Things are getting rowdy. Day before yesterday I joined Doctor Farrell’s website chat room at www.Gizadeathstar.com; it cost me 12 bucks and I watched one archived session. Doctor Farrell picks emailed questions and responds via Skype. It was okay, if one-sided.
Then, yesterday, the plot coagulated. I got a refund of my 12 bucks from Paypal and Doc Farrell’s webmaster. No note, just a refund, but I pretty much interpreted it correctly: Dr. Farrell had taken exception to my last blog post.
I sent Dr. Farrell the following email, with Stephen Crothers also in the To box (so it was to both of them):
Got your refund message but I still want to put you together with Stephen Crothers; I’ve sent you several of his physics/cosmology presentations. I can hardly imagine a more interesting talk: the two of you, maybe via your chat room…
Let’s put this big bang nonsense to rest, at least on your website.
On the same day I got a 160 word email from Dr. Farrell that I will not reproduce here, since it does get personal and I agree that personal stuff shouldn’t be aired in public, unless there is a ‘truth’ reason to do so. Suffice to say that Dr. Farrell has banned me from posting comments on his site and considers my quoting him (in my blog) a ‘cheap and smarmy’ attempt to ‘count coup.’
Further, and I only quote to reflect the level of outrage, Dr. Farrell considers my quotes to be ‘one of the lowest things a person can do.’
I assume that – at least in this universe – reproducing one’s own emails is allowed, so here’s my response:
Sorry, in this case you don’t get the last word, you flaming hypocrite. [Had I given myself a day to cool down, I’d have eschewed that last bit.]
Re your ducking my question I could have written, ‘Doctor Farrell ducked my question’ instead of quoting it: “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.’
You’re upset about my quoting THAT? Really? No you’re not. (If some shmuck coughs up 12 bucks he can ask you a question that you answer publicly on your chat room — if YOU pick the question. That’s fine? THAT’S intellectual honesty?)
Or how about your response to my dinosaur/gravity email? You wrote that you don’t buy that theory but you thank me for the heads up. If I’d paraphrased like this, rather than quoting, would that be okay? Are you getting my point?: Your ‘personal’ emails [that he was upset about]? Give me a fucking break. Here’s personal, an example out of my imagination: ‘My sex life isn’t going well, Allan, and I’m upset about it.’ Dinosaurs and gravity is not personal.
What you’re REALLY upset about is that I exposed an error in your book: that a planet with more gravity would have giant creatures. THAT is a mistake and it’s in print in your book and rather than correct it (like in your blog) you decided to go the denial route, then take it out on me; kill the messenger. What you should have done is thank me for the information.
You accuse me of ‘counting coup’ in my quoting of you. What you really mean is that you came off badly in our exchange and your massive ego responded by copping a superior attitude. ‘Counting coup?’ You think this is some fucking GAME?
You’re a public figure, DOCTOR, in this alt media mess we have, aren’t you? Not only do I think it’s OKAY to quote a couple one-sentence emails that display your (apparent) ignorance of how the world really works, I consider it my DUTY. Got that? If not: You have chosen to duck answering vital questions on the subjects of your writings – ducked in person and by correspondence – and I consider it a breach of intellectual ethics that you have done so.
In this insane world where literally everything we are told by the media is some sort of lie, you are accusing me of a breach of ethics by exposing some bits of truth? And for that you exclaim that i’ve done ‘one of the lowest things a person can do’…? Yeah, I just quoted your (last) email. Sue me.
You think this is about YOU, you egomaniacal dolt? [I would’ve left that one in.] I’m writing a series of essays regarding the fact that NO ONE from the SSP conference has responded to my questions. NOT JUST YOU. Are you a limited hangout, Doctor? Or a useful idiot? Which one? It’s one or the other. Ditto the dozen others who refuse to deal with my questions. That’s the issue my essays deal with. Or haven’t you figured that out yet? IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.
