Dallas Goldbug debunked

Be the 1st to vote.

Good effort by contributor K Hammad. It needs a few links in the description and perhaps more explanation about how Dallas Goldbug’s confusion works on the subconscious, but it’s a good start for talking.

I believe the samplings were taken from a past hoaxbusterscall.com with Frank the salt guy, and from Gwynned from one of my calls. They’re proof how well Dallas Goldbug’s confusion works.

Hoi helps explain:

Most likely, “Dallas Goldbug” is closer to the people who made it than he acts in his offensively stupid videos. Probably, there are different “channels” which pour out the simulated world of the Recubophiles. Dallas Goldbug‘s job is to “analyze” the videos poorly, pretending they are real people connected to real situations, and lead people into the limited hangout of hoping we can catch these phantom identities and punish them – when they are nothing but specters.

If this “yelling boy” video even exists outside of the Dallas Goldbug channel, and is shown on the news media, the news’ job is to let it sit with no comment … or perhaps a critical comment on how crazy he looks as a “real person” or how honorably mad he looks as a “real person” or even just offer no comment at all. Perhaps John Stewart will quip some monkey shit about the sim in the hopes that people absorb it trustingly.

cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?…

No tags for this post.

53 thoughts on “Dallas Goldbug debunked

  1. MATWthegulo

    I have to agree with Frank , in that nowhere here can I see a clear debunk of DGB’s claims. Nor anywhere else on the internet except at shill channels. My request for the participants of this page is just to help me out.
    For an outsider of this debate it seems like you actually do try to avoid discussing the details of DGB’s theories, rather than inviting to a dialogue based on curiosity.

    Like the protection of Simon Shack is based on his integral production of comparative evidence, any attack on DGB and his points should then be disproved on the lack thereof – and nothing else matters.

    What is the main clue to project in order for the “derailed” audience of DGB to step out of his Matrix?

    Where does any of DGB’s compilations conflict with the views presented at Cluesforum?

    Just because something is regarded as bogus by an alleged majority, does it mean to you that straight answers with correct references will somehow commemorate these seemingly false claims? Does it not matter what the sheeple see when they first try to put together two and two?

    Like the recently mentioned Elton John / Kevin Rudd similarity (KHam radio ep 22), I could go in and check the alleged public dates of both. In fact the years Rudd started entering major politics, Elton John had a long period of personal problems, illness, voice tear, operation of vocal cords sex scandals and finally rehab. His entire persona as an artist has indeed gone through a tranformation across a timeline in which it would be feasible to phase between characters. Is it beyond any fakeologist’s work ethics to at least dispute the concrete facts claimed by such stories?

    I respect that Cluesforum and Fakeologist like to keep their places tidy enough, but this thread is still a mess against your favor, as far as I am concerned. It’s even much more recent than all the so-called debunking videos on YouTube.

    I’m not endorsing anyone, only compelled by the unwillingness shown here to deal with a problem reasonably and effectively.

    Please give it a shot.

    Looking forward to your response
    MATW

    1. anounceofsaltperday

      Hi Matw,

      it is of course very pleasing to read someone else applying a little heat to this group that behaves like apologists for Godlike Productions.

      The exquisite pleasure I got from hearing Videre say words to the effect of “I wonder what Simon Shack will make of all this?” . Yes, let us all kowtow and tug our forelock to Simon Shack, for were we to be cast out from his Church of 911 Retraumatisation then our lives would indeed be bleak. Without social proof and acceptance from the “Church of Serious Conspiracy Researchers” (the CSCR) our lives are worthless, meaningless and without form drifting on the void.

      Another exquisite moment was listening to our apostolic epitome of the CSCR tell me that Jodi could not be Julia Gillard because, lets face it, doesn’t have great legs like Jodi. No-one has ever tampered with a digital photograph, no-one has ever worn body suits and no-one could actually have a voice like Julia Gillard. A voice that is reminiscent of Meryl Streep playing the role of Lindy Chamberlain… “a din goes gort moy baaaay boeeeeeeeee”.

      I am continuing on my mission to disprove the work of Ed Chiarrinni aka dallasgoldbug and his site www.wellaware1.com. So far though, he has an impressive strike rate:

      1. He was the first to identify the use of dummies in the Columbine shooting hoax, as recently acknowledged by Markus Allen
      2. He was the first to realise that the JFK assassination did not take place and that the Zapruder film was made later.
      3. He was the first to identify that Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are roles being played by actors

      All of his claims are easily disprovable and they are actionable. His site is media. This cult of the CSCR with all their claims of being able to debunk media fakery should have no trouble despatching Ed to dustbin. And yet….

