An Open Letter

An Open Letter to The Dark Journalist

Hi Dark Journalist,

I’m a writer/filmmaker and, I suppose, a fellow ‘journalist.’ Here’s your colleague Joseph Farrell’s critique of my feature length documentary film, which deals with matters of ‘dark journalism’:

Dear Mr. Weisbecker:

I can only hope that this is your email. I receive Mr. John Rappaport’s daily blogs, and received his recommendation to view your film Water Time. I just finished watching it, and can only say I am stunned, having published various books of a similar nature to your film. I offer my heartfelt sympathies at the loss of your friend Donnie Turso. What I found most disturbing, was the reaction of people that can only, as you pointed out, be qualified as a species of irrationality and insanity, and the utter lack of any kind of empathy to your loss was further testament of this insanity. The spiritual consequences and conditions you so ably document in this film and the careful quotations and allusions to The Matrix were profoundly disturbing. This is a film everyone should see, and I posted the link to banditobooks.com on my Facebook wall. I hope that my Facebook friends will watch Water Time, and pass it along to their friends.  Thank you for producing this film, and making it available.

Cordially, and with deep appreciation,
Joseph P. Farrell,
(Author: Reich of the Black Sun, LBJ and the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy, SS Brotherhood of the Bell, The Cosmic War and other books.
www.gizadeathstar.com)

 

If you go briefly to www.banditobooks.com you will find Jon Rappoport’s review, which tells a bit about my Hollywood background. Although I have feature film and TV credits, what I’m proudest of is reader reaction to my books. If you plug my name into Amazon.com you’ll find that my novel and two memoirs have gotten some 350 Reader Reviews, which average just a ‘tine’ under 5 stars.

I have a problem/issue that I hope you will be interested in, which first reared (then later intensified) upon my attending the Secret Space Program conference in Austin, which you hosted (you and I didn’t meet). To sum up, my physical attendance was in order to ask a simple, straightforward question, but one with major implications, re both the SSP and ‘alternative journalism.’

As I’m sure you know, the only way to get an actual answer to an ‘uncomfortable’) question is to pose it face-to-face. Otherwise – via email or any other indirect communication — you may get either nothing or misdirection. As it turned out, my time/money was pretty much wasted, as I got no answer from anyone, not at the SSP conference, nor since; try as I might.

I’m hoping that by now you’re curious about the question. Keep in mind that all the folks to whom I’m trying to pose the question (with the possible exception of Dr. Bandenberg) believe that elements of the Elite have been zipping around the solar system in advanced-technology craft for… decades, possibly for more than half a century (hence their presence at the conference):

Given the assumed reality of the SSP – which implies that scientific questions that are best answered by physical probes, manned or unmanned, exploring off-earth locales, have already been answered – why would NASA spend hundreds of billions of dollars on any given ‘space program’, when they can fake it for the price of a feature film? (Again, given that wherever the ‘public NASA mission’ supposedly goes, ‘they’ have already been there, long ago and multiple times; according to SSP advocates, there may even be bases ‘up there’.) 

For those searching for the provenance of the gargantuan funding mechanism necessary for a SSP, the cost differential between an actual mission and the ‘production cost’ of the fake is a partial answer, with the added advantage that the multinational corporation (Lockheed Grumman, say) handling the money would be the same in both cases. This is one way of solving the ‘laundering’ problem. (This should be of particular interest to Dr. Farrell and Ms. Austin Fitts…)

But in terms of ‘researching’, i.e., uncovering truths: Any given NASA claim or program should be approached with the assumption that it very well ­couldbea fraud. We then let the evidence, along with some critical thinking, lead us to the reality.

To my knowledge, none of the above has never been voiced by anyone in the SSP ‘research community.’

Anyway, that’s the basic question – to which I have been unable to get an answer of any real sort, either at the SSP conference, or since returning (via assiduous emailing). At the conference, after trying unsuccessfully to ‘corner’ the various speakers – and at several of their suggestions – I decided to pose it to them all at once (and on camera) at the final Q & A. I made it clear that that was my plan. As you know, the Q & A was cancelled at the last minute, without warning. (Make of this what you will.)

