9 thoughts on “Peekay22 makes the news

  1. John le BonJohn le Bon

    There are three distinct issues here so I will reply to them separately.

    No, it’s not.
    I’m personally not comfortable with it because it contains the phrase ” destroy house and assassinate mainstream scientist”, John.
    Dressed all in black, I was mildly concerned the two heroes might be mistaken for terrorists and quoted somewhere as if they were serious. Maybe I’m taking it all too seriously?

    Given that we are talking about two amateur youtubers whose ‘FERO’ videos attract maybe 3,000 total views each, and that those FERO videos are obviously satirical pieces intended for humour, then I have to say yes, it sounds to me like you are taking it too seriously. Just my opinion.

    Regarding the truth bombs, I have personally posted a handful of comments in videos targeted by peekay. I can see the upside and the potential downside in the truth bomb tactic, and will reserve judgement on its overall effectiveness until we have more evidence one way or the other. To their credit, at least the truth bombers are ‘doing something’ which seems to give them hope. If there is anything the so-called youtube ‘truth community’ could use some more of, it is hope; they can be a very cynical and dejected lot at times.

    Regarding the apparently pro-Judy Woods ‘flat earther’ camp, my own take remains now as it was in the past. No matter whether you are promoting ‘direct energy weapons’, ‘thermite’, or ‘controlled demolition’, the burden of proof remains on the party making the claim. Are these people providing evidence for their claims about 9/11? If not, then why would any genuine researcher take what they say on this topic seriously?

    It seems to me that a sizable percentage of ‘truthers’ and ‘researchers’ spend as much time listening to their peers in the hope of finding things to complain about, as they do compiling/displaying their own original content and information. To what end? What is the benefit of this? If I were to point out every time a fellow (ostensible) truth-seeker, on youtube, cluesforum/fakeologist or elsewhere, said or did something which I thought could potentially ‘harm’ the ‘movement’, or which I thought was factually incorrect, I would scarcely have enough time to scratch my backside, let alone work on my own research and content. Perhaps there exists a group who would prefer I waste my time publicly calling out and complaining about others within the ‘movement’.

    If such a group exists, do they have my best interests at heart? Or yours? Where is our time better spent? Focusing on the issues/styles where we disagree, or collaborating on exposing the lies we are all being told? These are not rhetorical questions. I am genuinely interested to hear what people have to say. For me the answers are obvious but, then again, a lot of things are very obvious to me now which other people still cannot apparently see, so perhaps I am (as usual) in the minority on this one.

    1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

      It seems to me that a sizable percentage of ‘truthers’ and ‘researchers’ spend as much time listening to their peers in the hope of finding things to complain about, as they do compiling/displaying their own original content and information.

      Thankfully I don’t think I fall into that category as evidenced by my efforts on this site over a period of time.
      With that in mind, I think I’m entitled to pass comment on a video ab has posted, if something in it makes me feel uncomfortable.
      In that way we can hopefully collaborate and go forward, as you suggest.
      This doesn’t have to be a fight or a ‘War’.

      That’s my whole point really. Those guys made a joke video talking about blowing up a house and assassinating a mainstream scientist because they taught our children about Gravity,
      As I understand the fraud of it, the vast majority of mainstream scientists are dupes and as such are innocent.

      To go forward intelligently I suggest we do collaborate and talk about how we present these things.
      No big deal.

      On the Judy Wood issue, you say-
      Are these people providing evidence for their claims about 9/11? If not, then why would any genuine researcher take what they say on this topic seriously?

      Well, precisely. I’m saying we’ve looked at Judy Wood’s evidence here and we find it to be bullshit and over time and through experience have come to understand her as a mainstay of mainstream controlled opposition, regarding 9/11.
      I’m asking you just that. How can we take this apparent ‘flat earther camp’ seriously if that is their firm position on 9/11 ?

      1. John le BonJohn le Bon

        I’m not asking you to take them seriously on 9/11 (or on any topic for that matter). I don’t even ask people to take me seriously. All I do ask is that people who publicly claim I am incorrect on any given point provide evidence and/or reasoning for their claim. It would be time-consuming enough simply trying to defend myself from criticism; I have little to no interest in defending others. Cheers.

  2. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

    Truth bomb ? It doesn’t sound very nice to me.

    They picked a vulnerable looking person and a sensitive subject – a Sandy Hook mother and child death – and went blundering in with insults and suggestions of violence.

    Mmm, no thanks there, boys. You give alternative theorists a bad name.

    Whatever next ? Perhaps a Truth Poison attack ?

    1. wanda

      What would you suggest Tom? Treating them with kid gloves and asking them nicely and politely to stop stealing our reality… stop robbing us blind and making a mockery of our justice and political systems? They own and control the message… and why does this hit the news? It hits the news so people trying to get the truth out get clubbed over the head by people under the spell of the media. There is a war on us… one in fifty children have some form of autism as of 2013 statistics. Those stats are not pulled out of thin air either… we can see this with our own eyes. Yet, the supreme law of this land says there is no connection to vaccines. They are inuring our children… how is it possible to be dispassionate about that?

      1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

        Passionate is good Wanda, but I don’t approve of calling it a ‘bomb’.
        It’s all a bit Alex Jones iNFOWARS.

        Ab’s fakeologist alert and a less aggressive approach to a mainstream outlet is what I’d suggest.

        Here’s another example of some apparent activist media I was dubious about.
        This silly video by two notable ‘flat earthers’ includes the line ‘ destroy house and assassinate mainstream scientist’ as the two faux ninjas dressed all in black disappear in to a hole to perform their mission.
        I’m not happy with that language, either. It slips through with the joke voice, but it’s suggestive of murder and I don’t think that’s cool.

        1. John le BonJohn le Bon

          So we can be clear, Tom, you are ‘dubious’ about the Flat Earth Rebel Outpost video you linked to because it includes a satirical ‘ninja’ sketch featuring the word ‘murder’? Is that a fair summation?

          1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

            No, it’s not.
            I’m personally not comfortable with it because it contains the phrase ” destroy house and assassinate mainstream scientist”, John.
            Dressed all in black, I was mildly concerned the two heroes might be mistaken for terrorists and quoted somewhere as if they were serious. Maybe I’m taking it all too seriously?
            I thought that Peekay’s ‘truth bomb army ‘ sounded a bit clumsy and overly aggressive including suggestions of violence. When quoted out of context, my fear is that this type of language might portray the alternative ‘voice’ in a bad light and ultimately might not help their cause .
            Notably, they made the Seattle Times and there was David Weiss again, quoted and name checked.
            He’s still pushing Judy Wood as are the Morgile, Matrix Decoded. and now Bob from Globebusters and Patricia Steere.
            This is a severely limited hang-out on a big issue, as most people around here see it, I think, John.
            Can we agree that all these characters are on the wrong track, there?

Leave a Reply