You know who I heard comment on the "erasure of history", a number of years ago? Melania Trump, of all people, in her interview with Hannity on board an aircraft carrier early in Trump's administration.
I thought it was very profound at the time and no one else was pointing it out. I'm working from memory and paraphrasing here, but Hannity asked her how she felt about all the lies being told about her husband. She said, "Well, that's just politics, but the problem is that it's getting written down in history books as if it were fact."
What happened to MH370 was clear within a few days for anyone that had the right sources of information and was paying attention. And no, it had nothing to do with anything "Ashton Forbes" is saying.
What we're seeing here is the fundamental mechanism by which history is controlled: "They" can tell whatever lies "They" wish far, far longer than anyone who knows the truth can repeat it. It is just that simple.
Any decent conspiracy theorists knows "They" control the mainstream media, and hundreds of billions of dollars cycles through that mechanism every year. No one who watches it questions Their narrative about MH370, but how about those who don't watch and do question?
Easy: They spend a couple of hundred K and roll out some dipshit like "Ashton Forbes". For the people that have any possibility to penetrate to the truth, he clouds the waters, wastes everyone's time, and maybe even convinces some people, like apparently Candace Owens. Is that worth the rounding error in any mainstream media budget?
I don't think I need to answer that.
I try to keep my hellaciously long posts as short as possible, so just to add a bit to the nukes thing: H&N and the early testing were clearly faked. but the weapons and power plants are real. I've posted a number of times about nuclear weapons used in just the last few years in Lebanon, Palestine, Ukraine, Russia, and now Lebanon again. You can't believe the static I get.
As for the early days of nukes, it's a bit of an outstanding question. There's no direct evidence, but I would surmise that "Their" script called for nukes as the grand finale of WW2 to usher in the Cold War/M.A.D. phase of controlled history. Since they hadn't completed the engineering, they just faked it and caught up behind the scenes.
(Side note: the evidence is that nukes had been available since ancient times, so they knew it was possible and apparently planned around that, but they just didn't do their homework soon enough.)
As far as covering up an actual event at Roswell, I throw that right out. To accept that thesis, you have to believe that a UFO crashed aaaaaaaaaand all the other stuff I wrote up was pure coincidence. I reject virtually every coincidence these days.
I mean, suppose they found the "Jupiter 2" from "Lost in Space" with a bunch of dead alien Robinsons on it. The military boxes it all up and tells everyone it was a regular old weather balloon. It's way the hell out in desert, in a very rural area. Who would even notice this event, let alone have the evidence to challenge it? They tell "Mac" to STFU and that's the end of it.
It turns out that Ramey was definitely in on the fakery too. It's a bit of a long detective story to understand the precise events and circumstances that make that clear. I didn't mention it, but rather than having the shitstorm end his career running the most highly sensitive outfit in the military, Blanchard ended up a 4-star Vice Chair of the USAF. The Chairman was Hoyt S. Vandenberg, who just before the Roswell incident had left his job as CIA director. Rewards for a job well done, I'd say. I'll have to write all this up one of these days.
The oddest thing about the whole Roswell psychodrama is that they just dropped it right afterwards, and it stayed unknown for over 30 years. Seems like a lot of effort for little payback, but there you have it. It was resurrected in the 70's by Stanton Friedman (who was an asset), and now it's flogged by Kevin Randle (who is also an asset).
None of this takes away from the "UFO phenomenon". But the dynamic you have to see is that every minute interested persons spend on researching and discussing the phony Roswell incident is a minute they do not spend on researching and discussing and getting to the bottom of the "UFO phenomenon". As I mentioned, disinfo is about divorcing you from the truth.
What I find baffling to this day is the fact that some of these events are fake and some are real, there being numerous examples of both types. (Those who argue for purely one or the other seldom address themselves to counterexamples.)
The point is, if they can do certain things for real, then why bother with the fakery? It's hard to believe it's for the purposes of psychological manipulation. Is anyone going to, say, turn in their guns because of a fake spacewalk? Really, few are paying attention to any of these events in the first place.
I think the point was that this guy was much more like the people he was criticizing than the "normal people" was representing.
Donald Trump owns a much smaller jumbo jet than he can afford, but no one breaks than down to normal people levels.
