ep115-Fakeologist Radio RAW

Be the 1st to vote.

Record time: Saturday, July 5, 2014 9:11pm

Guests: Hoi Polloi, Rollo, Banazir, Dusty Ash, Evil Edna, Johnny Clues, Jan Erik, PShea, Markman, Tom Dalpra, Videre Licet, Zach Hubbard, Aral Sea

Topic: Fakeologist Entries and any new voices who want to tell their 9/11 Hoax Recovery Story

It’s summertime, and it’s hot, so the call may be too. Consider this advance warning since most people enjoy their hot summer nights outside and may make other plans.

New sound: the 2 minute bell: if it gets busy, I’ll be using this to allow the call to move to the next on-line guest. That guest can pass, too, if they have nothing to add.

Download

6 thoughts on “ep115-Fakeologist Radio RAW

  1. Pingback: All you morphers | Fakeologist.com

  2. simonshacksimonshack

    What an amazing (raw) international ‘family gathering’ of fakeologists. I love you all !

    Warm thanks to Ab for enabling all of this.

    For some reason, I can’t stop laughing each time I hear the Richard Gage “BANAZIR?” sound sample. It’s a friggin’ classic!

    Merry summer to all

    Simon

  3. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

    Hi Zach.

    Fair play. You’ve been upfront and straight-talking about everything and I’d felt a bit guilty having mentioned this post when you weren’t there to answer, on the call. I hoped I’d conveyed enough positivity about your research prior to that.

    I think I owe you an explanation of what I meant about that post.

    freetofindtruth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/666-roulette-wheel-fully-decoded.html?m=1…

    In critiquing this one post, I’m certainly not looking to diss anything you do. I might be being slow here and I’m not seeing it clearly. I’m open to that. I’m here to learn and I’ve learnt things from you already and sparked a little from your research and that means a lot.

    So, okay. Your post ” 666 The Roulette Wheel Fully Decoded ”.

    You posted this on May 21st I believe, after I’d been on Ab’s show and mentioned that the numbers on the roulette wheel added up to 666? I don’t mean to be presumptuous. I know that you’d been following some of my forum posts as you’d run the numbers over Heysel and Hillsborough. I saw your claim – ”Roulette Wheel fully decoded” and I couldn’t help but feel a slight frisson as I hit the link. I was quite young when I first felt the thrill of the spin of the gambling wheel,

    The first paragraph just really tells us that the numbers on a roulette wheel add up to 666 fair enough.

    Then you’ve done a cool thing. You’ve summed the numbers clock-wise and anti-clockwise.
    Clockwise is displayed. The first three – 32, 47 and 66 is like a mini – Bingo. It could be any numbers you want as the first three, but they go 32, 47, 66. These numbers are familiar. It would suggest it may well have been done like that deliberately.

    Going on 70, 91,93,118 – well yeh. They’re nice numbers but not glaringly significant to me. Don’t get me wrong. 93 all day I can reference it but…I’m already a bit impressed by the 47 and then the 66 but I’m less compelled by those numbers.

    That’s it , for ten seemingly random numbers until we get to 333. The 18th sum and we find 333. Excellent.
    Half way round the 36 numbers we have exactly half. That’s neat and shows there was some care taken.

    Then the only 4 numbers you note among the remaining 18 are – 411, 477 and 555 before we get to 666.

    Then this, which is interesting.

    ” Other interesting notes from these calculations are as follows:

    The 22nd number added was the number ’33’
    The sum of this was 411
    Master = 4+1+1+2+5+9 = 22
    When 36 is summed, the value goes from 215 to 251
    When the God number, 10, is summed, the total value becomes 333
    The 26th number in the sequence is 31, the foundational degree of Freemasonry
    When it is summed the total value becomes 477
    The the 30th number in the sequence is summed, the value becomes 555
    Six sums later, a total of 36 sums, you get the value of 666”

    And then you finish with this which has some tidy intricacies and neat observations.

