Long time readers of this blog know that one of my pet projects is exposing state moles, usually of the limited hangout (LH) variety, and especially those who purport to deal with ‘space,’ i.e., NASA, space travel in general, plus what we might call ‘mainstream’ astronomy/cosmology/physics.
From a couple posts back: this is how I lost my phone; it dropped into Gus’s bowl on the road.
I’ve been trying to wean myself off of this, for variety’s sake, lately by (again) delving into the related matter of the biological/evolutionary history of the human species, but a couple days ago I (again) got waylaid, this time by the alt media outfit that calls itself ‘Forum Borealis.’
This guy, a Norwegian who calls himself ‘Al Borealis’, runs a podcast that often features well-known guest researchers of the ‘scholarly’ type, especially those interested in ‘alternative science’, plus one of my fave subjects, the existence of a ‘Secret Space Program.’
The evidence that Forum Borealis is another alt media state mole is varied and is – given the exchange I’ll paste in below – pretty much inarguable. ‘Al’ made the same mistake a few others of his ilk have done, when he sought to ‘answer’ the first observation I offered in his video’s comments. Although Forum Borealis fanboys will double-think their way around the truth, I’ll add a few others to my observation that a the existence of a Secret Space Program (which all his guests rightly believe in) does not fit logically with acceptance of the Apollo missions as ‘real’ (the position of virtually all his guests).
Another observation that jumps out is their group tolerance of the mainstream Big Bang paradigm and all that goes with it, i.e., expanding space, black holes, dark matter & energy, the sun-as-nuke-furnace, and so forth. And, of course, not a peep about Electric Universe and its many implications (which expose for what they are my little list of mainstream science lies).
Perhaps it’s easier to discuss what Forum and his gang do not talk about, or, indeed, even go near. So as to avoid confusion and outright misdirection, the latter especially via commenters who will seek to dodge important issues, I will keep this really simple, in terms of the subject matter avoidance I am referring to:
Number One: Not only Apollo (mentioned above) but the other, and continuing, space mission frauds we are endlessly subjected to, the latest of which – and I have proved this with my videos almost to the point of overkill – is the oh-so-obvious Spacex fraud.
In fact, my first comment was related to this issue, in that Al’s guest, SSP expert Michael Schratt, brought up an important aspect of how the Spacex fraud could be pulled off, although he was not referring to Spacex when he blurted how advanced hologram technology has gotten, and how some of the UFO sightings could be faked. Indeed, this is an interesting thought, notwithstanding that neither Schratt nor Al ever mentions that holograms could very well be how the latest NASA/SPACEX frauds are executed.
If you go to 55:40 in the podcast, you’ll hear Schratt quote the Air Force 2025 Report: ‘The holograph projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in the desired location… the projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking… when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.’ He goes on, ‘According to this [Air Force] report, they have the ability to produce an image of an aircraft in flight projected from another platform and they can do it [anywhere]…’
‘Unsophisticated adversary’? Sound like us, especially when we’re relaxing on Florida beaches watching the latest Spacex boosters do what you can’t even do with a balanced broom handle?
Anyway, I found this to be a valuable observation from Schratt: keep in mind that LHs must give us interesting truths in order to gain our trust. But as you will see from the pasted comments below, Forum Borealis won’t even discuss this thought when it’s put right in his face.
Number Two: The star visibility issue. (I’ll cover this below, in my inserted (in bold) comment observations:
These two related subjects are to be avoided at all costs in the state-mole alt media. Any reader who is not aware that the Apollo missions of the 1960s-70s were complete frauds (they never went to the moon) is either not really paying attention to the evidence or is part of the problem.
Here’s my exchange at ‘Forum Borealis’:
[This comment is out of chronology but it fits here] Shows like your are valuable but we have to pay close attention. For example, you bring up hologram technology. Spacex’s landing of boosters backwards from space with thousands of eyewitnesses indicates highly advanced hologram technology. How else to explain the ‘impossibilities’ witnessed from Florida beaches? They have gone beyond CGI; now we cannot believe our own senses. If you think I’m nuts, explain my video showing a half million pound Spacex Falcon disintegrating into a wisp in a 4 second explosion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGWWe0a8zuI&t=87s I have several others, starting with Musk’s absurd ‘car in space’ fraud. Do you really believe that was real?
Forum Borealis14 minutes ago (edited)
Haven’t looked into this specific Musk project, but when I find time I will glance at your links. Thanks. As you will see, he never gets back to us on this.
[This is my first comment] These various SSP guys believe we’ve been zipping around the solar system (with anti-grav) since the 50s yet still believe in the chemical rocket programs (like Apollo). How does that make sense? Do I have to explain my thinking? I believe many of these ‘researchers’ are state moles. See my blog at blog/banditobooks.com.
Addendum: I’m so sorry that what follows is so boring. But pay attention anyway and you will learn about how alt media moles think.