Why I was so interested in getting the SSP presenters to respond to my question – and, I suspect, why they were so disinclined to answer – has to do with their collective beliefs that NASA is not lying about… well, a lot, if not virtually everything. (My research indicates that most, and possibly all, NASA missions are frauds; NASA is a PR operation and a production house.)

What got my initial attention is that all the researchers I’ll name below (SSP speakers I did communicate with) appear to believe that the Apollo missions were genuine (substantially as portrayed in the MS media). As we’ll see, two of the folks (Farrell and Weidner) try to have it ‘both ways’, i.e., the images we saw are fabricated but we did go. This middle ground position breaks down when examined.

For example, in multiple podcast interviews, in response to queries on their position on Apollo, both Doctor Farrell and Jay Weidner have said words to the effect that ‘Oh, we went all right, but just not as seen in the images.’

This is where face-to-face comes in. Since no one who holds this view ever explains it, persistent follow up might shake loose an answer. This is never done by any of the ‘alt media’.

For example, I might ask: ‘When did we go, and what evidence to you have to back that up?’ I mean, if a speaker is at the SSP to-do, of course they believe we’ve been to the moon. Another follow up: ‘Do you mean we went with a Saturn rocket and a LM like the one at Smithsonian?’

Here are the researchers who, to be frank, dodged the above issue:

Joseph Farrell

Jim Marrs

Catherine Austin Fitts

Jay Dyer (a complex case, as we will see)

John Brandenberg (a semi-exception, but more to come…)

Linda Moulton Howe

Paul LaViolette

Jay Weidner (another semi-exception but worth some words, eventually…)

Olav Philipps was the exception. When I spoke to him at the conference and posed a version of my question, I could see he was on the verge of ducking/bolting, as several others had done, but then he settled down and did his best to rationalize his belief that – for example — Apollo was not a fraud. I like Olav and don’t believe he was deceiving me, so I’ll not detail his reasoning, except to quote his capper: ‘I know it’s not logical, but that’s how I see it.’ Although his theory that ‘NASA knows it couldn’t get away with a major hoax’ resulted in a lifting of my brows, ‘I know it’s not logical’ says it all.

Olav excepted, still, lots of folks – well known and respected, all – did not want to answer a pretty… extremely… basic and important question, directly related to their fundamental area of research.

I did speak directly, and very briefly, to Doctor Farrell at the convention. I approached him and asked if he’d look at a recent NASA-released photo on my laptop. I’ll include my video that explains my point about the photo:

As in the video, I pointed out to Dr. Farrell that there are no stars in the background, yet they claim you can see Earth – by reflected light, obviously – close to one of the rings. Problem is, Earth would surely be dimmer than even an average-brightness star. After all, notice the brightness of Saturn as it appears from Earth (about the magnitude of a bright star). Earth being orders of magnitude smaller, how could you even see Earth at all from the far side of Saturn? But no matter what, it’s going to be really dim. So where are the background stars in the celebrated Saturn photo?

 

Frankly, and given the ‘missing’ stars, the photo is a fabrication, transparently so, putting in doubt the Cassini mission itself. (It gets even worse re the Mars rover images, which I will get to.)

I’d managed to blurt a version of this, to which Dr. Farrell nodded and agreed (that it must be a fabrication). Referring to my laptop, I told Dr. Farrell that I had clips of 14 astronauts – including current ISS ones – stating that stars are not visible in space (this is implied by the photo)… before I could go on, a light seemed to go off in Doctor Farrell’s head. He abruptly turned, excused himself, and left.

(I got an almost identical reaction from Jim Marrs: Agreement, then something occurred to him and he turned away and, without a ‘good-bye,’ made himself scarce.)

And I hadn’t even gotten my real question out (above in bold). The Saturn photo was just a set-up for the question and for the video I’d told him about (see below).

It won’t be so easy to dodge me at the Q & A, I was thinking… Well, you know what happened with the Q & A.