What it’s about is PEOPLE LIKE YOU who – with their lies of omission — allow a phony, quasi-religious view of how the world really works to be foisted upon humanity.
THAT is ‘the lowest thing a person can do.’
I assume your email about my film is not part of your outrage at my quoting you. Subtracting that, how many words (and of what meaning) did I actually reproduce? And what damage do you claim?
Do you also claim damage from my description of our brief meeting at the conference? When you bolted rather than answer my question? Is that part of my perpetrating ‘the lowest thing a person can do’?
‘Lie about someone and they get mad. Tell the truth and they get outraged.’
From my last book
Meanwhile, Stephen Crothers emailed Doc Farrell and myself, the body of the email being this and only this: ‘Any time, anywhere.’
Stephen is referring to my suggested dialog about the falsity of mainstream/big bang/relativistic physics, which of course is one of the main subjects of these essays. Those of you who have not seen Stephen’s several presentations really ought to at least check out my abbreviated version of his Salzburg talk:
I should explain what I mean here (especially where I use emphasis):
…I’m writing a series of essays regarding the fact that NO ONE from the SSP conference has responded to my questions. NOT JUST YOU. Are you a limited hangout, Doctor? Or a useful idiot? Which one? It’s one or the other. Ditto the dozen others who refuse to deal with my questions. That’s the issue my essays deal with….
Whaddo I mean? First though, if you’ve just joined me here or for any other reason you haven’t read my last post, I’ll sum up what you need to know to get something out of this series of essays.
I attended the Secret Space Program conference in Austin, Texas, three or so months ago (the last weekend in October). I did so because something was bothering me about the lineup of speakers they featured – all extremely intelligent and well-thought of in the ‘research community.’ The list:
Catherine Austin Fitts
Jay Dyer (a complex case, as we will see)
John Brandenberg (a semi-exception, but more to come…)
Linda Moulton Howe
Jay Weidner (another semi-exception but worth some words, eventually…)
We can now add another to the list: The Dark Journalist, Daniel Liszt, who was the host of the conference. My last post was ‘An Open Letter’ to him, which so far has not been replied to. That an ‘alternative journalist’ would not reply to an Open Letter by one of his kind (surely we can give me the benefit of the doubt on this) – a letter the subject of which is non-communication by alternative journalists – is a matter worthy of investigation, possibly by the Irony Police.
As a further reminder: My communications were in the form of a question and – being used to misdirection in written communication – I felt that face-to-face was the only way to get an answer. Please refer to the last post for details, but the point is that I was unable to get my answer, either at the event or via assiduous emailing afterwards. Although my last essay-post, plus the opener of this one, describes my communications with Dr. Joseph Farrell, the bottom line is that no one (with the semi-exception of Olav Philipps) saw fit to reply in a meaningful way (if someone did reply, misdirection prevailed, even in Olav’s case). This is what got to me, and sorry for the redundancy: No one replied to a simple and, I would submit, really important question.
I ended my last post with the very general query, What’s up?
We are now back to my above reference to limited hangout. As many of you already know, a limited hangout is a person or body of information that is ultimately meant to deceive us on some aspect of HTWRW (how it really works). This is done through providing us with valuable and even provocative new information. The deception is via what is left out, and by the active disinformation mixed in. ‘Whistleblowers’ (Edward Snowden, say) are frequently LHs.
Often in LHs something that is apparently against the person or organization’s self-interest is admitted to, while the real ‘truth’ of the matter is held back; admit you did something bad when the truth is horrendous. ‘So-and-so is a bad boy but since he admitted to it there’s nothing more to see!’
A classic LH was the 1970s Church Committee saying that the JFK assassination was ‘likely a conspiracy,’ and that Lee Oswald ‘didn’t act alone.’ Although the very question ‘Did Oswald act alone?’ is itself a LH, in that it assumes Oswald was a knowing part of the JFK conspiracy at all, the findings of the committee appeared to be an admission (that the Warren Commission was wrong), misdirecting us into believing deeper untruths about the assassination.