To me, this guy talks like what I think people suffering from TDS assume (or "know", really) that Trump talks like. You know, something along the lines of, "If I do not get what I want, I will burn this whole motherfucker down." No wonder they're frightened and angry, huh?
Plus, it's really off-putting--even to me--when he refers to "my men". You'd think the easily triggerable progressives would flip their lids when they heard talk like that. But no, they need the votes of "his men" so they never take note.
Also, this guy talks about how much money they made during COVID. Oh, you mean that time when all those working people were prevented from going to work, and lost paychecks, jobs, and businesses left and right? How out of touch can you be?
Thank you very much for thinking such a thing would be of interest to people! Want to hear something funny? By "funny", I mean alarming and dismaying.
I started writing about the Parkers and the Parsons to sort of "get them out of the way" before I started writing about more important families like the Percys, the Folgers, and the Coffins.
And I wanted to write about them to get them out of the way before I started writing about the important subjects like Tartaria, stolen history, the Anunnaki, what the Bible is really about, and human consciousness.
I try to do a good job and be complete, so when I set down to research and sort of make sure I have my arms around whatever little subject I thought I should write up, I find it always blows up in my face and becomes much bigger than I ever imagined.
The point is, there is so much that has been left unnoticed over the centuries. I'm pretty sure no one has ever noticed these same things I'm seeing because I've never seen a hint of it (besides "Miles Mathis", and we know his story). It would be a lot easier if I could just create a "link post" instead of "text post"... lol
Haha, good old Wayne Carver? If you listen to his voice alone, he sounds exactly like George Carlin, and if you watch the video it seems like he just walked off the set of "The Sopranos".
This guy is a triple-threat.
not well known in conspiracy circles
You know, I've found this is how almost all secrets are really kept. It's not Holocaust-style "you are prohibited from questioning it", or Sandy Hook-style "you can't publish a book about it", or vaccine-style "you'll get strikes and shadow-banned if you discuss it". All of those give you something to point at and push against.
When it's handled in the way where it simply becomes "not well known", it's far more insidious. Even when you happen to brush up against such things, you may never really "get it" because the way the subconscious works is, "If this was important, people would have talked about it and I would have heard of it before."
"Not well known" comes from "hard to notice". You can see it in conspiracy circles, where almost everything these days is repetitions and additions and variations and examples of what has already made the rounds.
IDK if you've been following any of my posts lately, but the vast majority of the sources are Wikipedia. These things aren't secret at all, it's just that no one has noticed their importance.
I suspected this was true just circumstantially. It was looking like the 2024 Atlantic season was going to pass into the history books without a single major (Cat. 3+) hurricane They have to try to "keep it real" (haha) after making their usual ridiculous bullshit predictions:
EDIT: This seems to have been a very unusually destructive storm:
This reminds me of the position of the enlightened Northerners that led to what we are to believe was the very racist "Three-Fifths Compromise". It was the Northerners who wanted slaves to count for zero-fifths of a person.
The problem we're fighting against is people who hold a flexible concept of who counts as a person.
Personally, I think this was a repeat of the Butler plan (and the Reagan plan, and the Kennedy plan). IOW, a loon with a shitty gun serves as a distraction while the real wetwork goes on.
Think about it: Suppose the Secret Service had actual integrity and competence and trained for any possible kind of shooter. They're finely tuned to react instantly if a shooter is detected. How much of that training involves a phony shooter and a real shooter? I would doubt they've ever trained for that.
In this case, I doubt Routh was ever meant to hit anything. He never fired any shots, and that makes me wonder if he even actually had any ammunition. I'm certain, however, that he was meant to die after the deed was done so that we would "all know what happened".
There's was a deeper plot at work, one that is rarely mentioned. That's the way all good secret plots work, of course.
You just get everyone arguing about the details. Like when in the video, Obama says that Jews have been persecuted for centuries. Well, maybe yes, maybe no, maybe to some extent, right? People would argue about such things.
The premise is wrong, though. There were no "The Jews" to persecute, at least not the way we have come to conceptualize them. They were invented as part of a larger plan. Tel Aviv University professor Shlomo Sand even wrote a book about it: The Invention of the Jewish People:
Sand's explanation of the birth of the "myth" of a Jewish people as a group with a common, ethnic origin has been summarized as follows: "[a]t a certain stage in the 19th century intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people "retrospectively," out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people.
