Sidethorn controlled op?

like this

Are Sidethorn and Granny part of the hidden hand/show? One thing for sure: normal people don’t confront crisis actors like they do – as much as they want to.

Original link

28 thoughts on “Sidethorn controlled op?

  1. UNrealUNreal

    It does seem that ‘Side Thorn* Journalist’ has gotten blindsided in the comment section hereunder, mostly due to the nature of the question that is raised in this ‘controlled op’ post.

    When a question is asked, it is nothing less than normal that we look for an answer. It is just unfortunate that when we have the research that allows us to factually answer if a conspiracy researcher is genuine or not – very few find the answer worth mention.

    In a way, asking if a researcher like Sidethorn is contrived and merely presenting us with staged footage is hypocritical when you have not shown any will to answer to the very same question in the recent past. It is like keeping a broken car, never trying to repair it while all the same making fancy plans for road trips asking your family and friends where they’d like to go next weekend..

    To fix the Fakeologist engine would therefore be synonymous with demonstrating will and determination to find answers to the questions that are asked*. The fact that Fakeologist as a community fail to address the very questions that the Carrion case has the merit to elucidate now makes it difficult to even address the topic of controlled opposition with credibility.

    Anyone present at Fakeologist would have in common that they have been fooled before (and might be again) by clever propaganda and skilled gatekeepers on some occasion and topic. Thus a large part of of alternative research consists of merely discarding bad information and the sources they stem from. It is the very notion of a poisoned well that makes eliminating bad sources so relevant to alternative research as we literally swim in toxic water, and that the poison is efficiently administered in tiny doses by friendly faces with safe-for-consumption labels.

    Logic does not have any escape ways in unworthy topics or not big enough operations. If you apply bad logic and poor judgement in any situation it is your criteria for a proper analyses that is at stake. The effort to minimise the relevance of being pertinent in any particular analyses and to avoid drawing uncomfortable or unpopular conclusions from valid research and material is not any case to case decision. Either you aim for sound logic and methodology or you choose to rely on faith, coincidence and positive thinking.

    “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
    Goethe (1749-1832)


    *Side Thorn Journalist has made many conspiracy site headlines with a 100.000$ campaign to reward anyone that can prove a real death in any of their (33) listed terror events (here)

    *there is an expression for such a conondrum : “don’t ask a question if you can’t handle the answer”

    1. UNrealUNreal

      It seems that a recent response by Watermanchris that you (Ab) respond to above is missing in action on the blog while it is still showing in the RSS feed (here).

      I would assume that you (Ab) agree wholehartedly that the Annette A. Carrion death is a hoax, just as Watermanchris stated in his deleted comment – and not that you share Watermanchris’ opinion that i’m unreasonable to be skeptical of the value of being 100% open minded.

      (“Do not be so open-minded that your Brains fall out” is an early 20th century American idiom)

      1. Terran DownvaleTerran Downvale

        UNreal, I’m not seeing the deleted comment in the feed. And one question for Watermanchris. Are the fake politicians who are put in place long before the public “votes” them in (or not) “sent by the elite to come and get” those voters? Or are they just there as part of the control game? Because that appears to be the same situation with fake truthers. They’re put in place long before there is anyone to even “come and get.” If anything, their eventual targets come and get them!

        So to be “open-minded” in this case would mean you’re open to the possibility that John Adams is a fraud and always was a fraud. And that, through the Carrion case, he decided to let us know about this in an indirect, unspoken way that required a bit of work on our part to see, understand and come to conclusions about. And that perhaps the Bobby & Bobby show may be the same sort of “Apocalyptic revelation” about the true nature of his cohort Chris Kendall.

        1. watermanchris

          Hi Terran,

          Great work on the Annette A Carrion case! Thank you.

          I see your point and I am completely open minded to these compromised (stupid, wrong, or nefarious) ACT personalities being part of the control structure but realizing the mistakes of these people whether intentional or not has made my life better. They say a smart man learns from his mistakes, a smarter man learns from the mistakes of others. I have learned to not take anyone’s word for anything, especially someone I only know from an online persona and one that says the odd things that John Adams had said. For instance, on that chat with JLB he actually said that 1984 was ONLY written to be relevant to the people of 1948 when the book was written. What a ridiculous statement! In that book “Orwell” writes about fake war, fake rockets, fake dinosaur bones, fake cosmology, etc. How is that only relevant to those living in 1948?

          Why would Adams say such a ridiculous thing unless he wanted to be disregarded by critical thinkers? Maybe he wasn’t consciously thinking it at the time but that’s what I took from it.

          There is a lot of fear mongering in the ACT realm and I realize that I’m a lot happier and sleep a lot better when I don’t worry about nefarious “shills”. I also know that I used to believe some ridiculous shit and if someone was to find old comments of mine, they may think I was a nefarious person. I was just wrong.