    2. Suzi

      I don’t know what to think of any of these characters….I do know that I learned about the Greenberg family from DGB and that turned out to be the real deal. For a couple of years I followed them and proved to my own satisfaction that they were indeed a real acting family they we watch on the evening news unknowingly. I was reluctant to start looking at professional actors as stand ins for politicians and government officials but after another couple of years of independent research I can positively say that Mr. Chiarini is on the right track. Although I don’t always agree with him….his work deserves attention and it is the deliberate derailment of his credibility that should be our first clue.

  2. Gwynned

    K and Ab,

    While I am awaiting my apology, please let me extend a hearty thank you to both of you for re-introducing me to Dallas Goldbug! As I repeatedly stated, I had not viewed his work in some time, but you provided me the reminder I needed to take a closer look. And I am so happy I did.

    Nice to see Oprah doing a cameo at Ferguson. I know. She looks a little different without the airbrushing.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2yFmg…

    It’s really a fun game. Trying to spot known actors in these hoaxes!

    1. VidereVidere

      I would love to go over Ed Chiarini’s (“Education” “ILLUMINATED FACE”) AKA Dallas Goldbug’s work. I think it is fascinating to discuss the techniques he uses and would love to enlighten those who are trying to navigate the sea of disinfo.

      He does offer many nuggets of truth along with a huge amount of crazy, which is meant to hook us, allow us to trust him, and then lead us to offer up a bunch of crazy to those around us so as to discredit any truth that we may want to pass along. This method works brilliantly in controlling opposition.

  3. anounceofsaltperday

    “Ninety-seven percent of serious conspiracy researchers agree that dallasgoldbug postings over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading conspiracy websites worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. ”

    hmmm,,,, did I just make up that statistic?

    1. Jessica Davis

      Ok , I know I’m super late to this thread ,but I went to go to wellaware1 and saw one of my favorite sites (fakeologist ) has a thread debunking his work. As a years long autodidact /researcher , I personally came to lean towards Dallas being on the right path , sure I felt some cases he presented a LITTLE outlandish , I thought the biometrics thing really sealed the deal . Anyway , I’m confused by all the people on this thread , a lot of big words and phrases to ensure those reading know they’re intelligent ,has left me feeling like people here are just talking in circles here . So, I said all THAT, to say this: are the majority of folks on this thread calling shill on Dallas , or not ?
      Or, are we (at least more fairly ) claiming that he presents some plausible info , but it gets lost in sea of disinformation ? Not looking to attack , just to clarify . Thanks in advance.

  4. Gwynned

    Frank, in addition to an apology, I think we are owed a nice Thank You gift from Ab and H. After all, this little video with OUR voices managed to engender considerably more interest in this site than anything previously posted! I’m not much of a drinker, but with the New Years coming up, a nice bottle of Veuve Clicquot would suit me just fine.

    1. ab Post author

      I’ll use the donations to the site and get you something. Don’t hold your breath!

      You have helped me understand the deception of DGB, so for that I appreciate the thread.I really didn’t think his information was that effective, but you and Frank convince me otherwise.

  5. anounceofsaltperday

    Ab, Khammed,

    I view this video as a personal attack. You have implied that Gwynned and I have conspired to mislead people. Since Gwynned and I had not had any previous contact and that we made very clear the reasons why we have our views, this is, in my opinion, the poorest of behaviours a human can exhibit.

    You have every right to take my comments and criticise them on the basis of errors of fact, of logic or ignorance. None of these rights were taken up. You have allowed the posting of a video which impunes me.

    I request, nay I demand, a formal public apology on this site.

    Regards,
    Frank McManus

    1. ab Post author

      Frank,
      Here is my apology: I am sorry you are offended by anything you see on this site. My intention is not to offend anyone except those that hoax us. That said, I cannot be responsible for anything I post but don’t create on this site. Since almost every post is a link to a video, a picture, an article, or an opinion, the idea that I would endorse or defend or take responsibility for its content is ludicrous. If that is not enough for you, I suggest you stop visiting the site and perhaps even keep your views private, so they’re not available for criticism.
      Paradoxically, it’s YOU that called ME a thug. I’ll accept your kind retraction of that comment.

