FAK151-Tom Dalpra

Be the 1st to vote.

When? Sunday, Dec 27, 2015 at 7:22pm

Who? Tom Dalpra, Derealium

Download

 

 

No tags for this post.

13 thoughts on “FAK151-Tom Dalpra

  1. ZalianZalian

    As i stated in the anon chat earlier.

    I dont BELIVE that anyone has technology that surpasses what we know in the mainstream,
    on the contrary i BELIVE technology is way further behind than we think it is.

    Think about it.

    Technology never ever works right, even the best computers have glitches, the best CGI in the world CAN NOT create convincing human faces, They can not go to the Moon, we can not live on space stations, They can not split the atom, they can not reverse engineer UFO’s, and does anyone even know what CERN does? does it do anything at all? looks like a “woo woo machine” to me.

    And yes, you can add spacebeams and other fictional superweapons to that list.

    there are NO superweapons.

    The military still uses tanks and planes, how come? we know they dont care about life, so why?
    It’s most likely because that is all they have.

    The superweapons IS the mindjobs they pulled on you that makes you belive they have force you can’t fight against.

    Its a weapon of mass demoralization. and it is damn effective.

    This is the secret to power, all power, its all fake, its all tricks and illusions.
    Its a sick twisted mindgame courtsey of the secret societies that has perfected them over the ages.
    But if you break it down enough the game always stays the same.

    There is a reason they are called “Intelligence agencies”, they deal with your mind.

    The only power THEY have, is the power people think THEY have.

    500 pages of shiny pictures or not, its all theater.

    (This post is my personal view and may or may not be accurate, time will tell)

    -Zal

  2. UnrealUNreal

    What is the reason for such a heated debate over Dr. Judy Wood? Can we prove her wrong or right? If she is spreading propaganda, to what end? Even if she is wrong about them using some sort of superweapon on the towers, do you deny the possibility of the government possessing such a weapon? If so, why?

    Judy Wood has seduced quite a lot of researchers over the years relying on their poor logic and belief in conspiracy candy. i’m the first one to admit to have embraced her theories at first.

    the reason we consider Judy Wood as a “gatekeeper” is that her research is entirely based on images and film we know is fake and doctored. there is no scientific proof to be learned from cgi video and no “dustification” to be proven from doctored pictures and footage. logically, judy Wood has no theory once we disregard the images and video we have established being fake.

    when it comes to super weapons, we enter in realm of belief. as an example of such weaponry, we have a lot of evidence to prove how nuclear bombs (and technology) is in fact a deception. if we should analyse Tesla we might also find that his “persona” is largely exaggerated and his findings much less impressive than the lore. there is no Deathray or Free (safe) Energy “in the air” to be substantiated (unfortunately).

    Wood also fail mention of course how her “tesla” death ray is fired because it would need to be from space,,, or satellites. with the help of HAARP weather modification,,, wouldn’t this be difficult from a flat earth & no satellite perspective ?

    apart from strong allusions to Tesla tech, Dr Wood rely heavily on “the Hutchinson” effect elaborated by canadian “maverick” hobby scientist John Hutchinson in his private videos and setting. unfortunately, John Hutchinson has been unable to ever prove these “effects” in any lab nor has he produces any scientific evidence other than suspect videos of his feats.

    i’m not sure it is reasonable to hide behind the reading of dr Woods book to discredit her as a scientist and researcher, especially as she has an abundant website illustrating all of the above fallacies and references to unreliable science and evidence. there are also numerous interviews available to help form an opinion of her work, theories and evidence.

    under is John Hutchinson posing (with makeup) in what seems to be an ISS fakestation set-up,, another actor in another studio-setting i’m afraid

  3. Carole ThomasCarole Thomas

    Nice after-Xmas chat. You are right – it’s not worth mentioning fakery or earth-shape at family gatherings. Nobody seems to want to know. Just hoping that during the January sales I will find a knocked-down a Nikon P-900, go to the shore line and be able to do my own investigations:-)