          It seems like you are open to the idea that maybe these “clues” are put in front of us on purpose. Maybe it’s not the people who run the show that are doing it. Maybe it’s the “cosmos” or “god”. I’m not sure but I think it’s good to look at all things for the positives that come out of them. I don’t think there is any chance of one’s brain falling out from being too open minded to positive outcomes. This is something I am happy to agree to disagree with UNreal on.

      2. watermanchris

        I was trying to fix the block quote and I deleted it to repost later, which I just did but I guess I lost part of it.

        Just because that guy supposedly said something dumb, doesn’t mean we have to repeat it at Fakeologist to denigrate those who truly have an open mind.

  2. smj

    in travis county breakfast is at 4:30am., even earlier if you’re still downtown. breakfast is usually pretty feckin early when you get kidnapped and put in a cage. don’t know how shit works in sannatone though.

  3. Terran DownvaleTerran Downvale

    Well, it appears Chris “Bobby” Kendall has ambitions to become more Sidethorn-like from his words at 1:05:14 in the Hoax Busters podcast from 2/26/18 (roughly a month before the debut of the 138 Show w/ Bobby & Bobby on 4/2, the exact same day his partner John Adams introduced us to Annette A. Carrion).

    I’d like to take this show on the road… Just doing it from different locations… Throwing a video once in a while and, uh… maybe get in people’s faces. Start asking them some hard questions like ambush journalism. I like ambush journalism. I think it’s a lot of fun. Get some real emotion going. Get some real… shit gets real. Maybe even go to Washington DC, get belligerent with the fake fuckheads there.

    Troubling talk from a guy who’s steadily building up a reputation as an unstable, mentally ill conspiracy theorist who is liable to pull out a gun during a civil debate with peace-loving vegans.

    I skimmed through the above video and couldn’t find exactly where he brandished the gun, but that moment featured in the video’s thumbnail is exactly the kind of publicity we don’t want and perhaps others DO want.

    1. Terran DownvaleTerran Downvale

      I must say, with his love of confrontational “in your face” ambush journalism, Kendall is displaying a real “punk rock” attitude. Which, of course, is consistent with Hoax Busters and its frequent discussion of punk music, with the word “punk” yielding two pages of results on the Hoax Busters blog.

      And coincidentally, it is also consistent with the 138 Show w/ Bobby & Bobby and the blaringly obnoxious tune played at the beginning of their shows, which Ab duly noted. Example: Episode 1 entitled “Everything You Know is a Lie,” uploaded on that same fateful day of April 2, 2018. Much carrying on that day, it seems!

      The tune is called “We Are 138” by the punk band Misfits, apparently inspired by the classic dystopian future film THX 1138 by George Lucas.

      To be fair, I think punk rock is more John Adams’ thing than Kendall’s. After all, just like the Bobbys, Adams also happened to feature a classic Misfits tune entitled “TV Casualty” at the end of his Afternoon Commute show on 1/12/15. Download and skip to 1:30:42 to hear the song:

      recordings.talkshoe.com…

      1. John le BonJohn le Bon

        Those are some very interesting connections (or what some might call ‘synchronicities’) indeed.

        Thank you for sharing them.

        The rich tapestry reveals itself to be even richer than one had previously realised…

  4. UNrealUNreal

    Do you (Ab) really ask if Sidethorn is a deceptive layman agent* in this post?

    Some Fakeologist members seem to be very opposed to even the idea that a “controlled op” could involve amateur alternative researchers at our level, as it supposedly would be meaningless for such powerful people as the Elite ruling class to intervene at a grassroots level.

    As it is, i have not researched Sidethorn and Granny just yet, but i have given a fair analyses of why characters like Sidethorn might in fact be agents in my recent posts in the FAK 201 and FAK 202 comment sections – and also why we as alternative researchers should take interest in this type and level of deception.

    *the question of layman agents at our grassroot level is a question left unanswered in other cases, even when there is solid research to judge by…

    1. watermanchris

      Hi UNreal, I’m not “very opposed” to anything. I am 100% open minded. Many people claim to be open minded but their actions tell another story. I just believe that’s it’s POSSIBLE, that there are other explanations and that maybe, just maybe, everyone who does or says something we disagree with or otherwise find suspicious, was not sent here by “the elite” to come and get us.

      We need to evaluate each case based on evidence. For example, this “Conspiracy Grandma and Sidethorn” are claiming they are in jail and their videos confronting crisis actors are genuine. Is it possible, they are just charlatans trying to make a buck off the gullible conspiratards? It’s possible but the staged appearance of their “attacks” on crisis actors with over- the- top antics seem more likely to be a sideshow for the conspiracy-minded people that see through the hoaxes. How else would they be able to get so close to obvious actors and why would they act so unstable in the presence of said “crisis actors”? It is also possible that SOME of these “crisis actors” are normal people who were in the vicinity of one of these HRDPAR and actually believe they saw what they were told they saw. This is what I believe is going on with Jesse Waugh and his 9/11 story.

