvious know the truth, based on our March email exchanges. It’s one thing to bullshit me, totally another when you make it public on a well-known and respected ‘truth’ website.

Here’s the body of your last email, sent on July 2 (2018):

I refer you to previous email.

Why is it important that he [Musk] faked the missions (if he faked them) ?

Before I reply, a little context (both to remind you and to illuminate others reading this). As I explained to you from the get-go, my goal since early March – via blog posts and videos – has been twofold. One, to expose the Musk Space Fraud for what it is, and, Two, to further demonstrate that the alt media (however you define it) is virtually complete psy opery, i.e., limited hangouts and disinformation outlets run by various U.S. government/deep state agencies, plus the Brits and other foreign groups (such as the Israelis).

Out of the twenty-two ‘alt media’ figures I’ve contacted since Musk’s February 6 ‘launch’ of his ‘Falcon Heavy’ with multiple proofs of fakery, you were the one I hesitated to name as a likely limited hangout psy op. This was based on your important exposé of the Mars Rover frauds (among other projects). Although, by definition, limited hangouts must provide new and genuine (and sometimes groundbreaking) evidence of deep state (or ‘Elite’; call them what you will) deceit, my feeling was that your Mars Rover work ‘crossed the line’ into areas that would be off limits to limited hangout ops. Well, not so much, as it turns out…

Your exposure of this fraud made me hesitate…

Below is my email to which you ‘replied’ in the above manner (your previous email – also dated July 2 – is in regular font, my words are in bold)

(To be clear: Regular font defines Hall’s words, bold (in parens or not) is mine, but words within [ ] are mine added in the present. Also, I corrected typos and made tiny edits for clarity.)

> Have you planned to go and video a launch of a [Musk] rocket yet ? No, b/c at
> this point I’m not openly doubting that I’d see what we see in the
> various YT videos. Whether they are using holograms or crashing real
> rockets down range in the sea, I don’t know. If it was convenient I would
> film a takeoff. However, I don’t have to do any filming to expose an
> obviously fake video, like the car in space. (I’m glad you understand
> that this is fake imagery…I do not understand why you don’t mention it
> in your lecture.)
>
> Whether faked or not – it’s not that important.  Because he hasn’t
> achieved anything more than NASA. It’s not important if he’s faking it? I’m
> glad you didn’t feel this way about the Mars rover missions! It seemed
> important that they were faked [given that you did films proving fakery]. Ditto Apollo. I would also ask what you
> are sure NASA has achieved, given that you know Mars and Apollo were not
> accomplished as advertised, i.e., were faked.  You say that since
> you have a green screen at home therefore the ISS is up there as
> advertised seems a bit thin. [Rich says this in his lecture; I was being sarcastic with ‘a bit’ thin.] (That something is visible up there doesn’t
> mean there are people living in it, etc.. The ‘green screen’ anomalies
> I’ve seen on YT are pretty convincing that something is amiss. Also, why
> would they have the females on the ISS wear those absurd wigs that don’t
> behave anything like hair on the Vomit Comet. Etc Etc.) [See my video on this HERE.] I would also point
> out that if they do indeed have black world space crafts zipping around
> the solar system (as you rightly believe), I cannot fathom why they would
> spend the money for genuine rocket missions when they can fake them for a
> tiny fraction of the cost — and put the saved money into the black
> programs. (If they want info or photos re Mars or the moon
> they can go there in their TR-3Bs or whatever.) It’s not logical, is it?
> (Not rhetorical. I’m genuinely asking.)
> The question then only becomes ‘Can they fake them?’ You’ve answered this one
> yourself. Yes.
>
> If somebody was faking videos of someone launching a firework I wouldnt be
>  that interested either. [On the surface, it’s unbelievable that Hall would say this, unless he considers me an idiot. More on this in a bit.]

Again, I don’t understand. Why would it not
> bear mentioning in your lecture on space frauds?
>
> There is always the possibility (as I said to you before – but you keep
> failing to understand), that Musk DID launch the car into space AND filmed
>  a FAKE video.  Again, how could you know he DID launch the car into
> space? If he also faked it, why didn’t you mention this in your
> lecture? Just to confuse people. [Confuse people how? And why? The only confusion here are your words.]  He is part of a cover up of secret
> technology.  Yes, I agree with you here. HIS technology is pretty much
> irrelevant, fake or real. [If it’s fake, he’s doing it with the help of NASA and the media, which makes it very relevant.]
>
> Richard, If you’re busy or whatever, my main question is the last one:
> Since you were lecturing on space travel (frauds) and brought up Musk’s
> accomplishments, why keep quiet about him faking stuff? Isn’t this of
> interest? 

