(Un)Limited Hangouts

As many of you have figured out, my exposé on the Spacex Falcon Heavy launch of February 6^th is meant to do double duty. On the face of it, that we have been bamboozled still again by the PTB, this time by ‘NASA with a new face’ (Elon Musk), is itself worthy of ‘front page’ and continuing coverage. I hope you agree here and also agree that this ‘space fraud’ has possibly profound implications, depending on what comes next, and depending if an ancillary benefit (of the fraud) was to hide something about… the reality we live in. Also, if the launch itself was somehow faked, we can consider ourselves warned of the technological advancements in visual chicanery since 9/11. These matters are worth serious attention, IMO.

The other matter is the deafening silence on the fraud from the ‘alt media’; I have gone way out of my way making sure that certain ‘names’ cannot claim ignorance. I have a list of 30 that I have emailed with my evidence. None of them, not one, has responded appropriately to my missives – most have not responded at all — and of course none has gone public exposing the fraud. It’s time to get down to business on this.

You all know about ‘limited hangouts’ (LH), I assume, but just in case, I’ll sum up the concept: A limited hangout is a person, group, or body of information that is ultimately meant to deceive us on some aspect of HTWRW (how the world really works), usually accomplished through making public valuable and even provocative new information. The deception is via what is left out, and by the active disinformation often mixed in. ‘Whistleblowers’ (Edward Snowden, say) are frequently LHs.

(The term originated in the spy biz. For an indication of how ‘times have changed’ I’ll refer you to the first paragraph from Wikipedia on the subject:

‘A ‘limited hangout’… is, according to former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Victor Marchetti, “spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.”^[1][2]

The bold is mine: In the beginning, limited hangout was limited to the ‘spy vs. spy’ game. Now the ‘victim’ of LH deceit is ‘the public,’ i.e., you and me. That the above ‘slip’ got through Wiki’s PTB screeners is significant also; nowadays even ‘they’ consider it a given that the Intel game is largely one of PR, aimed at the public.)

Often in LHs something that is apparently against the person or organization’s self-interest is admitted to, while the ‘truth’ of the matter is held back; admit you did something bad when the reality is horrendous. The proclamation (often made by the alt media) that ‘Oswald didn’t act alone!’ is a classic limited hangout, not only for what is left out but for the subtle disinformation in the finding itself, since the actual evidence indicates that Oswald didn’t fire a shot that day. (The very question, ‘Did Oswald act alone?’ is exactly analogous to the old one, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ in that it assumes that which must be proven.)

Wikipedia adds ‘modified limited hangout’ to their definition, saying that even the ‘good’ info is sometimes… not good. Okay, sometimes LHs lie about everything, but this usually becomes obvious (to the public); the LH becomes less successful via distrust.

The most obvious LH agents (‘agent’ meaning a paid operative who knows very well what he/she is doing) are the media. Over the last few decades the mainstream media has become a caricature of LH (too many of us know they’re lying and doing so about virtually everything), so the ‘alt media’ has taken over the LH biz. This is the point of this post.

I should add that in LH there are levels, with the lowest aimed at the most naïve: I refer to those who think, say, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! is ‘alternative,’ in the sense of truth-telling. (Amy won’t even own up to 9/11 and rarely questions hilariously obvious false flags/hoaxes like the Boston Bombing, Sandy Hook, etc.) Somewhere near the middle (of the LH spectrum) is good old Alex Jones, whom, a decade ago, I used to listen to regularly; now I see him for the LH buffoon that he is. (His exaltation at Musk’s ‘car in space’ went over the top, with AJ referring to Musk as a classic ‘American genius,’ and on and on.)