      On the other hand, Mark Tokarski calling A A Morris “Intel” because he doesn’t accept the prevailing NASA cosmology is just plain silly. I don’t think we live on a giant spinning ball hurtling through space because there’s no evidence for that belief, not because I’m “Intel”.

    2. UNrealUNreal

      I very much doubt it is possible to be 100% open minded unless one is mindless..

      When you (watermanchris) refer to ‘looking at the evidence‘ it is exactly what we should do and that you apparently have chosen not to do in other cases* when there exists tangible evidence to actually come to factual conclusions.

      Regarding Sidethorn, we need to do more research before drawing hasty conclusions and merely speculate as you do in your post. In order to look at evidence you (watermanchis) need to start researching, not merely opiniate and change talking points as you see fit.

      *the best proven case recently of an agent ‘layman’ researcher that has successfully infiltrated the conspiracy fringes here at Fakeologist is John Adams who even silently admitted his guilt by leaving Fakeologist asking suppression and censorship of the articles written and the research made on Fakeologist (all from public sources)
      •More Carrion – fakeologist.com…

      1. Terran DownvaleTerran Downvale

        I know, UNreal. It is incredibly strange how all after all that was discovered from the Carrion research, there have still been no publicly expressed conclusions drawn other than by the three researchers themselves. Why is this such an untouchable subject here at Fakeologist? The silliest thing of all is that, as far as I see it, Adams must have presented this story to us so that we would research it and discover that the story was a hoax. What other explanation could there be? He couldn’t have possibly expected us to leave it alone. So in that sense, the mute Fakeologist members are actually dishonoring Adams by ignoring it. Adams teed up the ball for us for whatever reason and while Dave J took the first sloppy swing, you, xileffilex and I were the only ones who stepped up to bat, just as Adams tacitly requested. We certainly aren’t being troublemakers for continuing to push this issue (to more or less deafening silence). We’re just doing our jobs as Fakeologists!

        And I have a strong feeling that this is the same case with the Bobby & Bobby Show. Certainly, they could have used more effort to disguise Kendall’s distinctive voice. And certainly, the “audio problems” could have been faked in a less obvious way. They also didn’t have to use a punk Rock Misfits tune as their theme song, further giving away the connection. At the beginning of the 2/26 Hoax Busters podcast I mentioned in my previous comment, Adams talks about moving into his “new place” that has been “set up” for him and how a faulty “flange” soaked all the CDs in his garage. I’m wondering if one of those CDs might have been the Misfits compilation Static Age which includes both “We Are 138” and “TV Casualty,” the song Adams featured in a previous Afternoon Commute podcast. And the “Bobbys” most definitely didn’t have to release their first 12 videos on April 2, the very same day Adams presented us with the Carrion story.

        So I have to wonder if this is yet another ball teed up for the Fakeologist audience, intended for us to notice and knock out of the park. And again, no one is swinging but us. Sorry, Chris and John, but sadly it seems no one else wants to play Apocalypse-ball with you (audio chat released on 3/29, the same day the Bobbys’ channel was created). We tried!

        1. UNrealUNreal

          At the least, John Adams must have intended to put the Fakeologist community to some type of test of his trustworthyness or provoke some sort of sympathy for his “loss”.

          The fact there are so many contrived alternative researchers in more mediated outlets like Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Gnostic Media, Red Ice Radio or the Corbett Report should in fact remind us that a large part of the conspiracy material and conspiracy figures and authors come directly from intelligence operations.

          To believe there would be an invisible line drawn in the sand between outlets like say Gnostic Media or Jeff Rense and Fakeologist would be very short sighted and naive. There is even some slight cross-over of guests and topics between the forementionned sites and research here on Fakeologist. We’re not alone,,,

          As a more poignant comparison, what are the alternative researchers that the members of Fakeologist really hold to be genuine? I’d say that Chris Kendall and John Adams were among the few that actually were even considered to be “the Real Deal” by Fakeologists… So if the rest are agents, does anyone ever consider how large the “fake” conspiracy community really is?