There's much more evidence and context than Sand has gathered. For example, did you know they literally brought back the dead language of Hebrew so "The Jews" could have a "native tongue"? Seriously, how many people actually know that about "The Jews"?
I simply suggest that that these "19th century intellectuals of Jewish origin" had a certain plan in mind. Everyone now talks about "jews = bad" or "jews = good" instead of, "What was the plan for which 'The Jews' were created and used as a tool, and who was behind it?"
Any good intelligence operation had a cover plan. A counter-intelligence agent who discovers the op then proceeds to study the cover plan. Any good counter-intelligence agent asks, "Is this covering something else? What's really going on?"
I like the self-contradiction of the Quiet Period Provision: "You can't try to sort out problems because it might cause problems. We're going to force you to keep any problems you think there may be, and that way we're not going to have any problems. You can sort all the problems out after it's no longer important."
Why do I get a strong Democrat/Commie vibe off this kind of reasoning?
You can also see it was smeared around by hand into a thin stain, rather than draining out into a pool. Also, no shoe prints from whoever is supposed to have "rendered aid" or "recovered the body".
And as always, the empty shoes.
I believe this story was planted just to blackwash Elon Musk for US audiences, specifically Muslims in this case. If you look at the other news content of the site, you'd think Dearborn was a suburb of Jeddah.
What might be surprising to many is that they would make up direct quotes from high-profile world leaders. It turns out they do it with alarming frequency. One of the smoking guns (or guns that didn't smoke, as the case may be) is the lack of a paper trail back to the speaker.
In the article, there's no link back to coverage in the Venezuelan press. Nor is there a link to the report he supposedly presented, nor is a title or date given. Actually, there's not even a byline on the article.
On a subtle but more telling note, Maduro obviously would have been speaking in Spanish. In such situations, if the government considered the material to be of interest to international audiences, they will provide official translations. They don't want jackasses at WaPo and NYT translating "buenos dias" as "death to America".
I remember back in the Trump Administration (1st) when Kim Jong Un made some incredibly inflammatory threat against the US. I went to the official North Korean news agency website and the most inflammatory article I could find was that there was a new postage stamp.
You know, the true nature of Jesus is something I've never really tried to get to the bottom of. Two things: the evidence is somewhat murky, and so many people have their ideas about Jesus set in stone. When there's clear evidence regarding other related topics such as we have been discussing that people have such a hard time processing, there didn't seem much sense trying to pin down who Jesus was.
But with the question being raised, if we think in terms of attempting to explain evidence, off the top of my head there are several areas related to him that are seldom discussed and would point towards who he really was:
-
The dates is his birth and death, as discussed in "Tsar of the Slavs" would cement the idea that he was a real person. Anyone adhering to the idea that he was a fictional character would have to think all that evidence was mere coincidence.
-
There's the strange fact that demons possessing people in the New Testament recognized him. Again, this speaks against the text being some made up nonsense. Who would make that up? Longer story, but demons seem to be the discarnate spirits of Nephilim, and Nephilim in turn seem to be the offspring of Anunnaki and human women. So we get tied back in to the idea that Jesus was connected in some fashion to the Anunnaki.
-
There the famous passage where Jesus says he is "not of this world". Well, someone who is in some way alien would say that, wouldn't he? More to the point is this: when Jesus says he is from "above", he uses the Greek word "ano". This is nearly identical with the Sumerian word "anu". This was a synonym for "heaven" but came originally from An or Anu, who was the king of the Sumerian gods. We're tied in again very closely to the Anunnaki (<- see the use of "Anu" again, since that term means "those who from the heavens came to Earth"?)
-
We also find events such as the Transfiguration of Jesus. If someone thinks Jesus was just a man, or Jesus was God, or Jesus did not exist, then this is simply baffling. If you start with the idea that Jesus had some relation to this race of powerful aliens, then maybe there's a way we can make sense of this incident (although I as yet do not know what that is).
So as far as mainstream views of any stripe, I guess you would say that I do not hold that he was man, or god, or fictional. Interestingly, if you hold with the view that "They" sometimes reveal their knowledge in popular media, you may be interested in this video:
Deleted Engineer Dialogue FULLY TRANSLATED from the Script of Prometheus
It is revealed that the powerful aliens took a human, educated him to be a "savior" or teacher of some type, and sent him back to the human race. The humans punished and killed this educator. Well... sound familiar?