LHs are generally formal government (one arm of TPTB) operations, although you’ll find the technique on all levels of information dissemination, including personal. (I had a girlfriend who thought she was a master at it, until the sheer number of ‘minor’ transgressions she would admit to tipped me off.)
My view is that the ‘alternative media’ is largely limited hangout. If pressed for a number, I would guess at least 80%. (Keep in mind some wisdom from L. Lenin: ‘The best way to deal with the opposition is to run it ourselves.’)
Those few who are still hanging in with this blog might remember that my last entry (before the recent two) was well over three months ago. My ‘silence’ commenced immediately after the SSP conference, which ended on November 1 (2015). I don’t enjoy writing as much as I used to and most days will find a ‘legitimate’ reason to put it off until ‘tomorrow.’ But writing an essay the main point of which contains negative subtext regarding people towards whom I have no malice is especially difficult. Double the difficulty when the folks I’m examining have – to one extent or another — enlightened me on matters of import. (Hypocritical outrage, as in the case of Dr. Joseph Farrell, tends to allay this doubling of difficulty.)
So I kept putting it off. That so many of you continued to send me $3.25 a month (‘gas money’) finally guilted me into getting on with it. (Thank you, by the way. I feel better, having gotten back into the writing habit, although my prose – like my surfing – isn’t what it used to be.)
Some of you will remember my posts on James Corbett, wherein I pointed out that his 23 repetitions of ‘Flight 77 hit the pentagon’ in a formal Truther convention presentation was inarguable proof of his LH status. It took me two years of sitting on that information before I finally had had enough of his 9/11 misdirection and spilled the truth as I see it.
I have to quickly add that I am not accusing Dr. Farrell plus those on my above list of LH; not per se. I am saying that something is wrong and whatever it is somehow involves LH. I am saying that given my 80% estimate of alt media LHs, it’s statistically inevitable that my list does include LHs; maybe several.
Those folks who are not formal LHs but still disseminate misinformation need a label. ‘Useful Idiot’ has become popular. (Let me tell you: there are a lot of Useful Idiots out there pointing the Useful Idiot Finger at a lot of folks!) I prefer ‘Unknowing Participant,’ or ‘UP’.
It’s possible that the very subject of a Secret Space Program (SSP) itself is a LH, irrespective of any given person on (or not on) my list. Often, a LH will be launched (so to speak) and ‘given its head,’ i.e., it is allowed to be spread ‘on its own’ via the unwitting cooperation of UPs. This is the most ‘successful’ sort.
Point being: As I imply in my final email to Dr. Farrell, I believe it’s safe to say that everyone on my list is either a LH or a UP.
Please keep in mind the subject matters at hand, and which will be a vital aspect of my analyses, for we are really dealing with two distinct (though related) aspects of HTWRW: Specific (science-related) deceptions on the part of TPTB and misinformation emanating from the alt media/’research community. (‘I will define ‘misinformation’ as any sort of untruth; ‘disinformation,’ a.k.a. ‘Lies’, is a sub-category of misinformation.) Obviously, LHs are disseminators of disinformation, while Ups spout misinformation, notwithstanding that the untruths may be identical. Get it? A matter of consciousness…
This series of essays is partially meant to alert you to the general prevalence of LHs and how to tell the difference between them and Unknowing Participants (UPs).
Those of you who have taken a real interest in this crapola may want to do some pre-research, to prepare you for my next post, which will deal with an interesting character on my list, Jay Dyer of Jaysanalysis.com. Jay’s forte is ‘Esoteric Hollywood’, so if you’re a bit of a film buff, Jay’s stuff may be of interest. I met Jay at the SSP conference and had a nice chat with him; he invited me to be a guest on his radio show… then something happened… but I’m getting ahead of myself…
If you haven’t already, you may also want to plow through Sean Penn’s recent foray into ‘environmental journalism’ (I think he calls it) at Rolling Stone magazine: his interview with (formerly) the world’s most notorious fugitive, drug lord ‘El Chapo’ Guzman. (Wait! Don’t plow through it! Just maybe… skim it.)