      1. XanaDude60XanaDude60

        Ab, I am a little disappointed in your pre-conceived notions regarding my opinion on Dr. Judy Wood. You make rather large assumptions here when I have never given any conclusion with respect to Judy Wood. The truth is that even though I have had the book for over a month, I have only had time to get through about 100 pages of the 500 page work. I mentioned it on the show only because I am aware Matrix Decode gives her a lot of credit as a researcher. I was honest and simply said I was still looking at her work – because I AM still looking at her work. For what it’s worth I have found more than a few things I take exception with but her overall presentation thus far is not without merit. Who knows what the next 400 pages will reveal? My point here is that you seem to have committed me to being one of her disciples when I don’t even know what I think yet, so for you to make assumptions like this is beyond arrogant! How about you just let me finish the book and when I do, I will tell everyone what I think – and why. Until then please do not make any assumptions about what I think. I have no compunctions about stating what I think – just as soon as I figure it out myself.
        In the meantime, perhaps you could tell me something. Whether the government used a ‘super weapon’ as Dr. Wood asserts, or the towers came down as a result of a more conventional demolition – tell me, what difference does it make? In any event we know that there seems to be layer after layer of hidden meanings and esoteric agenda. Will anyone ever know what the ultimate purpose behind 9/11 was?
        Maybe my question is really stupid and short sighted – kind of like people asking what difference the Earth’s shape makes. If it is, please help me to understand why there is such discordant energy between the two camps of thought on this. Are we not all in agreement that 9/11 was a fraud on every level – regardless of what we each happen to believe the “facts” surrounding that day actually were? I would like to know the truth but I also accept that we may never know the real truth of that day. What does not help the truther community is blindly assuming that just because another may or may not have a differing opinion of the “facts”, that he is automatically a disciple for the opposition. It is this kind of division that our opposition just loves to see. As I stated in a show a few weeks back, it appears to be the very people in the FE community that are doing the most damage to the movement. We need to remember what the larger issues are and that is we are being lied to on every level about virtually everything. We are all truthers in our own way and I am sure we would all like to change the world. All I can say to that is united we stand, divided we fall. Please keep that in mind before you become inclined to separate yourself from those who are on your side.
        – Bob

        1. ab Post author

          Bob, I’ll be patient with you. You finish the picture book and let me know what your final conclusion is. I don’t mind separating myself from any group, as I am my own person who doesn’t feel the need to coalesce with any one group or tribe. I also don’t mind you calling me arrogant, but I prefer impatient. The Judy Wood rabbit hole is just too obvious to me, similar to the Jews control the world and the Muslims threaten the world dichotomy psyop. I wish you well in your research, and will be here to help you with any of my 9/11 conclusions.

          1. XanaDude60XanaDude60

            OK, I will accept impatient rather than assume arrogant. Yes, you are right about it being a picture book but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words…real or fake, right?
            You may be right about Dr. Wood, Ab. I don’t know yet. I was quite serious about my question though and I do wish you would explain it to me. What is the reason for such a heated debate over Dr. Judy Wood? Can we prove her wrong or right? If she is spreading propaganda, to what end? Even if she is wrong about them using some sort of superweapon on the towers, do you deny the possibility of the government possessing such a weapon? If so, why?
            Do you think there is any merit to my idea that if they did have such a super weapon they would likely want to keep it under wraps until it could be unveiled in a most devastating way?
            I am truly interested in your response on these questions because I seem to be unable to piece together the importance of whether the super weapon is real or not as used in this context.
            Thanks in advance for your answers and I will be sure to let you know as soon as I finish Dr. Wood’s ‘picture book’.
            I am much more interested in collaborating research than arguing who is right about their version of the facts.
            – Bob

        2. John le BonJohn le Bon

          Hello Bob,

          Regarding Fakeologist and Judy Wood. My advice, for what it is worth, is not to take it personally when fakeologist(s) begin pointing fingers at you for not denouncing Woods. This website is an online ‘truth’ community and, like most(all?) online ‘truth’ communities, it has developed its own peculiarities and customs. Judy Woods is fakeologists’ ingroup/outgroup litmus test: denounce her and you are (for a while, at least) IN, support her and you are OUT (no ifs, no buts, no maybes). That simple.