Because the Apollo programs were hijacked after JFK’s assination and turned into a dog and pony show for the american public – and more importantly: for the sovjets and other governments. Researchers have claimed this for decades – it’s refered to as the paralell space program. Check our shows with Richard Hoagland for details about it. As you’ll see, this is misdirection/drivel. Ask yourself What is he saying here. What does ‘dog and pony show’ actually mean?
Yeah, everyone who disagrees with your approach are agents. In fact, everyone in the world are in on it, except you. He wrote this so immediately (within minutes of my post) that it’s likely he already was familiar with my blog, which is interesting. How else would he come up with ‘everyone in the world,’ which is only a slight exaggeration of my position, based on the long-time history of my blog.
What do you mean by ‘dog and pony show’? I have heard you claim (in this show, for example) that ‘apollo deniers’ just need more facts to smarten up. What does this mean? How about you explain your views on the chemical rocket programs, whether they are real or not. Do you believe (for example) that Spacex is landing boosters backwards from space? This is impossible via the laws of physics. Do you realize that?
Take a look at my spacex videos and debunk them: You can start with this recent one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZDF23wcMVo&t=20s Then go to my playlist and view the other Spacex vids that prove fraud. Tell me how I am wrong. And why don’t you expose these frauds? If you want to get serious about truth, you have to get specific: telling me I think everyone is this or that is straw man.
By the way, you bring up Hoagland? Are you serious? He claims (for ex) that Apollo had magic film that ‘could not take a bad picture.’ Direct words. He is the most obvious state disinfo agent I’ve ever come across. Why not ask him why there are no stars in the Apollo photos — since they had ‘magic film.’ Why can’t they ‘bring out’ the stars in the background with Photo Shop technology? The star visibility issue is the big one — either all their imagery is false or ‘space’ is not what we’ve been told — and you never bring it up.
Notice that he does not answer this question (or any of my queries or points). What follows is all misdirection. Think about it: Why can’t they use photo shop to bring out the stars in Apollo photos? And since the astronauts had film that ‘could not take a bad photo’ (Hoagland’s words), why not in them? The star visibility lie is THE BIG LIE, in terms of implications. That this is never spoken about by Forum Borealis or any of his guests is the reddest of red flags that they are dirty. Or stupid. Are they stupid?
Forum Borealis16 minutes ago (edited)
Last reply, because we don’t have time to discuss with every nitpicker in our threads, we wouldn’t be able to do shows: Q: What do you mean by ‘dog and pony show’? A: A public display, a sharade to on the one hand continue JFKs orders and on the other stick to fossile fuels without revealing the classified hi-tech (it’s in the middle of the cold war, what else to expect? – even now they don’t reveal the contemporary levels reached within even unexotic & mainstream weaponry). Like I said, you will get it all explained in the Hoagland show we did, called NASA Revealed. Does this answer the question at all? Is this not pure misdirection? If so, what does this say about ‘Forum Borealis’?
Yeah, that’s me knee paddling my logboard in… a lake…
Q: “This is impossible via the laws of physics. Do you realize that?” A: Ah, so sorry, didn’t know you were the creator of the universe and had full calll on the laws of nature. Obviously everything is uncovered, gravity isn’t a mystery, and if something doesn’t fit the current model of understanding, then it must be dismissed – despite science NEVER having reached a full understanding at any point in history and is ever evolving. So let’s ignore basic logic and dismiss out of hand whatever threatens the current official understanding, even if there’s phenomenons that clearly shows this understanding to be limited. dogma and theory is more important than the actual landscape those maps try to describe. What utter crapola! I was talking about Newtonian physics, as anyone can tell. The above is pure nonsense. I don’t feel like I have to explain why.
Q: Take a look at my spacex videos and debunk them: You cans start with this recent one. Then go to my playlist and view the other Spacex vids that prove fraud. Tell me how I am wrong. And why don’t you expose these frauds? If you want to get serious about truth, you have to get specific: telling me I think everyone is this or that is straw man.
A: Sure. Just let’s agree first upon how much you will pay me for the time and effort. Can you transfer via paypal? How long should the dissertation you are comissioning be. Any specific criterias for it’s contents? Notice how much time he’s ‘wasting’ with these replies! Talk about misdirection! It’s now been three days and he has not dealt with any of my videos showing that Spacex is a fraud. Why? He can’t. Current space frauds are off limits to the state alt media.
Q: By the way, you bring up Hoagland? Are you serious? He claims (for ex) that Apollo had magic film that ‘could not take a bad picture.’ Direct words. He is the most obvious state disinfo agent I’ve ever come across.
A: Way to go resorting to ad-hominem and straw-man. How quickly your factual argumentation crumbled. Please, at least pretend to have a fact-based case. The reference to Hoagland is merely due to the fact that he spends several chapters in Dark Mission to PROVE (you know, evidence) the paralell space program. Talk about straw man: I never said there was no Secret Space Program. Totally the opposite! So you are free to dislike the man, it’s not about him. Btw, he is not the only one who has done this, let alone the inceptor of the idea – but at least he gives a nice, extensive, fact-based outline of it. So when you don’t understand this crcuial element of a paralell program, and ask about it – I am given you a specific tool to educate yourself with it. This will make evident whether you are genuinely interested in understanding the SSP lead, or if you have some other agenda. Not bothering to update yourself, shows the latter, in which case any further discussion with you is in vain. Again, nothing he says is relevant to anything I said.