Here’s the email I sent Doctor Farrell after the SSP conference:

 Subject: SSP conference

Doctor Farrell,

We spoke very briefly at the SSP conference; I didn’t have time to ask you the question(s) that were behind my physical attendance (as opposed to live-streaming it). I assumed that at worst I would be able to ask it at the Q & A – that it was cancelled at the last minute was aggravating, given the time and travel involved (not your doing, I know!).

I’ll be as succinct as possible:

If there is indeed a SSP which has – possibly for decades – enabled travel within the solar system (and possibly beyond), why would NASA spend tens of billions on any given space program when they can fake it for the price of a feature film? (This also eliminates the possibility of an embarrassing disaster.)

As obvious as this question is, I’ve never heard it dealt with by any SSP researcher. (Regarding Apollo I’ve heard you say you’re ‘in the middle’ in the fraud question. What you mean by this is an ancillary question to the above.)

I gave up a lucrative career writing for Hollywood (plus three books, two of which have been bought for the movies, the third having a pending deal with HBO), to concentrate on researching how the world really works (HTWRW).

I’d much appreciate your thoughts on the above matters, especially given the cancellation of the Q & A at the conference. Again, my reason for attending the conference was to ask these questions.

Allan Weisbecker

In a ‘P.S.’ I added a link to my video of astronauts claiming you can’t see stars from space; its connection to the Saturn photo/‘NASA fraud’ issue is obvious.

 

Here is Doctor Farrell’s reply:

Dear Mr. Weisbecker,

You’ll get different answers from different people. But for me, it boils down to the US governmentlosing control(mostly) of the black projects world, at least at that level, since the early 1970s… If it wants to remain in space, it must spend opn chemical rockets.

Best wishes,
Joseph F

The above is as close to an answer as I got with any of the speakers at the SSP conference. The problem is that it is not an answer; it’s an evasion (whether conscious or not). And not a word about the absurd ‘no stars’ deceit from a half century of NASA astronauts.

So I emailed Doctor Farrell the following:

Altho I appreciate the response, you didn’t actually answer my question. Simply put (so your answer can be brief), Do you agree (given the premise that a SSP has been zipping around the solar system for decades) that there is no reason to believe (a priori) that any given NASA program is real?

Although I’d love a detailed response, an ‘I agree’ or ‘I disagree’ would be fine.

That NASA astronauts have (for half a century) been telling us that they ‘cannot see stars’ while in space… is nothing short of… staggering… (see my videos)

Agree? Disagree?

Allan W

No response at all to this one: I don’t believe my ‘agree or disagree’ way of posing the question is of the ‘Have you stopped beating your wife’ sort; nor is my wording rude. I was merely trying to get an actual answer and was trying to make it convenient to answer very briefly (all I asked for was one or two words). This is what I mean about face-to-face communication. Absent Dr. Farrell bolting from my presence (as he did do once), it would have been quite easy to casually point out the logical fallacy in his first response.

Around this time I was reading one of Dr. Farrell’s many books on the ‘occulted history’ of the human species (and by implication the SSP). Undaunted by his failure to respond to my NASA question and having great respect for his diligence as a researcher, I next emailed the Doc to point out an obvious, though not crucial, error in The Cosmic War:

Doctor Farrell,

I’m about half way through Cosmic War (your 4^th book I’ve read) and am enjoying it very much. As is the case with all your books so far, it’s very enlightening, and a page-turner. As a writer (three books in print, all highly thought of, if Amazon reader reviews are an indication) I know how difficult it is to maintain Big Mo, i.e., reader momentum. Good for you! One point I have to make, however:

Your view that the gravity on an ancient, larger-than-Earth planet between Mars and Jupiter [‘Tiamet’] would be greater than Earth’s (current) gravity and therefore any inhabitants (sentient or otherwise) would likely be ‘giants’ (because of the increased gravity) is likely incorrect.