          Those of us who are not quite so fond of pointing fingers walk a tightrope in places like these and from time to time will be accused merely for failing to point enough fingers at the right ‘baddies’. My own motives have been questioned, both publicly and privately, for my own failure to point the finger at Judy Woods. Suffice to say you are not the first and will not be the last.

          All of that said, my own inference (based on the limited work of Woods I have bothered to look at) is that Woods would need to provide evidence of any futuristic/high tech weaponry before I would consider it anything other than science fiction. Can you tell me, do any of the first 100 pages of her book give ANY evidence to support the technical feasibility, or the physical existence, of such devices? If so, I would be more than happy to inspect her purported evidence – if only I did not have to pay good money for the privilege.

          What I have come to grasp over the past few months especially is that the ‘shills are out to get us’ meme is so heavily implanted in the minds of the ‘truth movement’ and those who follow it, that there is little to be gained from pointing out the lack of evidence provided to support these beliefs. Flat earthers accuse ball earthers of not having evidence for their beliefs (and they are right); no planers accuse plane-believers of not having evidence for their beliefs (and they are right); I accuse ‘truthers’ and ‘researchers’ of failing to provide evidence for their beliefs that there are ‘paid shills’ everywhere and at the risk of sounding ‘arrogant’, my recent foray into challenging these beliefs has proven to me that I am right.

          Peace and good tidings.
          JLB

        3. farcevaluefarcevalue

          “Whether the government used a ‘super weapon’ as Dr. Wood asserts, or the towers came down as a result of a more conventional demolition – tell me, what difference does it make?”

          How the towers came down in reality is irrelevant, because a video record of that event has never been viewed by the public. Judy Wood allows the PTB to maintain the illusion, by whatever necessary narrative device e.g. space beams, that when a graphic layer with the words “News” or “Live” is inserted into a broadcast, then cameras must be faithfully relaying unadulterated images in real time. Since a top down collapse is structurally impossible (see Heiwa’s challenge or Anders Borkman if you have not already done so) an alternative explanation must be provided for those who delve into the physical mechanics.

          Judy Wood allows the sacred cow to be preserved. When it is time for the “news” a switch must be engaged in the mind of the viewer that disables suspension of disbelief. When the public assigns the same level of credibility to the news as it does to the fictional programs that precede and follow the “news” it’s game over for the PTB.

          1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

            Yes, well said farcevalue.

            John, you say – ” Judy Woods is fakeologists’ ingroup/outgroup litmus test: denounce her and you are (for a while, at least) IN, support her and you are OUT (no ifs, no buts, no maybes). That simple.”

            I wouldn’t put it that way. Judy Woods is just another agent of disinformation in the eyes of many around here. She’s not ‘the fakeologist litmus test’, she’s just one of many possible so-called ‘litmus tests’. ( yes, I saw someone post that term in the anon chat here, too ).
            They would react the same way if people started promoting Bart Sibrel’s ‘research’ , for example.

            You go on – ”Those of us who are not quite so fond of pointing fingers walk a tightrope in places like these and from time to time will be accused merely for failing to point enough fingers at the right ‘baddies’.”

            Let’s get this straight. The only reason Judy Woods is being talked about here is because, David Weiss, The Morgile, Matrix Decode et al, are promoting her research. They are the people ‘pointing the finger’ at Judy Woods.

            What we’re saying is that to give Judy Woods research credibility is to not understand the true extent of the media fakery used to pull the con of 9/11 off.
            Judy Woods seeks to validate film and pictures from 9/11 which it seems abundantly clear to us, cannot be trusted as they were in fact, the method.

            As farcevalue explains, Judy Woods’ research seeks to keep the illusion of 9/11 alive.

            Come on John, just give one of Wood’s videos half an hour of your time and get back to us. A man of your intellect shouldn’t take too long.
            The very fact you’ve taken time to post here regarding the issue shows you have some interest in it.

            Contrary to what Dave Weiss might say, you don’t need to spend money on Woods’ book to understand that her ‘work’ is irrelevant.

Leave a Reply

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