On the high end of the spectrum are extreme cases like Jim Fetzer, who apparently is ready to expose anyone and anything and usually seems to provide the necessary evidence. I’ve known Jim for many years, have had drinks with him, and appeared on his show a bunch of times. Yet I am now 90% sure he is a LH. How? A lot of little things but his unequivocal support of Donald Trump was the ultimate giveaway. Indeed, the 2016 election was the ultimate red flag. Any real student of history (one who follows the evidence) who didn’t see Trump (as a puppet no different from Obama) coming a mile away is either severely mentally challenged (too much so to run a radio show or website) or a LH. (In my ‘imaginary PTB round table’ post I summed it up by a character saying, ‘Okay, the next president has to be the ‘opposite’ of Obama, and it has to look like we were both surprised and angered at the outcome.’ Can you not picture it going exactly like this?)

Jim Fetzer was one of the alt media names I contacted with my evidence; he never responded (in the past he’s always answered my emails). Two of you guys contacted him with my links suggesting I be on his show to expose the Spacex fraud; he didn’t answer them either.

Point being, and you really can take this to the bank: It doesn’t matter how ‘explosive’ the genuine truths someone has exposed: they still can be and probably are LHs. Miles Mathis is another example here. See my Open Letter to him. One of MM’s ‘good’ LH ‘truths’ was exposing the Manson/Tate murders from 1969 as frauds (there were no actual murders). It was a very effective way of gaining trust; for a while it worked with me.

LHs are often very subtle and skillful; some are masters of NLP. (As I very briefly define NLP: A highly manipulative use of language wherein a lie is planted in the victim’s subconscious while the apparent subject is something else altogether. The best single example I can think of is still James Corbett’s speech at the Kuala Lumpur 9/11 Truth wingding in 2012.)

A successful LH will have more than one function. It will tend to curtail further investigation/curiosity, keeping potentially devastating information safe. (A big time LH was the Church investigations of CIA activities in the 1970s, which was actually run by G.H.W. Bush as CIA director. The information exposed was ‘shocking’ enough that the ‘family jewels’ (a CIA term) – the agency’s involvement in the JFK assassination being just one – were left untouched.

Since the dawning of ‘the age of information’ (the Internet) LHs have also acted as a way of keeping track of the population’s knowledge base – who knows what and how are they likely to react to what they know? The different ‘levels’ work well here: along with artificial intelligence and unlimited data storage — the latter referring to every online keystroke of everyone on the planet – the various LHs (exposed or supported by the alt media) are a way of testing the populace’s tolerance for blatant lies and hoaxes. I’m quite sure that the Musk/Spacex fraud was partially (or largely) a data-gathering exercise regarding technology and our willingness to swallow absurd imagery.

It’s worth mentioning here that among the PTB are almost certainly factions that disagree – with methodology if not ultimate goals – and which can cause escalating LH ops, as the factions vie for the upper hand. In its simplest interpretation, the Snowden revelations may be seen as a CIA attempt to embarrass the NSA, possibly for being stingy with the database Snowden blew the whistle on (to anyone paying attention his revelations were old news). The ‘Pedogate’ (or ‘Pizzagate’) scandal was possibly a more significant example, involving a PTB disagreement over occult obsessions: Assuming that Wikileaks is a limited hangout (which I definitely do assume), Pedogate can be seen as a major move of one faction against the other – the leaked emails were incredibly incriminating and certainly caused problems for the occult-obsessed faction (a real potential for bringing down powerful people was missed). I found it interesting to list the alt media outlets that did their best to dodge the issue, as an indication of which faction they worked for.

If you have the time and are interested I’d suggest you take a look at my post on Pedogate and the alt media; it’s long and you may want to skip down to the subhead ‘Pizzagate (pedogate) and the Alt Media’; I go into (perhaps too much) detail to show you how James Corbett and his close LH associate, Sibel Edmonds, blatantly dodge the issue, while pretending to cover it.

I bring up the factionalization of the PTB in the context of the Musk fraud for good reason: As opposed to the Snowden revelations and Pedogate, there is no disagreement amongst the PTB on the Musk issue. Orders went out to everyone on the payroll: Leave the Spacex/Elon Musk fraud alone! (I’ve already explained the flat earth psy op’s role in this.)

