LINKS: Conspiracy Theory Resources. A Work in progress.

espinolman

"The first hints that the LHC is seriously damaging life on Earth will come from an increase on earthquake and volcano activity."

http://www.cerntruth.com/

Is it really an earthquake machine ! :rolleyes:

themrhubarbs

RoboClam wrote: »

You keep posting about your blog, could you not just have it in your signature?

I just discovered I need 25 posts to have a signature.

So one more after this one and I shall.

Thanks for the tip.

Zaph

themrhubarbs wrote: »

I just discovered I need 25 posts to have a signature.

So one more after this one and I shall.

Thanks for the tip.

We take a dim view of people posting nonsense purely to reach 25 posts. I've deleted some of your posts and I will delete any more I see like this. 25 posts is hardly onerous, so if you can't be a productive member of the site and are only here to publicise your blog then perhaps you'd be better off posting on a different site.

WakeUp

The Illuminati - Volume 1

The first episode in the volume is heavily subtitled when telling parts of the story and for whatever reason be it production or the way the video uploaded, in part, it is hard to read or make out what is being told in some instances.

It is worth bearing with it though. From the 2nd/ 3rd episode onward it changes from subtitles to narration with a v.o including interviews and such to tell the remainder of the story. For anyone with an interest in the topic it is well worth checking out. .

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TApln-SoTsA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TApln-SoTsA

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys0E1oGJx_w&feature=related

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHEeLRoSFSg&feature=related

Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kssveV_n2j4&feature=related

Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZIJud2R8Xo&feature=related

Part 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESTfHZOyg88&feature=related

Part 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RtaV6v7Hq0&feature=related

Part 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSYoklp3GbY&feature=related

Part 10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jN64SkEus0&feature=related

Part 11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce6E14blvEI&feature=related

Part 12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhilYgjR4nE&feature=related

Part 13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2ypQPToFT4&feature=related

WakeUp

I came across these two videos on youtube yesterday and they are interesting to say the least so I thought I would post them. Personally I don’t believe these videos are genuine NWO initiation/training videos or whatever but the information they contain seems to thread the plot together nicely. They are also extremely well produced and the chap doing the talking along with the videos themselves are a lil’ creepy imo.

Somebody from another forum did a little research on the videos and traced the domain registration do a dude called Matt Anderson. They then emailed him and asked him about these videos. This was his reply….

Illumicorp is a parody of sorts. I guess the best way to describe it is that
>I wanted to make a corporate training video for the 'Illuminati' that
>synthesized all of the conspiracy information floating around. If such a
>group did exist, how would they really function? My wager was they would act
>just like any other faceless mega-corporation. It was originally to be part
>of a larger project, but that never came about so I released Illumicorp as
>it's own standalone video.
>
>May I inquire about your interest in the project?
>
>Hope this info helps! Thanks for your interest!
>
>Matt

Hmmmm.

His email address is manderboots@gmail.com

He has his own company & website...www.theblowupmedia.com

“TheBlowUp is a multidisciplinary media group, which specializes in executing the creative demands of both established and expanding brands whose aim is to expose their products and services to highly influential consumers.
Our significantly developed and cultivated expertise comes from the symbiotic relationship we share with our audience. Where some choose to infiltrate and leech from desired demographics; we are credibly aligned with this culture."

When you click on the “reel” tab on his site it brings up this video of shapes and stuff. (link)

Anyways just wanted to give some backround on the videos and the person who made them have to say I find it all very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX7v5N6E7EQ

WakeUp

J.F.K Spells it out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fOkx-k8a5c

alastair

WakeUp wrote: »

J.F.K Spells it out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fOkx-k8a5c

That's neither JFK's 'last' or 'secret' speech. In fact it's not even a speech at all. It's a cut-up of various JFK speeches reconfigured to imply a different narrative. Some of it dates from his speech to the Washington press (not so secret or final then) following the bay of pigs debacle in '61 - and his flagging a potential need for greater official secrecy, even though it went against his natural inclinations.

Or, in short - it's deceptive and erroneous on pretty much every front.

WakeUp

alastair wrote: »

That's neither JFK's 'last' or 'secret' speech. In fact it's not even a speech at all. It's a cut-up of various JFK speeches reconfigured to imply a different narrative. Some of it dates from his speech to the Washington press (not so secret or final then) following the bay of pigs debacle in '61 - and his flagging a potential need for greater official secrecy, even though it went against his natural inclinations.

Or, in short - it's deceptive and erroneous on pretty much every front.