Sorry if my extra comments put in [ ]s are a bit confusing but I have twice asked you to reply to my emails in this way – within my email’s text – to prevent cherry-picking and avoiding key points: you succeeded in doing both with your ‘Refer to my previous email’ non-response (an outright refusal to even answer my one question at the end of my email, let alone the rest of it).

…just seemed relevant…

This quote especially jumps out, since you repeated it several times since March:

‘There is always the possibility (as I said to you before – but you keep
failing to understand), that Musk DID launch the car into space AND filmed
a FAKE video.’  

And then:

‘If the videos are fake it doesn’t mean the mission was fake.’

As you know, I’ve produced about a dozen videos exposing the Musk Space Fraud and written blog posts accompanying them. Your emails from March indicate you have viewed (most of) the videos and agree that evidence of fakery is at the least very strong, if not utterly conclusive. For example, here’s how our correspondence started:

On 9 Mar 2018 18:44, Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> wrote:

Rich,

Having not heard from you re my emails I went ahead and made my own video proving Spacex’s ‘Roadster in space’ imagery fraudulent (the launch may have been genuine). In it I mention that the ‘spacecraft’ has no thrusters to adjust its attitude, and therefore could not give the views as depicted (it would commence a slow tumble after final burn). I finally came across a citation for the no-thruster observation, from Popular Mechanics (notwithstanding their 9/11 BS, they have meticulous fact checkers). I’m attaching the page (along with a ‘cloud’ proof).

The video is not all the proofs, but it certainly contains ‘sufficient’ ones, for any reasonable person. If you agree with my assessment, I hope you’ll see fit to spread the word on this. The implications are… well, staggering

The Whys of the space fakery is a separate subject. We could correspond on that, or you can just subscribe to my blog, via this Open Letter to Elon Musk post.

Or go directly to the video.

And this one. 

allan

By the way, I fear that most alt media outlets are limited hangout ops. Part of my blog is to suss out which ones we can trust. [See my previous posts HERE and HERE… This ‘P.S.’ is important in that I’m being completely up front as to my motives in writing. I consider Hall’s emails personally insulting b/c this P.S. is an outright warning to refrain from gaslighting me.]

Sorry for the misspelling but this is a biggie. (See next image.)

Your answer, from the same day:

From: Richard D Hall – RICHPLANET.NET <richard@richplanet.net>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: The Musk Fraud

Have you contacted any of Spacex shareholders to tell them this? I would say they would be the most outraged at such evidence.

Sent from my Alcatel Pixi 4 (4)

Your suggestion that the Spacex ‘shareholders’ would be outraged is a clear indication that you viewed my video and agreed that it indicated fakery in the Falcon Heavy imagery. 

Yet weeks afterwards you do a lecture on space fakery and Elon Musk without mentioning even the possibility of fakery — and this doesn’t count the rest of my videos, which prove not only that the ‘car in space’ imagery was fraudulent, but that other aspects of the ‘missions’ were faked as well, the ‘booster back downs’ being the best example.

Here’s part of another of my emails:

….the evidence points to total fakery on Musk’s
> launches. How they (he and NASA) do it (the ‘witness problem’) is another
> question, but just the ‘backing down’ of his boosters is… well,
> preposterous, frankly.  (I guess I’m still trying to figure out why I’m
> apparently the only person who understands this:  You cannot ‘steer’ a
> rocket backwards from space with grid fins and ion thrusters. As I’ve
> done my best to show in my later videos, it can’t be done. Period.
> Physics is physics, whether no one else notices or not.)

No reply to this point — a good example of how you fail to deal with important issues, especially given your engineering background. (The lack of thrusters on the Falcon Heavy – which indicates it should have tumbled rather than giving those ‘perfect views’- is another example of your extreme cherry-picking ‘responses’.)

No thrusters means all the imagery was… impossible.

I mentioned that I’d sent my videos/posts to a score other ‘alt media names,’ and that only three returned my correspondence. [See this post and this one as well.] What’s of interest here is that those that did write back did so in a similar manner to yours: Using misdirection or outright deceit as a way of avoiding mentioning that my evidence is worth spreading to the public, via their websites/blogs/etc.

By the way, Spacex is a private corporation, i.e., it does not have shareholders for me to send evidence to (as you suggest in your email).