    ”Roulette = 96335225
    Roulette = 9+6+3+3+5+2+2+5 = 35
    35 is the 34th number added in the sequence
    34+35 = 69
    Roulette = 18+15+21+12+5+20+20+5 = 116
    If you flip 116 upside down, what do you get? … 911”

    And that’s it.

    ”Ladies and Gentlemen, there we have indeed, the roulette wheel ”fully decoded”. Please pay at the door!”

    ”Fuck me Brenda, I reckon I’ve been ‘ad! De-coded?”

    I mean to be whimsical rather than snide.

    That’s the total of my critique really. It’s got an absurd title. ”The Roulette Wheel Fully Decoded”.
    Maybe it’s stating the obvious? ( Indeed, What’s in a name? What’s in a title? Is it that important?) but that is one BIG claim there that surely isn’t remotely justified?

    Or is it, Zachmeister? ( Ab called you that)

    Perhaps that claim from the outset instantly bamboozles me and leads me to give less credence to the rest of it. This could well be an oversight on my part, I think it’s an interesting post anyway. I think counting around the wheel clockwise and looking at the sums was an excellent idea and all of your musings stand as valid.

    It just didn’t really decode too much more than the neat, signature of there being 36 numbers on a Roulette wheel which means it sums up to 666 and the 18 th sum totaling 333, is a very neat find.

    I was interested when looking at the roulette board. Being now a considered ”classic”, I wondered whether the board could be based – like a chess board – or playing cards – on the old power structure. I looked ( in English) for
    KING : 11+9+5+7 = 32
    Then I looked for QUEEN : 8 + 3 +5+5+5 = 26
    26 and 32 are either side of the zero on the European wheel. I liked that possibility. the King and Queen each side of ‘The House’. An accepted ‘zero’. A magic – nothing . The house ‘edge’.

    What else could be there I wondered? I couldn’t find anything readily.

    If the single zero , hadn’t have been placed there, the sequence of numbers would obviously be different. The original roulette wheel had a zero and a double zero. I think in the position that the ‘American Roulette Board’ retains : a zero and a double zero between the 2 and 28 and 1 and 27.

    www.roulette-lounge.com…

    c1.staticflickr.com…

    Not until later, apparently did the standardised European wheel that’s used today become popular. The devil reference here is duly noted – was it for us? This was the time it was changed. A hand is not questioned at this point. It was redesigned says Wonkpedia:
    ”In the 19th century, roulette spread all over Europe and the U.S.A., becoming one of the most famous and most popular casino games. When the German government abolished gambling in the 1860s, the Blanc family moved to the last legal remaining casino operation in Europe at Monte Carlo, where they established a gambling mecca for the elite of Europe. It was here that the single zero roulette wheel became the premier game, and over the years was exported around the world, except in the United States where the double zero wheel had remained dominant. Some[who?] call roulette the “King of Casino Games”, probably because it was associated with the glamour of the casinos in Monte Carlo.

    A legend says that François Blanc supposedly bargained with the devil to obtain the secrets of roulette. The legend is based on the fact that the sum of all the numbers on the roulette wheel (from 1 to 36) is 666, which is the “Number of the Beast”.

    en.wikipedia.org…

    It would appear this mid 19th century European re-modelling ( the one your article studies) was a good time to play with the numbers. Your summing 18 numbers -half way -and finding 333 was at the very least revelatory of due care there in the re-design – certainly no coincidence, I’d say.

    Perhaps that is the extent of it. A few tweeks. Even up the numbers. Put in the apparently relevant 47 and then 66, A few masonic inside number tricks…555 neatly there…

    Yeh, thinking about it, your claim to have ‘Completely Decoded’ the wheel doesn’t seem that mad now…really…
    in that perhaps there isn’t really that much to it…

    Thanks for making me think more about it and for your energy and being open to the exchange of ideas Zach . I look forward to further research.

    Tom

Leave a Reply