Addendum: Just to put on record what I think about the moon: I believe man has been there, but via anti-gravity technology that has been around since the 1950s. The Apollo ‘missions’ were not related to these missions. In this sense they are completely fraudulent. The same is likely true of most if not all chemical rocket missions.
None of this is ever said or hinted at by the ‘Secret Space Program researchers,’ even though a few of them (like Jay Weidner) say it without saying it, such is their misdirection. Weidner is probably the best example of this. The main point is they avoid talking about it. This way they don’t get ‘caught’ in obvious double-think.
Q: Why not ask him why there are no stars in the Apollo photos — since they had ‘magic film.’ Why can’t they ‘bring out’ the stars in the background with Photo Shop technology?
A: Magic film? He explain fully what the problem with Apollo footage is. And he is backed up by people delivering (like Ken Johnston, who we will have on). NASA has destroyed most of the original footage, like we say in this show because it cannot be as easily faked as modern digitals photography. Fortunately much has been salvaged, and Hoagland is one of many who has released this footage. I was talking about the Hasselblad camera film! So this ‘answer’ is also irrelevant. Nothing he says is relevant to anything I say! This is also important in that he completely avoids the ‘star visibility’ issue, which should be the number one subject with any of his Secret Space Program guests! Yet they never mention a word about it. If you don’t know what I mean here, see my viral video on the subject.
Q: Same thing happens with all the SSP pundits. A: If so, all the more kudos to them. You don’t seem to master the art of a constructive, truth-seeking dialogue. Feel free to prove me wrong. Blah blah.
This was a while ago.
Q: I attended the 2015 conference A: The one in San Mateo? I hope you are aware there’s 2 different SSP currents out there: The original one which consists of researchers, scientists, and other relevant folks, who is conducting an adult exploration of this issue, based upon factual grounds. And the the second which is a copy cat commercial con-job (pushed by Wilcock and Gaia TV) – and who base their allegations upon half truths (the truth part is material lifted from the former group), subjective fantasy and/or lies from their messianic cult leaders who delivers nothing but a spectacle that makes the whole issue a bad joke that no rational person will buy into (which indeed may be their agenda), save some lost new-agers looking for a belief-system to sustain their neurosis with. More misdirection. I attended the conference in Texas, as he had to know. So this is still more crapola. See my answer below.
Q: … and when they realized the issues I was going to bring up (similar to my above comments) they cancelled the Q&A. A: LOL! Are you a paranoid schizofrenic or a megalomaniac? You seriously think they cancelled the Q&A BECAUSE you had some challenging questions in store for them?
How did they know? Did they read your mind with mind control tech beforehand? Say, are you a materialist pseudo-sceptical debunker, a blue chicken cult member, or a flat-earther? Since he’s familiar with my blog, he knows that this is all bullshit. As I say below, I tipped them beforehand to my questions. Now he’s outright lying. I’m pretty sure I can smell your paradigm is attached to one of these 3 fails. If I’m wrong, I will be very happy on your behalf.
Q: Will you answer it? A: Sorry, no – I have no time. I indulged you with this answer and that’s it. You can have the last word. I don’t think you are really interested in understanding the serious SSP field anyway, I think your agenda is to push some hypothesis that for one reason or the other is challanged by the SSP facts, hence you need to attack the latter. I hope I am wrong, but that’s what I sense from your inputs. So I can’t waste more time tango with you, I might as well tango with regular trolls. That said, we practice free speech and feel free to spew your ideas all over this thread, so long as you don’t break any laws. Disagreements are not dangerous, they are healthy and usually necessary. He sure spent a lot of time writing (nonsense) for a guy who isn’t going to answer! Actually, his ‘sorry, I don’t have the time,’ is hilarious.
To answer the only non-nonsense of your ‘reply’: As you could have figured out, I was at the Austin, TX conference and made the mistake of asking most of the attendees my questions on the last day lunch break, before the Q&A. I should have realized what was coming when it became clear that EVERYONE accepted the Apollo fraud, which — as I say above — makes no sense, given that they believe we beat gravity back in the 1950s. What I think I’ll do is use your above ramblings in my open letter to you. It’s too precious to let it fade in this comment section. I hope you realize what a fool you’ve made of yourself in trying to answer my serious concerns.
#
Okay. Enough. If reading this guy’s drivel bored you, I apologize, but in order to show without doubt that someone is dirty, you sometimes have to hang in there and see where they are really coming from.
Next post will show you the inarguable evidence that our ancestors were genetically manipulated.
Allan
I welcome Forum Borealis to answer this post in any way he wishes. I’ll not censor anything. He might also check out these posts regarding other of his guests:
49 comments for “An Open Letter to ‘Forum Borealis’”