“SpaceX is a privately held company in which the sole shareholder who is the beneficial owner of a 10% or greater interest is Elon Musk, as trustee of a private trust. Mr. Musk’s trust currently owns 54% of the outstanding stock of SpaceX and has voting control of 78% of the outstanding stock of SpaceX.” (Wikipedia)

Given your upcoming UK lecture tour, titled ‘Space: The Final Frontier’ – presumably exposing ‘truths’ avoided by the mainstream media – I would think you’d know this via research into Elon Musk. But as I’ve come to realize, nothing about your replies to my correspondences indicate a desire to be up front, let alone honest.

Your ‘tell the shareholders’ suggestion is a way of answering without answering. The vast majority of the alt media people I contacted realized that any answer to my evidence would cause problems (due to the strength of my evidence), hence the dead silences. The silences (plus your non-answers), I suggest, is based on an ‘order from above’ that everyone (in the alt media) avoid exposing the Musk Space Fraud. Otherwise, how could over twenty ‘journalists’ have the same inexplicable reaction (failure to react) to important evidence?

If this seems a harsh or even paranoid reaction, let’s look at how our correspondence went (these are slightly edited for clarity. See below for a complete repro of our emails):

On 11 Mar 2018 01:27, Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> wrote:

… look, you are not responding the way I would think a ‘truth-bent’ journalist would do. No matter the implications, that the space imagery from Musk was faked is major news. Isn’t it? Just that. Like the Mars expose you did. It means something else as well, of course, but on its own it’s pretty important. I sent the proofs I’ve collected (and there is more you haven’t seen) to about a score name alt media figures, most of whom I met at the Secret Space Program conference in 2015. One responded, with bullshit. The rest were silent, and they know who i am; I’m not some jerk over the transom (put my name on Amazon).

Limited hangouts.

Am i the only one on the planet that can see the fraudulence of this spacex shit? What’s with that?…

…If you want to discuss this, let me know, but if you’re not interested in exposing the Musk fraud… well, I have to assume something isn’t quite right.

allan

In reply (same day, March 11) I got:

Calm down.  I have not studied the videos in detail. You also need to consider that what might be happening is a layer of sophistication higher than a mere faked video. It may be the case that the rocket did go into space AND they used a fake video. One reason why they may be doing this is as follows

1 Spread a ‘Spacex is fake’ conspiracy.
2 In future put out more data and real video, thus shooting down your theory.

By doing this they can then “lump in” all the mars stuff and say we must also be wrong about Mars.  All Musk had done is put a rocket in low earth orbit, hardly revolutionary and NASA paid for it.  He is clear a NASA protector.

By jumping up and down about one fake video is probably what they want at this stage.

The “Mars”  music I think is part if this psy op to get people to associate Musk’s live projects with Mars.  Then IF more data comes out validating his low earth orbit stuff people will think this validates all the mars rovers.

They are much sneakier than you think.

Although nothing in the email makes sense, let’s give your main point a moment’s thought (you repeat it three times during our correspondence): ‘In future [Musk will] put out more data and real video, thus shooting down your theory.’

Okay, Rich, if Musk put out a real video later, thus ‘proving’ he really did go into space, how would he explain the existence of the fake video? Mmmm? And the point of this ‘sneakier than (I) think’ brilliant deception is supposed to be to debunk my video showing that his original video was fake, right? I have news: It was fake!

So (according to you) Musk’s whole plan must rest on the hope that no one will notice that since his second video proved he did go into space, his original video (broadcast to the world) was fake! And how is he debunking me when all I did was prove his fake video was… yes… fake!!!

An added aggravation is that you in effect gaslight me by claiming that I can’t seem to ‘wrap (my) head around this’ and that I ‘keep failing to understand’ your nonsense, as if there’s something wrong with me. As I say above, you must think I’m an idiot (or somehow mentally challenged) or… or something else is going on… and that ‘something else’ can only be that you don’t care if you spout nonsense, as long as it misdirects from the question of Why you don’t expose the fakery (in a lecture that is about space fakery and Elon Musk)?