          A good start for getting a scale of the fake conspiracy community might be to look at Gnostic Media’s past 10 years of guests (including John Adams) herunder :
          •••
          Carl A.P. Ruck (Prof.)
          John Rush (Prof.)
          Martin Ball (Dr.)
          John Hoopes (Prof.)
          Charles Grob (Dr.)
          James DeMeo (Dr.)
          John Major Jenkins
          Rick Doblin, Ph.D.
          John Lamb Lash
          Stanislav Grof (Dr.)
          Roland Griffiths (Dr.)
          Stephen Buhner
          Chris Bennett
          John Loftus (Dr.)
          Rick Simpson
          Jack Herer
          Ernest Werner
          Peter Webster
          Thomas Roberts (Prof. Em.)
          D.M. Murdock (Acharya S.)
          Michael Winkelman (Prof.)
          David Hillman (Dr.)
          Brian Akers (Dr.)
          Dennis McKenna (Dr.)
          Marlene Dobkin de Rios (Prof.)
          Marguerite Rigoglioso (Dr.)
          Wolfgang Bauer
          Alan Piper
          Neal Goldsmith (Dr.)
          G. Edward Griffin
          Benny Shanon (Prof.)
          Hal Lucius Nation
          Eddy Lepp
          Richard Grove
          Lisa Arbercheski
          Mitch Schultz
          John Marco Allegro
          Chris Conrad
          Stephen Zarlenga
          Ellen Brown (Dr.)
          Daniel Siebert
          Judith Anne Brown
          Eustace Mullins
          Arik Roper
          Steve Hager
          Gene Odening
          Mitch Horowitz
          Barbara Ehrenreich (Dr.)
          Yisrel Dovid Weiss (Rabbi)
          Michael Tsarion
          Peter Levenda
          James Oroc
          Josh Homan
          Robert Forte
          Stephan Beyer (Dr.)
          Michael Labossiere (Dr.)
          George Clayton Johnson (rip)
          Eric G. Wilson (Dr.)
          Steve Allen
          John Taylor Gatto
          Shlomo Sand (Prof.)
          Alan Shoemaker
          Peter Duesberg (Dr.)
          Herman de Vries
          Jack Herer
          Erik Blaire
          Deborah Mash (Dr.)
          Brett Veinotte
          Patrick Byrne (Dr.)
          Richard Evans Schultes (Dr.)
          Robert Beckstead (Dr.)
          James Warren Mooney
          David Flattery (Dr.)
          James Fadiman (Dr.)
          Alex and Allyson Grey
          David Nichols (Dr.)
          Dan Merkur (Dr.)
          Norman Finkelstein (Dr.)
          Michael Rinella (Dr.)
          Sally Fallon Morell
          Joe Rogan
          Rick Strassman (Dr.)
          Stan Tenen interview
          Mike Crowley
          Hans Utter (Dr.)
          Clint Richardson
          Christopher Knowles
          John Martineau
          Hank Albarelli
          Mark Passio
          David Harriman
          John Bolender (Dr.)
          Jose Barrera
          Scott Olsen (Dr.)
          Jason Martineau (Dr.)
          Peter O’Hanrahan
          Larken Rose
          Jay Courtney Fikes (Prof.)
          Scott Onstott
          Andrew Wakefield (Dr.)
          Kevin Annett
          Daniella Martin
          Peter Glidden (Dr.)
          Miguel Conner
          Joel Wallach (Dr.)
          William Davis (Dr.)
          Greg Burzynski (Dr.)
          George Hunt
          James Kelley
          Stefan Molyneux
          Joe Atwill
          Gilad Atzmon
          Karen of GirlWritesWhat
          Brendan Fischer
          Curtis Duncan
          Michael J. Murphy
          Fritz Heede
          Nijole Sparkis
          Earl Lee (Prof.)
          Ian T. Taylor
          Freeman Burt
          Colin A. Ross (Dr.)
          Joy Camp
          David Asprey
          Todd Brendan Fahey
          Rima Laibow, M.D. (Dr.)
          General Albert Stubblebine
          Tom O’Bryan (Dr.)
          Paul D. Schrader
          Ramiel Nagel
          Michael Adams
          Szou Paulekas
          Walter Graham
          Dave McGowan
          Gavan Kearney
          Randy Mabe
          Gary Wilson
          Thomas Hunt
          Adam B. Levine
          Michael Dean
          Derrick Slopey
          Will Pangman
          Karen Hudes, J.D.
          Eric Penn
          Karen Wetmore
          Bill Joslin
          Kristov Atlas
          Ryan Gilmore
          Darrell Hamamoto (Prof.)
          Karen Straughan
          Lenon Honor
          Cathi Morgan
          Stefan Verstappen
          Kim and Dave Dortch (Dr.)
          Scott Sherr (Dr.)
          James F. Tracy (Prof.)
          Marc Stevens
          Greg Quinones
          Collins Bros.
          Norman France
          Kim Cooper
          John Adams
          Steve Outtrim
          Steve McMurray
          Ewen Cameron
          Kate Rhéaume-Bleue (Dr.)
          •••

          1. watermanchris

            Do you feel that there is any positives to be gained from listening to any of those guests? I used to listen to Jan Irvin’s podcasts and I know his whole schtick. I disagree with him on most things but he’s done good work on the Trivium and I have taken some of his diet advice (not all of it as I still eat fruit and vegetables) and I’m I’m the best shape of my life at 38. This is always the M.O. (good info with bad) of the “limited hangout” we are told but that would mean that everybody is a “limited hangout” as I don’t agree with anybody on everything. Maybe Jan Irvin is a shill, after all JLB’s expose on Steve Outrim is pretty damning by Irvin’s standards. It’s also possible he’s just wrong a lot and closed minded to other possibilities.