      1. anounceofsaltperday

        I am more than willing to have my views criticised. This video maligned me, and made NO attempt to review the possibility that Ed Chiarrini’s view that the person that plays the role of Jodi Foster also plays the role of Julia Gillard.

        You continue to obfiscate on this point. You attack the messenger. You make an appeal to consensus on Dallasgoldbug to SUPPRESS discussion. This is the behaviour of the Jesuits.

        I not only asked YOU to apologise, I asked Khammad to apologise.

        You CONTINUE to justify maligning me, and to DISTRACT attention from the nub of this issue,

        Because NO MATTER how the information regarding Jodi Foster was obtained, the POSSIBILITY deserves our FULL ATTENTION and legitimate analysis.

        If you are ACTUALLY interested in moving people away from this line of thinking, then provide a sensible discussion about why he is wrong.

      2. anounceofsaltperday

        Futhermore, you completely FAIL TO MENTION that the very real outcome of the 911 hoax is that Lloyds of London was so crippled by the payments that it was then taken over by AIG.

        Dallasgoldbug suggests that the Greenburg family were the major beneficiaries of that outcome.

        Dalllasgoldbut names names. Dallasgoldbug identifies possible motives and this highlights possible courses of action.

        Fakeologist simply continues to focus on RETRAUMATIZING people and creating UNACTIONABLE emotion and anger.

  6. anounceofsaltperday

    well it has been an interesting conversation, but this is my last post on fakeologist. Goodbye and good riddance.

    Khammad has opened a smear campaign and is behaving like a Jesuit. There is no refutation, and the appeal to the authority of the nebulous “serious researchers” has disqualified her from the world of serious researchers.

    Ab, your site has completely lost credibility. You may as well shut it down. Your defense of Psyopticon was really a mortal wound but you have continued to limp on.

    This ridiculous episode has finished this site.

    No doubt you will regroup under another pseudonym and I have no doubt that I will engage with your ilk many times in the future.

    And now, I bid goodbye to this incarnation of your disinformation unit.

    1. xileffilex

      That’s twice you’ve invoked the ghost of Psyopticon….hmmm.
      The Jesuit connecton – another symptom of an infantile disorder.

      This ridiculous episode has finished this site.

      I die laughing.

  7. Blue MoonBlue Moon

    The gold bug has bitten this site and there is an infection growing- Like Clues Forum derailing any hint of UFO’s, perhaps Fakeologist.com should immediately quarantine any mention of Goldbuggery- That site/clown is rife with deliberate disinformation and associating with it by even allowing a debunking (which at this late date is hardly necessary) will cause the above bitch slapping to derail useful research into relevant topics of concern- And like fire, free speech arguments can be used as a weapon, so don’t involve me in any semantic arguments- The fallacy fetishists are tiring enough- Harumph!

    1. anounceofsaltperday

      yes Blue Moon… you are right of course. After all, the CONSENSUS is that DGB is a disinfo agent. I really love the consensus system… global warming, don’t have salt…

      If the guy is a fake, then DEMONSTRATE that he is a fake…

      or if you cannot… CENSOR anyone that is open to the hypothesis that he puts forward

    2. ab Post author

      I’m not sure if I can put comment posts into the forum derailing room. Fortunately, most of this forum’s outstanding fakeologists have risen to the occasion and helped show the confused and their errant ways to the unwashed who may venture here. This lively post is quite helpful to the amazingly powerful dgb disinformation program exposure.

      1. anounceofsaltperday

        ab, all that has been demonstrated is that you guys are terrified of Dallasgoldbug and his naming of the Greenburgs, Roosevelts, Morgans and others Don’t mention Voldemort…

        No attempts to provide evidence, appeals to authority, strawman arguments, and all initiated by a video that I perceive as an attempt to bully me (and Gwynned, whoever that is) into “toeing the line”.

        Provide the evidence that he is WRONG about JFK, for example, and I can happily accept your view. I am detached from this.

        However, since his model provides a VERY PLAUSIBLE frame of reference by which I can understand the the events which have and continue to take place, I am going to continue to examine that model.

        You, on the other hand, simply say “its all media fakery” but you don’t provide any ACTIONABLE information.