To make my point succinctly: I assume you’d agree that the now-extinct dinosaurs on Earth are a good example of gigantism. Based on physics and biology, it is inarguable that the largest of these creatures could not have survived with Earth’s current gravity; it is estimated that Earth’s gravity pre-65 million years ago must have been something in the order of one-third what it is now. That this fact is little, or rather not, dealt with by mainstream science does not negate the truth of the matter. Here is a link that explains the science:

[If anyone has any doubts about this vital and fascinating matter, I strongly urge you to go the link. By implication it’s a cogent example of how intense is the obfuscation and even deception of mainstream science.]

Although on the surface counter-intuitive (imagining tiny little ‘men’ running around on a huge planet, etc), gigantism (relative to current Earth-sized life forms) is only possible with less gravity. So, assuming ‘Tiamat’ to be a Saturn-sized rocky planet [which Dr. Farrell does in his book], and assuming gravity is directly proportional to size (see my note), and assuming ‘all else being equal,’ so to speak, evolutionarily, its life forms would be smaller, not larger. 

I have not yet read all your books (I do intend to), but am wondering why you don’t examine the question of ‘dinosaurs and gravity’ – it is surely one of those issues that smacks mainstream science right in its smug face (so to speak).

(A quick anecdote: I once confronted a Ph.D. in paleontology – standing in ‘his’ museum in front of ‘his’ brontosaur – with the problem of gravity and dinosaur gigantism. When I pointed out that the brontosaur in front of us would immediately faint if he raised his head vertically (his heart could not have pumped blood that far up to his brain against gravity) he hemmed, hawed, then said, ‘He [the dinosaur] learned not to do that…’

….at the end of our detailed conversation, and in total frustration, he exclaimed, ‘Too much thinking gets you in trouble!’ Yep, that’s what he said… I assume you disagree…)   

Please do take a look at the above link; unless I am totally missing something, my point is inarguable. If I am wrong on this, I would hope that – in the spirit of ‘one researcher to another’ — you’d take the time to correct me. Like you, I am a serious person who simply wants to know how the world works.

Allan Weisbecker

Re my ‘Note’ on gravity: Since you obviously have a lot of respect for [physicist] Wal Thornhill, I’ll just loosely quote him: Mainstream science has not a clue about how gravity works.’ Here’s a clip of Wal on dinosaurs, gigantism, and gravity (it’s only a couple minutes):

I took the time to upload the above video for your edification. Even a brief response would be much appreciated.

Doctor Farrell’s reply:

I’ve heard the theory before, but simply do not buy into it, that’s why i didn’t discuss it. But thanks for the heads up.

Best wishes,
Joseph F

To which I replied:

Subject: Re: Tiamat, gravity, the dinosaurs

That the dinosaurs could not have flourished in earth’s present gravity isn’t a theory. It’s a fact of physics and biology. [I use the word ‘fact’ in the same sense as: ‘An unprotected human would not survive on the moon.’]

This fact does not actually have that much to do with anything in The Cosmic War, so denial of the fact isn’t necessary — why is the size of Tiamat an issue? If you want giants from there, fine, but it’s unscientific to claim the that the ‘large size’ of Tiamat explains evidence of ‘giants’ that lived there and which might have left remains here on earth.

Even Thornhill states the above as fact, not theory. For example: No animal over 30 pounds can ‘fly’ under its own power now here on earth. This is a fact. ergo: a one ton pteradactyl could not fly in earth’s present gravity. Etc.

Perhaps you can point out what ‘theory’ it is you don’t buy into? Maybe I’m misunderstanding this issue.

Allan W

To which Dr. Farrell replied:

PLease do not write me again. I really don’t have time for polemics.

#

Perhaps I was not ‘respectful’ enough in the above, but I had not gotten the impression that Doctor Farrell was particularly thin-skinned. Keep in mind that I wasn’t some random ‘fan’ coming in over the Inbox transom; Dr. Farrell had initiated our correspondence with his ‘thank you’ for my ‘stunning’ film, which he recommended to one and all.

Not wishing to be dismissed (however unwarrantedly) by a researcher I respect (there was another subject I wanted to breach), I wrote back an apology and pointed out that the dinosaur issue is a detail that does not negate his over all theories. I repeated how much I appreciated his ‘review’ of my film. He responded. All was well. I was off the banned-email list, if temporarily.