            I just think it’s better to look at the positives. Call me crazy, wrong, or naive. I used to be really crazy but I feel like I’m getting more sane every day. I used to dismiss media fakery without investigating less than 4 years ago so I’m sympathetic to people who are wrong.

            1. UNrealUNreal

              Sorry to be somewhat offensive here, but you (watermanchris) sound a whole lot like JLB in your comment above – even regurgitating Le Bon’s particular phrasing and opinions such as ‘schtick’ and the value of Jan Irvin’s flavour of the Trivium..

              Positive thinking is nothing else than an excuse to escape the Trivium you seem to value (above) in that it discards parts of the grammar and thus results in selective, ideological conclusions.

              If you mix good and bad information, the outcome is still incorrect. If you add positive thinking and selection of grammar to the mix – where does that leave you ?

              To feel good is a state of mind, not a result of good foods. As proof that food is very limited in its relevance it is important to note that longevity can be achieved on any type of diet, and that not even smoking or drinking are obstacles to prolonged age.

              1. watermanchris

                I do not take offense at all. It’s pretty hard to offend me. I learned about the trivium from Jan Irvin way before I had ever heard of JLB and Irvin’s explaining logical fallacies has been extremely helpful to me. He even created a website called www.popupfallacies.com… which I think is great for a beginner as it points out all of the logical fallacies in political speeches.

                As for use of the word schtick, that is an apt description and is a short way to say persona/area of interest. What word would you like me to use. I can change it if it bothers you.

                I don’t think positive thinking is a way to escape the Trivium so we can agree to disagree.

                Every day, in our lives, we experience good information and bad. It is our job to discern which is which. I am confident in my ability to do this. If you fear bad information because it comes with good information, I think you are selling yourself short. You appear to have no problem at all at finding the holes in the Annette A Carrion case.

                In one statement you seem to be diminishing the idea of positive thinking but in the next statement you say that “To feel good is a state of mind, not a result of good foods.” Seems a bit of a strange combination of positions to take. Health is more than just longevity. For instance, noone in our home (38 yo m, 37 yo f, and 10 yo m) has been sick in over 3 years and the other children at our son’s school are constantly sick. When we used to eat a diet heavy in sugar and grains someone was always sick. This may be due to our mental state but I’m not going to change my diet to find out. I’m happy to agree to disagree on this point as well.

                You seem to want to argue with me for arguments sake. I’m not sure why but this is one of the reasons why I think the people who run the show (another JLBism) don’t need to send “agents” to control us. We seem to do a fine job of it ourselves.

      2. Terran DownvaleTerran Downvale

        I should also point out a couple more things about John Adams’ prescient Apocalypse discussion with JLB that was released on 3/29, which just happened to be two days before the Apocalyptic death of Annette A. Carrion and the exact same day Bobby & Bobby created their YouTube channel.

        At 13:50, we hear Adams do a humorously exaggerated nose-pinched impression of our own Ab Irato. Makes you wonder how well he could do if he were being more serious and professional about it. After that, Adams goes on to give us some tips on how to most effectively engage in truther voice impersonation, lol. It might be interesting to go back to the 2/26 Hoax Busters podcast I mentioned before (where after Adams talks about moving into his new place, he and Kendall are joined by a few guests) with this in mind.

        Then at 50:45 in the Apocalypse call, JLB asks if it’s possible that the “elite” are “putting the clues there for those with eyes to see,” a theory with which Adams “cordially disagrees,” lol. And here we are, still wondering if anything we learned from Carrion and the two Bobbys “means anything.”

        1. John le BonJohn le Bon

          This is not the first time I have — in some sense — found myself involved in a truther war between other people.

          Back in 2015, I was hosting a weekly live-show called the Australian Roundtable Podcast (ARP).

          On Episode #16 (25-Jan) our guest was a character who called himself Jeff C. He had a sizeable following in YouTube at the time, and was chiefly concerned with what I now call Baby Hoaxes (e.g. Sandy Hook and Boston Bombings).