        But strangely, Prime Ministers resign, Popes resign, and even Celine Dion stops her concerts entirely “coincidentally” to the comments put forward by Dallasgoldbug.

        But hey, I am open to your thoughtful analysis.

        1. ab Post author

          I’m not terrified of his theory. I am amazed that some are convinced of it. Of course, I am amazed people won’t look at 9/11 and spend time unraveling it as well.

          No one is trying to convince you and Gwynned to toe any line. Convincing people of anything is non-productive.

          I don’t have to provide any evidence of anything to anyone. The JFK visual comparison is particularly absurd. I don’t need you to accept any of my views Frank.

          You say the evidence is plausible. I say it is ridiculous.

          I don’t say it’s “all media fakery”. I do say that DGB is either delusional or paid cointelpro, and that I can safely ignore him and his site, which I have.

          Nothing you have said Frank is compelling enough for me to alter my views of DGB. I will continue to ignore him and by extension you when you bring up his “research” and focus my energy on the people that I believe are on the correct path, among them KHam who has a compelling body of work.

          1. anounceofsaltperday

            if this is your view…. then stop your pathetic attempts to bully me into agreeing with you. I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. repeat… I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU.

            You still have NOT disproved the dallasgoldbug hypothesis. Your comments are simply urinating against the wind.

            Khammed started this bizarre bullying. You personally endorsed the bullying.

            This makes you, in my mind, A THUG

        2. khammadkhammad

          Frank, you seem surprised that most here do not support DGB. Have you not read our posts or listen to our broadcasts? Our consensus is clear.

          Get ready Frank, I am going to name NAMES of all the researchers I have personally heard say or read from who believe DGB is a disinfo agent:

          Ab from Fakeologist
          Banazir from Dustban
          Brian S. Stavely from The Dose of Reality
          Chris from Hoaxbusters
          Dozens of members at Fakeologist.com
          Dusty from Dustban
          Hoi Paloi from Clues Forum
          James Sloan from The Dose of Reality
          Johnny Clues from Johnny Live
          Justin Cook from The Dose of Reality
          Kathy from K Ham
          Markus from Truth in 7 Minutes
          Simon Shack from Clues Forum
          1,414 other researchers from Clues Forum

          plus the many other serious researchers I did not name . . .

          Yes I am going to appeal to mother-fuckin-authority, because, in this case, the mother-fuckin-authority on DGB being a disinfo agent are the top researchers in the fakery field. How can you not know that?

          To all the budding fakery researchers out there, don’t be deceived by Frank and Gwynned, or for that matter by Dallas Goldbug (DGB) himself. We have collectively done thousands of hours of research into DGB, and most likely they guy is paid by some agency to do his dirty work. Ya, let that sink in.

          Some of the best questions are:

          WHO paid DGB to mislead us?
          HOW is the disinfo network run?
          WHO is precisely involved?
          HOW long has this been going on?

          The answers to these questions are what we should be attempting, not messing around with DGB shite. But since YOU brought it up . . .

          1. ab Post author

            Don’t think you’ve got the right word here Frank, since none of what I’ve said really fits any of the definitions.

            dictionary.reference.com/brows…

            thug
            [thuhg]

            Examples
            Word Origin

            noun
            1.
            a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.
            2.
            (sometimes initial capital letter) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims.

            Frank, it seems like you’re provoking me to ban you. I really don’t have that itchy a trigger finger, but it seems silly to allow you to post insults my way. You have helped create an interesting expose of DGB, which I think has been instructive to fakeologists in general by some great responses to this thread.

            I’ll leave your account alive, unless others here feel your style is disruptive and unhelpful.

  8. khammadkhammad

    Carole Thomas,

    Good point about debating the evidence.

    What evidence? There is no evidence to debate. This is how DGB works: Take two similar looking faces. Put some red circles on them, and draw some red lines. Now say they are the same person. Does this put the responsibility on me to prove they ARE NOT the same person? Of course not. False evidence cannot be proven true, because the very nature of the evidence is FALSE to begin with. One cannot prove a false thing to be true.

    The point of the video is that clearly, by voice alone, Ian McKellen is not Ron Paul. No further investigation of “evidence” needs to be made.

    Therefore, what Gwynned and Frank, and DGB, call evidence is not evidence at all.

    The premise to the question is false and therefore cannot be argued logically.