Recall that in the New Testament, Jesus disappeared for 18 years, between the ages of 12 and 30, before he began his ministry. If someone was going to make up the New Testament for any reason imaginable, why would they leave this out? Maybe it's because there was a real Jesus and he was.., not around.
Intriguing stuff, isn't it? However high my opinion of myself is, I tell you I could not possibly begin to make all this up.
I wish there was a place I could point you towards where it was all synthesized into a coherent picture, but it was original research and I've never gotten around to writing it up in a single place. And I've not yet come across anyone else who has put any of these big pieces together. But aside from the main pieces already mentioned, I'll throw in two more researchers (with caveats) plus an Easter egg.
First would be Zechariah Sitchin. Interestingly, I've never read more than a paragraph of his work. When I began, I knew that his main conclusion was that these "ancient astronauts" called the Anunnaki had visited Earth. As I dove into it bit by bit, I came to realize I was coming independently to all the same conclusions he did. Hard to believe that's chance or error, right? So then, as far as I know, by reading his work you can get the basic picture of the Anunnaki much faster and much better than when I took the long way.
The caveat is this: you'll see every shill and his brother blackwashing Sitchin every time his name comes up. Once you realize that the Anunnaki are a big part of the overall truth, you'll understand why They don't want people studying them.
Worse is that all of the prominent Anunnaki researchers--and I could name a dozen--sooner or later devolve into nonsense and bullshit. Most of them are sooner, and this is why they're allowed to talk about the Anunnaki at all. It's its own form of disinformation.
The other researcher is Mauro Biglino. His main line of research is meticulously correcting the bogus translations of the Old Testament so that we can see it was actually written about certain human interactions with the Anunnaki. It's quite stunning how many issues and mysteries that clears up.
Because of the very sensitive religious nature of it, he was always cagey about declaring exactly who the "Elohim" were, but in a couple of his presentations he briefly mentions Sitchin and the Anunnaki. But far worse, a couple of years ago he was apparently "turned". In his interview by Graham Hancock, you'll see he is forced to say that the "Elohim" were only human kings. It's sad and painful to watch.
So here's the Easter egg: My crazy-sounding claim is that Satan was one of the Anunnaki and that he took over the Earth (for some period of time) starting at what we now call 600 BC. Well, somebody somewhere knows that too, or at least knows something about it.
You may have heard of the Lucis Trust (formerly the Lucifer Trust) who are the publishers for the UN. All very sus just from that alone, right? Here's what it says on their page about...
He it is Who has presided over the destinies of life since about 600 B.C. and He it is Who has come out among men before, and Who is again looked for.
You cannot find a single place on their site where they explain how they come up with that date. But I know and now you do too.
Thanks for your interest, and never hesitate if you have any questions!
This is how they make sure certain participants stay in their lane. Remember when Stephen Paddock suddenly had a brother that suddenly had a kiddie porn beef? They just happened to catch up with him less than a month after the Vegas "event":
Vegas Gunman Stephen Paddock's Brother Arrested in Child Porn Probe (NBC News 10/25/2017)
Of course--just as would happen with any of the rest of us--the felony charges magically evaporated after the Vegas "shooting" was safely in the realm of "well-documented violent historical event" which may not be questioned:
Child porn charges dismissed against Vegas shooter’s brother (AP News 7/5/2018)
Fun blast from the ridiculous past: Take a look at the top photo included with the NBC story. It's appalling how blatant the bullshit is. The armed cops have taken cover behind their vehicle, vigilant against the lethal threat. Two bros cower with them in safety. Meanwhile, two other bros--both behind and in front of the cop car--are on their smartphones like they're waiting for the bus.
Off-topic: You know what they never show you about these "forensic facial reconstructions"? How it comes out when they put it to the test. I think it serves to deliberately add to the psychosis that the vast majority of the population lives in. This paper pretty much admits it:
Forensic facial reconstruction under test (Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal 6/24/2015)
Why they don't just show you some pictures, like, "We took a person who died, and handed some of these 'scientists' the skull and some DNA. Here are some photos of the living person and here's what they came up with." They avoid that because it's so ridiculously far off, would be my guess.
Of course, the next logical step will be to tell us that "AI" did it. Can't argue with that, can we?