Let me spell it out for you Dock, thats JFK's voice. He is talking about secret societies. The dude who posted the video might have got it wrong labeling it as a speech in itself. It does not change the fact that once again JFK is directly addressing the issue of secret societies, its his voice. keep telling yourself and attempting to tell other people that he is not talking about secret societies. They can just listen for themselves, people have got ears they cant take them away from us and they can hear him address the issue of secret societies directly,"surrouned by a monolithic conspiracy relying on covet means" his words not mine. Good man JFK he had balls, wasnt a lapdog yes man , the last decent human being of a leader of a powerful country the world has seen, cost him his brains but fair play, top man.

alastair

WakeUp wrote: »

Let me spell it out for you Dock, thats JFK's voice. He is talking about secret societies. The dude who posted the video might have got it wrong labeling it as a speech in itself. It does not change the fact that once again JFK is directly addressing the issue of secret societies, its his voice. keep telling yourself and attempting to tell other people that he is not talking about secret societies. They can just listen for themselves, people have got ears they cant take them away from us and they can hear him address the issue of secret societies directly,"surrouned by a monolithic conspiracy relying on covet means" his words not mine. Good man JFK he had balls, wasnt a lapdog yes man , the last decent human being of a leader of a powerful country the world has seen, cost him his brains but fair play, top man.

"surrounded by a monolithic conspiracy relying on covet means"

Have a wild guess as to which specific 'monolithic conspiracy' he was referring to before some anorak decided to do a cut and paste to imply a completely different narrative? Here's a clue - it related to Cuba and concerns over an international competitor who's expanding geo-political influence seemed to pose a threat to the US in '61. Here's an additional clue - they were kicking the US's arse in the space race.

nullzero

Might be of interest to the forum...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie6gJHqkSgc

Oracle

Louis Theroux - The Ultra Zionists

I didn't manage to see this recent show by Louis on the BBC, and unfortunately, it's not being made available on BBC iPlayer (even with a UK proxy!) but it is available now on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTszskhUrd0

P.S. If you're really interested in this topic, I suggest video grabbing this excellent quality video direct from YouTube. The BBC may ask for its removal from YouTube at anytime.

WakeUp

Some videos from John Stockwell. As far as I know he is the highest ranking CIA officer to go public about the inner workings/covert operations of the agency.

JS - Third World War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9VxnCBD9W4

Effectiveness of CIA lying

CIA's War on Humans

CIA Drug Trafficking/Iran Contra

US , CIA and International Terrorism

Biological Warfare & Project MKULTRA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S12T-xVjlLg

CIA Torture in Latin America

CIA in Jamaica

Talk E

This look very interesting indeed, just scanned through so far but will defo watch it in full.
Appears to be brand new. Jan 2011

For over 50 years we have been told and convinced the Moon is nothing more than a black and white desolate rock with moon dust and craters. The thousands of photos released to the public have always presented a black and white Moon. Even the most recent Hubble Photographs of the Moon are black and white. NASA continues to perpetuate the "lie" that the Moon is black and white. Moon Rising is the first film that presents Full Color Photography of the Moon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilOsZyjRvDs

Monty Burnz

Talk E wrote: »

This look very interesting indeed, just scanned through so far but will defo watch it in full.

Apologies if this is O/T, or not the place to discuss this, but I can't understand the logic here. You can stick your head out the window and prove to yourself that the moon IS 'black and white' (well grey really). So the guy colours it in and it looks interesting - well of course it will. He has created a fantasy earth landscape, but it's an artificial creation. I've a decent 8-inch telescope and the moon looks exactly like what it is, a grey ball of rock.

That's like me painting a picture of a unicorn on a photo of Jupiter and asking why they've covered up the space horses.

My name is URL

There are very subtle colour variations on the surface of the moon which are hard to see. Here's an image with the colours saturated so they're more distinguishable.

http://www.rc-astro.com/photo/id1018_big.html

Monty Burnz

My name is URL wrote: »

There are very subtle colour variations on the surface of the moon which are hard to see. Here's an image with the colours saturated so they're more distinguishable.

http://www.rc-astro.com/photo/id1018_big.html

Great link. It sort of makes nonsense of the other verdant green colours the other guy paints. The chemical composition of the lunar surface does vary from area to area, which would I guess explain the differences in reflectivity.

Talk E

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Apologies if this is O/T, or not the place to discuss this, but I can't understand the logic here. You can stick your head out the window and prove to yourself that the moon IS 'black and white' (well grey really). So the guy colours it in and it looks interesting - well of course it will. He has created a fantasy earth landscape, but it's an artificial creation. I've a decent 8-inch telescope and the moon looks exactly like what it is, a grey ball of rock.

That's like me painting a picture of a unicorn on a photo of Jupiter and asking why they've covered up the space horses.

I think that if you photographed anything as bright as the moon you would get the same result, as the light washes out the colour.

Monty Burnz

Talk E wrote: »

I think that if you photographed anything as bright as the moon you would get the same result, as the light washes out the colour.