    I did not tag the video with Gwynneds or Franks name as they are EXAMPLES of how a certain group thinks, the group that thinks DGB is sincere. If this video picks up speed on the internet, Gwynned will still retain her anonymity, as well as Frank. The other point of the video was to show DGB’s influence on people. Again, Gwynned and Frank are perfect examples of that.

  9. anounceofsaltperday

    This extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence view is NOT debunking. As discussed, DGB has named names.

    He behaves in the SCIENTIFIC manner and puts forward a hypothesis which CAN be disproved simply by having the two characters in the same piece of space at the same time.

    DGB puts forward the hypothesis that there was NO JFK assassination and that the person that played the role of JFK also played the role of Jimmy Carter and that Marilyn, Jackie and Roslyn are characters all played by the same person.

    DGB says that these characters are all played by members of a small number of families including the Roosevelts, Churchills, Greenburgs etc. If this is wrong, it should be easily DISPROVED.

    Moreover, the JFK Fake hypothesis easily provides a more satisfactory explanation of subsequent events and the purported “life at Camelot” than any other hypothesis put forward.

    I for one am just not buying your BS K Hammad and Aralsea until you demonstrate that this theory is false.

    1. khammadkhammad

      anounceofsaltperday, I am assuming you are Frank, the Salt Guy, from Australia.

      Are you aware that serious researchers are saying that DGB is controlled opposition?

      It is so obvious, in fact, that he gets little attention around here. We only bring it up when others talk about it. DGB’s work is so obviously false that serious researchers disregard him all together and we look with suspicion at those who think DGB’s research has merit.

      Do you realize that you are looked upon with suspicion because you think DBG’s work has meaning?

      To borrow a phrase from a serious researcher “K ain’t buying it”.

      1. anounceofsaltperday

        K Hammad are you actually doing an appeal to authority here? You are really a classic!!! Just putting my thoughts here immediately makes me a laughing stock in the minds of the mesmerised, so the idea that you think that am threatened by being “viewed with suspicion” is just a tad on the comical side…

        As it is often said in the land of Oz “take a good hard look at yourself”

          1. anounceofsaltperday

            what community Khammad? you are behaving like a Jesuit gate keeper.

            And what about the voice issue? What is your view of psopticon and voice morphing?

            And what is your view of the JFK assassination? is it a hoax or was it a real event?

            come on khammad.. commit

          2. khammadkhammad

            Being snarky to the good members here is not enough to prove your point.

            “IT’S ABOUT THE EVIDENCE!!!”

            What evidence? I don’t see any. You just keep shouting “I have given you the evidence!” but I don’t see it anywhere. Perhaps you have a website where all the evidence is laid out?

  10. Gwynned

    Aralsea, so people sometimes look alike? Is it also true that these people share the EXACT same facial structure?

    Carole, when you get a chance to meet all these folks and compare them you let me know. In the meantime, I will go with the evidence that is available. Be sure to see if they smell the same.

    No, when I am attacked like this, I have to assume I am right. I appreciate the encouragement.

    1. khammadkhammad

      Gwynned, you are not being attacked. As Ab said, Dallas Goldbug sews confusion. You and Frank are a perfect example of how Dallas Goldbug supporters think alike. I did find it strange that Dallas Goldbug supporters think along the same lines. Perhaps DGB comparisons invite people who are more light-hearted. Perhaps it is something different entirely.

      I make videos in order to explore questions that I have or to investigate patterns that I see. I saw a pattern in what you said and what Frank said. Don’t you think you spoke in nearly the same manner as Frank from Australia when in concerns DGB?

      1. ab Post author

        Alike and the same are two different concepts. Evidence to me would be independent blood tests conducted by 3 reputable labs to verify sameness. Otherwise I’ll use my two eyes and go with their media and disagree with dgb and all his misled acolytes. I didn’t think dgb could convince anyone with his confusion until I heard Gwynned and Frank. Now I am worried his deception might actually work, if I decide that Gwynned and Frank are being sincere. The jury is still out on the last point for my mind. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive!

  11. aralseaaralsea

    The way they say “hilarious” and “hysterical” has exactly the same tonality in their voice. Fascinating. Also the guy talking to Ian McKellen (1:43) looks like Alex Jones…but is not Alex.