The thematic/logical threads which connect Sean Penn and Jay Dyer will be revealed in the coming post, but some of you will remember that Penn has a large bug up his ass about yours truly (perhaps he should get together with Doc Farrell). So my usual unassailable journalistic objectivity may be in jeopardy. We’ll see…
All sorts of ‘personal’ issues flying around these days… which reminds me, here’s a video from a couple nights ago:
I was about to send this out when it occurred to me that I should mention one other thing about Dr. Joseph Farrell: His books are important works of research/investigation. (Were they not so, I would be less interested in his… attitude.)
If you haven’t read Farrell I don’t know where to suggest you start. Depends on your subjects of greatest interest. Maybe go to Amazon and read the descriptions: most are in some way related to a possible SSP and the related issue of a ‘breakaway civilization.’
Staying more or less on-subject, I’ll pick a few quotes from the book I’m currently reading: Covert Wars and the Clash of Civilizations.
Referring to the Secret Space Program:
It was to be ‘bigger than the Manhattan project’ and would require ‘that it be managed on a larger scale and obviously for a longer period, [footnote] the longer period required being a function of developing the physics and technologies to emulate the performance of UFOs deemed to originate off world. It would require totally hidden financing of unbelievable scale. [Emphases mine] (Page 105)
…the breakaway civilization were dropping strong hints that the secret capabilities of that group greatly exceeded the known science and capabilities of public society. [My emphasis] (Page 106)
…the idea of an entirely hidden physics and technology… this… needs further elaboration. [My emphasis] (Page 110)
Thus, the breakaway civilization has a very different technology, and science… a vast, hidden system of finance had to be developed… (Page 136)
…there would be a period of the suppression of certain scientific ideas… in the open literature [as in science texts] or by the public, all the while the very same concepts and technologies were secretly developed… [My emphasis] (Page 143]
If any of this sounds too ‘far out’ for your sensibilities, Dr. Farrell’s books are heavy on powerfully germane citations. When he speculates, he says so, and his speculations are nothing if not plausible and interesting.
But, what these quotes also allude to is the direct or implied question of Where do they get the funding? A question that is potentially dealt with by my questions/observations on NASA’s frauds and how these frauds would result in hundreds of billions of dollars in ‘laundered’ black budget bucks (laundered by NASA-SSP-related private companies). Questions/observations that Dr. Farrell not only refuses to deal with but which cause his (IMO) irrational outrage.
Also – to get to the meat of my point – no one is zipping around in anti-gravity crafts with big bang/relativistic physics assumptions. Yet this subject too is off limits in Dr. Farrell’s cosmology.
I must apologize for the redundancies, but the complexities of these essays may distract the reader from my main point:
The idea of a breakaway civilization (a basic premise of the SSP group) utterly depends on the ‘public consumption physics’ I refer to as big bang/relativity – taught from grade school through P.H.d programs, and including the mass media/Hollywood pop culture machine – a physics that makes truly high technology the sole arena of the breakaway group, since their physics is totally different. (See above quote from Farrell, p. 143)
In other words: The physics we are hammered with since kindergarten is a fraud.
As a last question for Dr. Farrell – I’ll be moving on from him in my next post – I would ask, Given that you have written upwards of 20 books, Doctor, was there not room somewhere for this obvious truth?
See the bottom of my last post for links/videos that may clarify my points.
Those particularly interested in the ‘brute’ falsity of big bang physics may want to view these films by Randall Meyers. (A couple hours running time)
Sorry these posts are so long, folks, but, in the immortal words of Oscar Wilde: ‘I would have made it shorter but I didn’t have the time.’