True, but there's no more light falling on the moon than there is on the earth - there's less, in fact, as we get a lot more light bounced onto us from the moon than the other way around. So that light gray is actually how it looks, even if there are tiny traces of colour there that you can use artificial means to detect.

I'm still puzzled as to what the film-maker thought he was demonstrating by painting it green though.

Talk E

Monty Burnz wrote: »

True, but there's no more light falling on the moon than there is on the earth - there's less, in fact, as we get a lot more light bounced onto us from the moon than the other way around. So that light gray is actually how it looks, even if there are tiny traces of colour there that you can use artificial means to detect.

There is less light falling on the moon but the earth is more reflective than the moon giving the moon more light than the moon gives earth. Earth reflects about 37% of the light that hits it. The Moon only reflects 12%. And since Earth is bigger than the Moon, that makes for even more light just from the increased size.

Why dont you start a "Moon thread" and we can take it there.

Monty Burnz

Talk E wrote: »

There is less light falling on the moon but the earth is more reflective than the moon giving the moon more light than the moon gives earth. Earth reflects about 37% of the light that hits it. The Moon only reflects 12%. And since Earth is bigger than the Moon, that makes for even more light just from the increased size.

Excellent point - stupid of me. I LOLed when I read quite how wrong I was on Wikipedia...

The Moon has an exceptionally low albedo, giving it a similar reflectance to coal.

Talk E

It's a very common misconception, I was of the same opinion until about an hour ago

Talk E

It does beg the question.. If the earth is brighter than the moon, are the photo's we see of the earth adjusted for more realistic viewing ?.

Monty Burnz

Talk E wrote: »

It does beg the question.. If the earth is brighter than the moon, are the photo's we see of the earth adjusted for more realistic viewing ?.

I'd say not. Think of it this way - we're not blinded by the ground when we walk out the front door. And we can take photos of our surroundings when the sun is up, and it looks just like what we see with our eyes. Go to 5ks up, it's the same. Go to 10ks, it's the same (although getting a bit cloudy). I presume it's the same if you're 100ks, 200ks, 10,000 ks away from the earth - looking at it with the naked eye should be much the same as those photos we see from space.

Aha - an excuse for a link...here's the earth from 70,000 feet (I guess about 20 kilometers up):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6cZLfK4Zjk

I think James May makes a lot of good quality TV.

Talk E

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd say not. Think of it this way - we're not blinded by the ground when we walk out the front door. And we can take photos of our surroundings when the sun is up, and it looks just like what we see with our eyes. Go to 5ks up, it's the same. Go to 10ks, it's the same (although getting a bit cloudy). I presume it's the same if you're 100ks, 200ks, 10,000 ks away from the earth - looking at it with the naked eye should be much the same as those photos we see from space.

This feels like a more realistic view.


It's not the pretty view of Earth were used to being given.

Monty Burnz

Talk E wrote: »

This feels like a more realistic view.

That's a cool picture - if we can assume it is 'untreated', then we have a very good idea of what that part of the surface of the moon looks like to the naked eye.

Talk E

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That's a cool picture - if we can assume it is 'untreated', then we have a very good idea of what that part of the surface of the moon looks like to the naked eye.

Of course if the Moon actually looked a different colour than the colour we are so accustomed to, means the moon landing were faked.

I assume it's treated, probably is connected to the video I posted a few posts ago.

Talk E

This looks real-ish. Look at the glow of the earth. When does the Earth not glow like this ?



Then we see a picture like this.

Monty Burnz

Of course, it all depends on the settings of the camera and film in the Hasselblads they were using, and how much light is falling on this part of the moon when this image was created.

Here's a patronising basic explanation of the things you have to juggle when taking pictures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeptRvaaMyQ

They don't really deal with under/overexposure, but there will probably be links to all that stuff in there somewhere.

Monty Burnz

Talk E wrote: »

This looks real-ish. Look at the glow of the earth. When does the Earth not glow like this ?

Then we see a picture like this.

I'd say the difference there is one of scale. The first picture is taken probably from the upper atmosphere, looking through a lot of atmosphere. The glowing bit is the light pinging around in the atmospheric gasses.

The second picture appears to be taken from space. 95% of the atmosphere is below 20km, and the earth is about 12,000km in diameter, so 20/12,000 = 1/600 - the atmosphere is about .0016 of the diameter of the earth. In the second picture, that wouldn't even represent a single pixel :eek:

Talk E

Does that mean we can photograph the Moon; from Earth and the high glow from the moon has no effect on the photo ? I thought we agreed that the glow washes out the colour.. We also agreed that the Earth reflects more than the moon. So inevidebly photo's of the Earth (glowing as it does), from the moon, would look greyish. Unless the were colourised for viewing pleasure.