  12. anounceofsaltperday

    Hi K Hammad… in what sense is this piece of psychic driving debunking? Dallasgoldbug puts forward the hypothesis that the person that plays the role of Jodi Foster also plays the role of Julia Gillard. You make NO attempt to disprove the hypothesis. You simply say it is wrong because the characters look similar????

    As I discussed on the talk, dallasgoldbug NAMES NAMES. He has still to be DISPROVED. A clever gal like you should be able to EASILY disprove his claims. I have not been able to do it yet… but I have no doubt that you are much brighter than i am..

    Frank the salt guy

    1. Gwynned

      Since I am a named party in this discussion, I feel first of all the need to clarify that in no way have I been ‘influenced’ by Dallas Goldbug and have not even looked at his site since I did so briefly about 2 years ago. I came to the conclusion that both John Goodman and Rob Reiner played roles in Sandy Hook, in large measure, especially in the case of Rob as Wayne Carver, because they acted very strangely. K, your explanation for Carver’s admittedly strange behavior was that he was either on drugs or drunk. To me, that’s an even more absurd suggestion. If THEY are in control of the situation, a drunk person carrying on would be a liability. If he is really Wayne Carver, he should have been fired!

      Secondly, I have concluded that there are numerous well known actors at play, more than I ever imagined, and the EVIDENCE is there, not from Mr. Goldbug, but from Dave J, a friend of our friend Jungle Surfer who has been exposing these people now for a few weeks by a clever face recognition tool that is able to layer one face upon the other, proving that the faces are the same person.

      Here are some examples:

      Ron and Rand Paul are Wayne and Walter Gretsky
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfnEBk…

      Medvedev is Nigel Farge
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hHvYg…

      David Koresh is David Mustaine of some crappy band called ‘Megadeath’
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEAu9V…

      George Takei is Michio Kaku (and, IMHO, a much better actor than I thought!)
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKvZTT…

      Lorde is Brittany Maynard (the brain tumor victim who decided to end her life)
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n1HpP…

      Ed Norton is recently captured renegade cop killer Eric Frein
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=su6UgT…

      I could go on. I stand by my conclusions and invite anyone to provide EVIDENCE (not conjecture or opinion or derision) but EVIDENCE to the contrary. I thought that is what we are all about.

      1. aralseaaralsea

        Gwynned:

        I think there are a lot of people who look very similar, but are not the same person. I will go so far as to say that a person can be another similar character (i.e The Monkees replacing the early Beatles) but are not the exact same human being.

        Rand Paul is the new Ron Paul, yet he is not Ron Paul.

        1. Carole ThomasCarole Thomas

          Gwynedd wants us to debate the evidence. But what is the nature of the “evidence”?
          Youtube footage and facial recognition software.
          Sorry, but that isn’t enough.
          I would need to meet each character in person and use my five senses ( and my sixth) to make such a judgement.
          In his debunking of the 9/11 footage, Simon invites us to compare video footage with our own experiences made as sentient beings in time and space. I am able to make a judgement in favour of fakery because I can’t resolve what I see in the footage with what I experience as a being on/in Earth.
          In the case of DGBuggery and its ilk, all I can do is compare footage with footage.
          Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
          The “evidence” presented so far is not compelling.

      2. smj

        so gwynned, how old do you believe richard dreyfuss to be?

        dave j and his clever facial recognition tool seem to “prove” that he is at least 300 years old.

      3. khammadkhammad

        Do you not know that Jungle Surfer has been kicked out of the ‘serious researchers’ club?

        We had a vote and it was mostly unanimous, 9,999 no’s and 1 abstaining.

        The name of the offense that sealed the deal:

        SPINNING US OFF INTO LALA LAND

      4. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

        Gwynned, those dave j videos are good examples of classic disinformation.

        This Michael Farage is Medvedev one, is a perfect example:
        www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hHvYg…

        Whilst claiming Farage is also Medvedev , dave J also tells us that Farage’s plane crash was staged.
        This is one of those ‘nuggets’ people talk about. If you didn’t know Farage’s plane crash was fake, that’s a fairly tasty piece of truth that you wouldn’t hear in many places.. HOWEVER, it’s attached to the very flimsy strawman that Farage is also Medvedev.

        Farage has a busy public schedule, as does Medvedev. The idea that they are the same person seems an obvious and easily provable absurdity.

        By attaching that idea to Farage, anything else that davej is saying about him is undermined in many people’s minds and alternative theorists are labelled ‘mad’ by association.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.