Then you subject me to this:

As I said if SpaceX are making fake videos, you need to explore the
motive for this. [Thus giving an excuse for keeping quiet about the fakery] I doubt the motive is to fool shareholders etc. [There are no shareholders!]  I think
it would be more likely to make you THINK the mission has been faked, when
in fact it is real.  How do you know the mission is not real, but the
video fake? I’ll be covering everything in my up coming lecture including SpaceX role. (my emphasis)

This image just seemed…relevant…

One more example, another desperate excuse for keeping silent on the Musk Fraud:

March 12

You put out your theory and your analysis and I cover it on Richplanet.
Then a year later SpaceX release a video from a second camera that IS real
and is of the REAL rocket.  Your theory is toast.  And with it ALL OTHER
fake video evidence.  Can’t you see?…

(end quote)

‘Can’t I see?’ Yep, must be something wrong with me that I can’t see your logic! More gaslighting.

‘Space: The Final Frontier’ is now on Youtube, and I recommend that readers of this essay watch it. There is some valuable information, wedged between the misdirection, irrelevancies, and outright untruths (the usual limited hangout M.O.). One example of the latter is at 37:20, wherein the claim is made that Musk has re-used a first stage booster a total of once, when the actual number is ten times. From Wiki:

…The first re-flight of a landed first stage occurred in March 2017^[2] with the second occurring in June 2017, that one only five months after the maiden flight of the booster.^[3] The third attempt occurred in October 2017 with the SES-11/EchoStar-105 mission. Second flights of refurbished first stages then became routine. (emphasis added)

yeah, riiiight!

Why would this transparently false claim make it into your well-prepared lecture on space frauds? (Your lecture was in April, so timing doesn’t explain it.) I suspect our correspondence (mainly my videos) is responsible. If my theory that you (and the rest of the alt media) are ‘under orders’ to not expose Musk for the fraud he is, then you would need as many excuses as you could come up with to avoid spilling the beans. By saying Musk re-used a booster once you are outright ignoring the Falcon Heavy launch (which on its own re-used two boosters). You know the ‘car in space’ imagery was fake (the ‘hologram’ and ‘witnesses’ issues are separate), so no reference, however indirect, to the Falcon Heavy would be included in the lecture. Mentioning the ‘car in space’ would open the big can of worms of my evidence, i.e., my first two videos, this and this, which you cannot deny viewing or agreeing with).

Watch the video to see clearly that this is a green screen image.

This fits with the claim (in the lecture) that there is ‘no doubt’ that the ISS is real and as advertised, a (seemingly) bizarre position for someone who has publicly shown that both Apollo and the Mars Rover missions were fraudulent. Does this not mean that all NASA-related missions should be strongly suspect? Do you really think ‘I have a green screen in my home’ is sufficient veracity-confirmation for a ‘deep truth’ researcher like yourself?

(The image at left is from this video. Go 30 seconds in to see the green screen proof.)

As I have said before, limited hangout/disinfo ops have gotten subtler over the years and the decades since, say, the Apollo missions. One manifestation of this is how so many (if not all) ‘Apollo hoaxers’ either do not even speak about possible current NASA frauds, or (like you) outright deny that NASA continues it’s frauds. A partial list is in my past post and includes Bart Sibrel, David Percy, Marcus Allen and, especially, Jarrah White.

The reasoning here is simple and is the classic manner of the limited hangout (LH): Gain trust by exposing past frauds (Apollo and the Mars rovers) as a way to deny current frauds (which are of much more importance to the Deep State). You will notice that none of the above list even go near the subject of current NASA frauds, many of which are flat undeniable. Really, really undeniable.

Just regarding the ISS – which I do not believe exists as advertised (if there is something up there, there’s no one in it) – other methods of fraud denial are regularly used. First, many of the Youtube ‘ISS hoax exposers’ are ‘controlled op’ in the sense that they ‘seek to expose’ but do so very sloppily, with amateurish video style and content.

You might also notice that no ‘alt media names’ – those who have slick and popular venues, like yours – even deal with the ISS, leaving the exposés to ‘regular’ folks who make Youtube videos (people like me, for example). And, over the last few years, the Flat Earthers, who are all psy ops. (All the ‘slick’ ones; the rest are Useful Idiots.) These are a special case in that they will show genuine ISS anomalies – which are also shown by ‘real’ people (like me) – but do so while ‘proving’ that the earth is flat, thus blackwashing the important info.

Yep, that’s a scuba tank… in space…

Although proving that the ISS is another fraud is not the purpose of this essay, I’ll provide just two videos (of many) that would need to be dealt with to buttress your claim that the ISS is for real. (A note to subscribers: Although, for the reasons given, you must be cautious in searching for ‘genuine’ Youtube videos showing ISS frauds, I suggest you do so on your own. Remember that you only need one genuine, unexplainable anomaly to understand that we are being deceived (hence cherry-picking is a fallacy in this matter). Try this or this. 