Inarguable evidence of this is buried in the subtext of my last half dozen posts/videos exposing the fraud, while all of my alt media ‘colleagues’ – not virtually all, but all, 100% — completely dodge the issue, or even cheerlead it, as with Alex Jones and others. Here’s the list (in alphabetical order):

Marcus Allen@

Joe Atwill@

Dr. John Brandenburg*

Alexandra Bruce (Forbidden Knowledge TV)

Greg Carlwood (the highersidechats)

Michel Chossudovsky

James Corbett

Crrow777

Jay Dyer* (!)

Fakeologist

Dr. Joseph Farrell*

Jim Fetzer @ (!)

Catherine Austin Fitts*

Christopher Fontenot (!)

1. Edward Griffin

Richard D. Hall@

Linda M. Howe*

Jan Irvin @ (!)

Andrew Johnson@

Daniel Liszt (‘The Dark Journalist’)*

Miles Mathis (!)

David Percy@

Olav Phillips@

Jon Rappoport@

Jerry Russell

Simon Shack@ (!)

Bart Sibrel

Sofia Smallstorm

Jay Weidner*

Judy Wood

An even thirty, all of whom I contacted with (inarguable, IMO) proof of fraud in the Spacex Falcon Heavy mission of February 6^, 2018. With the exception of Chossudovsky and G. E. Griffin, these were all people who know who I am and with whom I have corresponded in the past. They got multiple emails as my proofs/videos gained momentum and inarguability – I refer to the ‘car in space’ fraudulent video stream, which had the advantage of being both multi-layered and cumulative. (Detailed in the P.S.) My theory that the launch itself was faked is on much more tentative grounds.

The names with asterisks are those I met at the Secret Space Program Conference in Bastrop, Texas in 2015. These are especially relevant due to the their (theoretical) a priori interest in the subject at hand: How could any of them say, ‘Spacex? That’s not my thing’? They are also relevant because of the conclusion I came to about the conference itself, i.e., that it was itself a limited hangout (LH) operation. (More on this in my next post.)

Those whose names are followed by the ‘@’ symbol did return my evidence-emails (in greatly varying degrees of dodgery) and will likewise be dealt with later.

Those with an exclamation mark (!)… I’ll have something particularly interesting or humorous to say…

For now be advised that this list is ‘under LH suspicion,’ of varying degrees of certitude. The larger significance of this matter is based on an actuarial formula that I have yet to figure out: I know that some percentage of the above list are LHs (again, degrees may vary). If I knew the actual percentage could I extrapolate to the percentage of the alt media as a whole?

What if the percentage is 100?

Allan

NOTES ON PROOFS: By multi-layered proofs (the ‘car in space’ fakery) I mean different realms of argumentation point in the same direction:

The various lighting anomalies are unrelated to the ‘no thruster’ argument (the upper stage could not have gained or maintained its ‘slow spin’ without thrusters; the FH did not have thrusters; ergo fakery), which in turn are unrelated to the observation that the true weather over New Zealand at the time of the pass-over did not match the view from the FH, which in turn is unrelated to the impossibility of ‘delicate’ cloud formations being identical on successive orbital passes, and so on. If any one of the above is incorrect, my argument still stands. All must be false for my argument to fail.

My arguments being cumulative likewise makes my conclusion (of fakery) especially cogent.

CUMULATIVE (The Argument) An argument gaining in force by increase of evidence and of reasons as it advances, each new point having additional testimony for the conclusion. Its strength does not lie in the connection of the points with each other, but simply in their sum. (My emphasis)

Again, if only one of my premises is true, my argument wins. (For example, my ‘light fall off’ premise stands on its own. If the light source (on the car) is indeed only 20 feet away, we know fakery has been committed (for reasons too obvious to state), even though the argument is not deductive, in the formal sense. Several other of my premises are of this sort.