          On Episode #17 (1-Feb) our guest was a character who calls himself Peekay. He also had a sizeable following on YouTube at the time, and he too was chiefly concerned with Baby Hoaxes — his own specialty being the Boston Bombings.

          On 4-Feb of that year, just a few days after episode #17, a plane crash was reported to have occurred in Taiwan, known as the ‘TransAsia disaster’. A debate then ensued in the ‘truth community’ on YouTube as to whether the event was ‘real’ or ‘fake’. Peekay and Jeff C became arch enemies, captains of opposing sides in the saga which followed. The subsequent drama took months to cool down, by which time the YouTube ‘truth movement’ had been split and largely disintegrated.

          Prior to the TransAsia schism, Jeffrey and Peekay had worked together on a weekly show called ‘We’ll Do It Live‘. In the space of just a few months — less than year if I recall correctly — the show had developed a strong following, with hundreds of live viewers. This was at a time when ‘truth’-related liveshows on YouTube simply did not reach those levels of interest. As far as ‘media fakery’ goes, this was the biggest show online at the time, with a growing audience. Unlike many ‘conspiracy’ sub-communities, this one seemed to be composed mostly of young people, who were generally energetic and lulz-focused, which made it even more attractive for n00bs who might be willing to consider ideas as unorthodox as media fakery.

          As a direct result of the TransAsia schism, WDIL had been dealt a fatal blow from which it never recovered. Eventually the entire thing fell apart.

          I had tried to keep out of the drama. One of the most popular and prominent ‘truthers’ on YouTube at the time (known then as Red Pill Revolution) tried his best to throw myself and my fellow ARP panelists into the drama, by uploading a short clip from one of our episodes to his YouTube channel. That clip was used to suggest that we were on ‘his side’ in the debate — which was antithetical to the contextual message of the segment from which the clip was taken. RPR’s channel had tens of thousands of subscribers at the time. This was a level of promotion he had never afforded our podcast prior to that point, and would never afford again.

          Why now?

          Why, when we had publicly declared that we were taking no side in the debate and wanted to focus on other topics (which is exactly what we did in that very podcast), would RPR upload that clip? Let alone imply/suggest we were on ‘his side’? What are the odds that this drama, with Peekay and Jeff C as captains of opposing sides, would occur just days after both made their first (and only) appearances on the ARP?

          It is not merely that these questions have never been answered. It is that these questions are not even asked. People are simply not paying attention. The timing of all of this — Jeff as guest, Peekay as guest, and then BOOM TransAsia — is, for my money, the most suspicious element of my time (now approaching four years) in the ACT realm. If I were trying to accuse ‘JLB’ of being involved in nefarious activity, this would be my best (albeit circumstantial) evidence against him.

          What are the odds?

          Of course, I know better. I know that I had no direct involvement in creating the drama, and I know that we booked Peekay and Jeffrey as guests of the show with no foreknowledge of what was to come. I also know that myself and the two other panelists of the ARP did everything we could to avoid getting drawn into the drama. Our hands are clean now as they were then. None of this was our doing.

          But still I wonder, ‘why’?

          Was it really just a ‘coincidence’?

          There is more to the story which I do not have the time or inclination to go into here, but suffice to say that other people also came out of the woodwork, behind the scenes, and tried to drag me into the TransAsia drama. Peekay and Jeffrey and their associates seemed to want to draw the TransAsia drama out for another twelve months, if they could get away with it, if they could keep the truthertards paying attention.

          The whole spat between Jeffrey and Peekay seemed scripted then and seems even more scripted to me now in retrospect. Perhaps in time I will go into even more detail; this post has dealt with only the central elements of what transpired. The more I type, the more I recall what else happened at the time.

          In any event, I could not help but notice the similarities with this more recent ‘A Net Carry-on’ malarky. I have two pleasant and cordial conversations with John Adams; at the same time, an old sparring partner of mine from the ‘truther’ days, one Dave Johnson, arrives back on the scene; I take the time to point out to people that, for all of his flaws, Dave J has worthwhile insights to share; and suddenly we see another truther war breaking out, this time on the Fakeologist platform, between none other than John Adams and Dave J.

          Once again, the key belligerents in this war are characters with whom I have recently intermingled in collegiate, public discourse.

          Once again, the heart of the apparent dispute is a Baby Hoax.

          Once again, the Baby Hoax in question is one which can be fairly interpreted as either ‘real ‘or ‘fake’ depending on the perspective (operating system) of the individual observer.

          Once again, I have publicly stated my openness to either interpretation, and made zero attempt to ‘take a side’. And, once again, I find myself wondering, ‘what the hell is going on here? What are the odds?’

          We live in a bizarre world, friends. If we cannot all agree on an interpretation of The Wizard of Oz and what Frank L Baum was trying to reveal to us, then how can we possibly expect to agree on an interpretation of events like TransAsia or A Net Carry-on?