Note to subscribers: Please understand that I would not subject you guys to this nonsense except that it is coming from a well-respected member of the alt media, and that it is not an aberration. Look at my past posts for proof of this. Like this, which is involves Hall’s frequent ‘co-anchor’, Andrew Johnson.

Back on point: What’s going on here?

Misdirection. Based on the twenty-odd other non-responses or responses similar to yours, misdirection is the only viable theory. Once again: You don’t care that you’re not making sense; you only wants to avoid spilling the beans publicly about the Musk Space Fraud and need some sort of excuse for avoiding the issue. You made an error by replying to me at all and are now spouting idiocies, hoping I’ll give up and just go away.

Well, Rich (assuming you’re still reading), I’m not going away. I’m still here, asking you one more time why you left out of your lecture any mention of the Musk Space Fraud?

ADDENDUM: I also sent you my observations on how Musk is misdirecting us on the matter of underground tunnels and bases, which you also failed to mention either in your lecture or anywhere else. Is this another example of the ‘hands off’ directive from your handlers?

A final note to my subscribers: If you’ve made it this far you may have noticed that one of the questions Hall failed to answer is the same one I asked of the speakers at the 2015 Secret Space Program (SSP) Conference at Bastrop, Texas, either face to face or via assiduous emailing afterwards. (Covered in posts already linked to.) The small handful of ‘replies’ were as full of misdirection/deceit as what I was subjected to by Hall; the vast majority were smart enough to not reply at all (as I’m sure Hall now wished he had done). Here’s the question, pasted from above:

…if they do indeed have black world space crafts zipping around
the solar system (as you rightly believe), I cannot fathom why they would
spend the money for genuine (chemical) rocket missions when they can fake them for a tiny fraction of the cost — and put the saved money into the black
programs. If they want info or photos re Mars or the moon they can go there in their TR-3Bs (advanced anti-gravity crafts) or whatever. It’s not logical, is it?

Quite the gang at the SSP 2015. I don’t trust a one…

The above motive for fakery goes doubly for ‘missions’ the purpose of which is nothing more than pure distraction of the public from the fact that no advancement whatsoever has been made in ‘space travel’ for the past half century. Given the exponential growth in all other areas of technology, this should stand out like… like, as the Aussies would say, ‘Dog balls.’

(Musk is not ‘doing’ anything more than achieving low earth orbit, which the Soviets did in the 1950s. His ‘reusability’ gimmick is a lame excuse for all the media (MSM and alt media) hoopla, phony cheering, and so forth – anything to keep the public from thinking about the apparent lack of progress, when the truth is that during that half century extremely advanced spacecraft have been developed and used, at the very least for travel to the Moon and Mars (hence the Mars rover fakery).

The above is so obvious that it almost gives me a headache thinking about it. But hey, I thank my subscribers for your patience, and, on a lighter note, offer you this two-minute, ‘lofty’ medley of where I’ve been lately.

Allan

My correspondence with Hall since March of this year, in the order sent (as I can make out from my archives):

Message body

Its not the rockets that are frauds it is musk himself

Sent from my Alcatel Pixi 4 (4)

On 9 Mar 2018 18:44, Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> wrote:

Rich,

Having not heard from you re my emails I went ahead and made my own video proving Spacex’s ‘Roadster in space’ imagery fraudulent (the launch may have been genuine). In it I mention that the ‘spacecraft’ has no thrusters to adjust its attitude, and therefore could not give the views as depicted (it would commence a slow tumble after final burn). I finally came across a citation for the no-thruster observation, from Popular Mechanics (notwithstanding their 9/11 BS, they have meticulous fact checkers). I’m attaching the page (along with a ‘cloud’ proof).

The video is not all the proofs, but it certainly contains ‘sufficient’ ones, for any reasonable person. If you agree with my assessment, I hope you’ll see fit to spread the word on this. The implications are… well, staggering.

The Whys of the space fakery is a separate subject. We could correspond on that, or you can just subscribe to my blog, via

http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-elon-musk/

Or go directly to the video

Proof Elon Musk as ‘New Face’ of NASA’s Frauds (NO flat earth BS!)

Proof Elon Musk as ‘New Face’ of NASA’s Frauds (NO flat earth BS!) FLAT EARTH IS A PSY OP meant to discredit real research. This video proves that Musk’s Roadster was shot in …

allan

By the way, I fear that most alt media outlets are limited hangout ops. Part of my blog is to suss out which ones we can trust.