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, 0;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.


No tags for this post.

53 thoughts on “Dallas Goldbug debunked

  1. thegulo

    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

    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.

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

    1. Videre

      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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

wp-puzzle.com logo

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