          I say let the good times roll. And, to the illuminatiz, and central intelligence agenciez, if you guys really exist (which I highly doubt, but I remain open-minded), please stop trying to involve me in your seemingly-scripted truther wars. Or, at the very least, can you guys make the wars about something interesting? Baby Hoaxes are for truthertards and other intellectual lightweights. Give me something juicy.

          I might even get involved and ‘take a side’ for once, if the central debate is interesting enough. How about the History Hoax? That is a juicy one indeed. I might even consider pretending to have a falling out with one of the other prominent members of the ACT realm if it furthers discussion of the History Hoax. Seriously, what kind of damned fool still believes in ‘Ancient Greece’ or ‘Ancient Egypt’? Just look up ‘Oxyrhynchus Papyri’ and use your brain, folks. This isn’t rocket science. It’s worse.

          One final thing. War is a Hoax. Dave J is 100% correct about that. Just look up photos of ‘V2 rockets’ and use your brain, ffs. They look like clown rockets for a reason. Or look up the ‘rockets’ on parade in Pyongyang being watched over by ‘Kim Jong’. You don’t think they could do a better job of making these ‘rockets’ look believable, if they really wanted to? I could volunteer to run a class at the local primary school and get the kids to make papier-mache rockets more believable than the crap we see on the telescreen. The whole thing is a comical joke. Which is why it is equal parts amusing and sad to see ‘awake’ people arguing about Baby Hoaxes.

          Give me a break, man.

          P.S. If teh illuminatiz or teh CIAz is real, I would happily work for either of them for USD $100k per annum. That kind of moolah would buy a lot of quality H’n’B anywhere on earth. So long as I get to keep making videos taking the piss out of this clown existence we find ourselves in, consider it a deal.

          If they were real, teh illuminatiz or teh CIAz could easily afford that kind of money. And yet, they haven’t even tried to low-ball me, let alone make a fair offer. Not so much as a single email inviting me to a Lodge just to ‘have a look around’. Why is that? Either because they don’t exist (my guess) or because, if they do exist, they could not care less about a tiny bunch of ‘truthers’ (or ‘researchers’ — lol) on the internet. None of us are that important. Get over yourselves.

          1. Terran DownvaleTerran Downvale

            JLB: Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Ah, the ol’ “TransAsia Divide” drama. Crikey, what an adventure. I was right there in the middle of it as well, mostly as an observer but also as a minor participant. I’ll never forgot that iconic “upside-down cross” image of the “plane hitting the bridge” as featured in the Wiki entry. The first video I ever made was on the topic (now unlisted), where I pointed out some possible symbolic code-speak in the plane’s SIGMU logo and the conceptual impossibility of that sensational “picture perfect” crash that seemed more like something out of a movie, which it actually WAS (the aptly titled Knowing starring Nicholas Cage and none other than Peekay himself, lol).

            And it certainly does appear there are those within the ACT realm who do know a lot more than they let on. I suspect John Adams is one of those folks for a number of reasons. Although the “truther war” aspect is somewhat comparable with TransAsia, the big difference is that the alleged plane crash was an event that “went viral” in the MSM which made it a topic of discussion whereas the super-obscure Carrion case was brought to everyone’s attention by a much-beloved and trusted ACT figure who claimed to have a personal connection to it.

            And just to be clear, by pointing out the curious timing of your Apocalypse discussion with Adams, I was not implying anything nefarious on your part. I am curious, though, how that chat came about at that time. I’m not even necessarily upset at Adams, so I don’t mean to come off that way either. Like I said, it seems like he wanted this to be discovered, so I was happy to do my part. My only “upsetness” was that it seemed like this fantastic dual revelation with Carrion and the Bobbys was going to slip by unnoticed and we would simply “carry on” as usual here with topics like “Hitler’s Yacht.”

            Re-listening to that HB show from 2/26 from the perspective that Adams may be a different kind of character than I had previously thought was pretty enlightening and fascinating. Kind of like a “Usual Suspects finale moment,” lol. I’m tempted to point out specific time markers and what to listen for, but there doesn’t seem to be much interest and I don’t like spoiling personal Apocalypses anyway. 😉

            All that said, I’m certainly not “at war” with anyone here. I just like it when the topics get deeper, that’s all. Just like you, JLB, I really do think there is much more meaning to all of this than simple psyops and culture creation. And I find it frustrating when opportunities like this are missed. I say there is no doubt something deeper is being revealed here and in ways that take some work to figure out. Hell, even the “unlistenable” 138 Show may contain a valuable message while being presented in a way that is intentionally “challenging.” Of course, this kind of seeking is not for everyone.