Then I brought up the other subject, which I consider at least as important as NASA’s frauds. Here’s my email:

Hi Doctor Farrell,

 I’ve read six of your books and am halfway thru Covert Wars… and have not read all your blogs, so I also apologize if you’ve covered the following somewhere…

The issue is physics, mainstream physics, which is based on Einstein’s Relativity (General and Special), and the expanding space/black holes/dark matter/dark energy/big bang/finite age of the universe paradigm that it spawned. As your voluminous and impeccable research/writings so clearly indicate (coming from multi-disciplinary directions), this paradigm, and indeed, Relativity itself, is… incorrect at best, a massive fraud at worst. (I’ll abbreviate the whole mainstream cosmology mess as ‘BB’, short for ‘big bang’.)

I previously sent you a link to a summation of the best single argument that in effect shows BB to be the… in my view…the fraud that it is. I’ll include it at the bottom. [As I do here]

The real dead giveaway that BB is another – albeit particularly egregious – psy-op is how it’s made it into the popular culture: lately, the blockbuster film Interstellar is perhaps the best example. [The actual plot of the story – including a love story! — is wholly dependent upon big bang/Relativistic physics.]

In your writings you refer to the scalar/torsion/etc. physics that is likely behind the UFO phenomenon (whatever it is)/zero point/electro-gravitics/etc. as ‘off the books’ or ‘alternative’… With all due respect I would submit that this is a bit misleading — since the BB paradigm is being foisted upon us as a massive misdirection from the real underlying nature of reality, and since the physics you have (to some extent) uncovered is likely very close to – or at least an aspect of — the ‘real’ thing…

…to get right to my point: I would love to see you deal with the implications of the BB ‘as fraud.’ There is no real evidence that space is expanding or that black holes exist or that dark matter/energy is real or that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, etc., etc., etc. As I point out in my film: we have been lied to about everything; the new ‘religion’ that is the BB paradigm is at the basis of mainstream science’s misdirection, which has been foregoing for more than a century (since Einstein’s theories of relativity). That feature films and the various gatekeepers (Hawking, de grasse Tyson, Brian Greene, L. Krause, Nye, and on and on) keep hammering away at this false cosmology with no one of any note (such as you) calling them out is a travesty.

Again, I apologize if you have already done this and I have merely not come across it. Please perhaps shoot me a link…

Here’s Steven J. Crothers talk that debunks the whole mess via the perpetrators’ own premises. It’s enough in its implications, but there is plenty, plenty more.

The above is just the tip of the iceberg. I strongly recommend Crothers’s other presentations, plus those found at the Electric Universe website – which debunks the ‘evidence’ for expanding space. (Like you I don’t accept all of the EU’s cosmology, but they are spot on in basic physics.)

Thank you for your great work. I’m merely suggesting that you’re maybe the best researcher/alt media figure to add his considerable intellect to the battle to spread some basic truths about how this universe of ours really works, starting by identifying BB for the misdirection/fraud that it is.

At the very least, please verify that you do know that the BB cosmology is misdirection and possibly a fraud. Right? And if so, the implications are… well, staggering. Right?

Allan Weisbecker

Notice that, again, I gave Doctor Farrell the choice of responding with a one or two word email, if he so chose. That the above resulted in no response at all was a great disappointment, and implications were really starting to occur to me. So much so that I eventually had to respond with a little more pizzazz. But first, for clarity, a slightly edited email that explains the initial reason for my concern:

Doctor Farrell,

[The reason for my concern is] that in a podcast you referred (in passing) to the big bang as if it were a real aspect of the history of the universe. This was of some concern since by your writings I assume that you understand that BB cosmology is… at the very least misdirection. I assume this based on your writings.

Can you verify this for me?