            As for the “elite” caring about us, I actually think they do, but not in the way people are suggesting. They’re certainly not “out to get us.” As I said before, I think they may actually want us to “get them.” What’s the point in making a joke if no one will ever get it?

      3. watermanchris

        Now you’re just being silly. To be 100% open-minded means that one is “mindless”?

        Dictionary.com… defines open-minded as – adjective
        1. having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.
        2. unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial.

        and mindless as – adjective
        1. without intelligence; senseless: a mindless creature.
        2. unmindful or heedless: mindless of all dangers.

        How could someone, seemingly as intelligent as you are, conflate those two things? Seems like you are pulling a Kham and “just sayin shit”.

        As for the John Adams Annette Carrion thing, I’ve read that entire thread and followed the links and I think it’s probable that the death is a hoax. I think you’ve done great work there and I thank you for it. However, claiming that it’s been “proven” that John Adams works for the government is a bit of a leap for me. In my opinion, it’s possible that external pressures are clouding his judgement. It is also possible that he IS an “agent layman” as you assert. It is further possible that he decided to purposely split the Fakeologist/Hoaxbusters community for selfish reasons. If this is the case, he would know that those who followed him had suspended their critical thinking faculties on his word. This is valuable knowledge for a charlatan looking to make a buck off of his brand of “culture creation analysis” or essential oils.

        Regarding Sidethorn, we need to do more research before drawing hasty conclusions and merely speculate as you do in your post. In order to look at evidence you (watermanchis) need to start researching, not merely opiniate and change talking points as you see fit.

        I’m not sure what you mean by this. I have done research and I’m stating the things that lead me to the conclusion that they are not genuine. The lady on the call (Conspiracy Grandma) is clearly not in jail as she doesn’t know when meal time is. Anybody who has ever been in jail will tell you that meal time is not something you get wrong. Also, the staged appearance of their “crisis actor confrontations” lead me to believe that they aren’t genuine. What more should I research? I thought that this thread was a question that should be answered.

        1. watermanchris

          This was part of that original comment

          I’m not personally interested in the minutia of these clowns. Once I find them to be likely compromised, wrong or worse yet stupid, I move on. BTW, I don’t listen to John Adams or Chris Kendall anymore and you should take that as a compliment as it was your work that led me to my position. The fact that they refused to think critically in the “Curious Case of Annette A. Carrion” was enough for me. At the same time I feel that they were essential to my journey so I’m grateful to them and I’m not comfortable stating unequivocally that they are “agents”. It’s definitely possible though.

          All I’m trying to say is that we don’t have to live our lives as paranoid caricatures of conspiracy theorists.

          1. Terran DownvaleTerran Downvale

            Watermanchris: At what point exactly do we become “paranoid caricatures of conspiracy theorists?” Does thinking fake truthers are opportunistically “doing it for money” qualify or is it only when we suspect there’s a deeper meaning behind it connected to the network that runs and controls the psyops we investigate at Fakeologist? If Adams and Co. are frauds, do you think it’s more likely they became frauds somewhere along the way or they started out with dishonest intentions from the get-go?

            1. watermanchris

              In my opinion, it is at the point where we dismiss other possible explanations (positive or negative) without solid evidence and treat everyone who we disagree with with suspicion. Mark Tokarski claiming that AA Morris is “Intel” because he disagrees with the prevailing NASA cosmology is crossing that line in my opinion.

              I said what would constitute solid evidence for me in the “Bobby Kendall” case and while I think John Adams is most likely wrong (I’m about 90% sure on this) in the Annette A Carrion case, along with many other cases, I don’t feel his leaving over it is proof that he was sent here as an agent of control. It’s possible, but I don’t feel it’s been proven.

              1. Terran DownvaleTerran Downvale

                I hear you on the first part but I’m not sure if you’re understanding the Carrion problem. It’s not about Adams “being wrong” about the Carrion case. The suspicion that he is an agent is not based on of his “differing opinion” on a baby hoax. It’s the he was the person who brought this story to us and HE CLAIMS TO HAVE A PERSONAL CONNECTION TO IT. And while there may be a number of genuine non-agents ACTors who claim to have a loose connection to someone who “died on 9/11” (I actually knew someone in high school who was apparently good friends with someone who “died” on flight 11), to claim a personal connection to a specific dubious character like Annette A. Carrion who was/is steeped in a super-shady world of assembly-line auto accident/online tribute/GoFundMe page stories is VERY different. Especially when this “death” occurred in the present day (as opposed to 9/11, 17 years ago) when all of us here (and presumably at Hoax Busters) can spot a suspicious story very easily, providing a unique opportunity to really prove ourselves as genuine researchers if such an event happened “close to home.” Anyway, do you see the big difference here? This is not about “paranoid thinking.” It’s common sense.

Leave a Reply