Allan

 Likewise, this elicited no response. Here’s the one with more pizzazz:

Doctor Farrell,

If you don’t respond to this, I will assume you’d prefer not to hear from me further and will adhere to your wish…

My message:

From the viewpoint of logical consistency, it is not possible to have written The Cosmic War, SS Brotherhood of the Bell, Reich of the Black Sun (etc., etc.) and to simultaneously believe in big bang/relativistic cosmology. Meaning that if you haven’t mentioned the fraudulence (or at least the complete irrelevance) of big bang/relativistic cosmology, it’s somehow an error of omission, since this matter is of profound importance. (If you have mentioned it, a link/citation would be much appreciated.)

Agree?

Disagree?

Allan Weisbecker

Need I say it? No response.

Anyone who has read even one of the above mentioned of Doctor Farrell’s books (or any of most of the others) should be aware of what I mean by ‘logical consistency’ having been breached if Doctor Farrell believes in big bang/relativistic physics (black holes, dark matter, dark energy, the 13.8 billion years as age of the universe, or indeed, the idea of expanding space).

For anyone not familiar with these works, a quick search for quotes is in order…a bit from The SS Brotherhood of the Bell should convey my point, with a minimum of mental gymnastics. First, quoting Nikola Tesla on the subject of gravity, Dr. Farrell writes:

All literature on this subject [gravity] is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays with the phenomena. (Emphasis by Doctor Farrell)

As most folks interested in cosmology and physics in general know, Einstein did away with the ‘ether’ in his relativity theories: the very concept of Einstein’s special relativity means that there is no ‘medium’ of space. Period. Since if there is a medium of space, there is no relativity, the implication would be that Albert Einstein represents more than a century of largely wasted misdirection in the fields of theoretical physics and cosmology.

To rephrase: If Einstein’s relativity goes into the crapper, so goes big bang cosmology (and its long list of implications). Anyone disagreeing with this statement has no understanding of relativity, or is cognitively impaired, or is playing with semantics.

Here’s more from the same Tesla quote, the words ‘curved space’ clearly referring to Einstein’s general theory of relativity: ‘[my view of gravity] will put an end to the idle speculation and false conceptions, as that of curved space…’

These are not Dr. Farrell’s own words, but he thinks so much of them – and of Tesla, rightfully so – that he pastes in the same long text quote of Tesla’s take on gravity in two places in the same book (on pages 95 and 376, SS Brotherhood…).

By the way: Einstein’s concept of ‘curved space’ – so vital as an aspect of general relativity – belongs in a class by itself in terms of misdirection, since it does not explain gravity. It merely describes it, and does so in a way that is misleading and clearly circular:Einstein claims that the curvature of space is caused by gravity, while defining gravity as the curvature of space. The usual ‘gravity well’ diagram accompanying an ‘explanation’ of this false paradigm does not erase the circularity of it.

 

As the above quotes imply – and it’s all over SS Brotherhood and at least three others of his books — Doctor Farrell personally believes (rightfully so, IMO) in the existence of the ether, i.e., that there is a physical medium to space, and, further: ‘…Einstein’s relativity theories [are a] crucial component of the creation of a ‘public consumption physics,’ a physics guaranteed to dead end.’ (SS Brotherhood, p. 87)

 

I absolutely couldn’t have said it better myself: This is the very point I am trying to make with my correspondence with Doctor Farrell. So why not just shoot me a one word email: ‘Agree’?

And why the similar misdirection (or roaring silence) from the rest of the SSP researcher gang?

Hang in for my next post…

(We’ll wait and see if The Dark Journalist replies meaningfully, perhaps an interview invite — I’d not bet that I get one!)

Allan

For your convenience I’ll list my sources/videos below:

The ‘no stars’ video (the most important, click here

For the quickest proof that Apollo was a hoax click here.

Stephen J. Crothers on the falsity of big bang/relativistic physics (I highly recommend Thunderbolts.info for more). Click here

Brief but cogent Crothers interview, click here.

Wal Thornhill on the dinosaurs and gigantism, click here.

Gatekeeper Neil deGrasse Tyson for once not misdirecting us, as he explains why stars are visible from orbit/the moon/space, click here:

More on why big bang/relativistic physics is a fraud, click here

Evidence that the Mars rover missions are frauds, click here

A hint about the International Space Station (more to come), click here

Another hint, click here