48 thoughts on “JLBE1567 | Fakeologist Audiochat Recap

  1. Videre

    Dear JLB & smj:

    Dear boys… what’s with all the emotion? Looking back to that conversation about the vaccines I believe I apologized for any hurt feelings. Aside from being exhausted that day and not really feeling that it was a topic that I felt compelled to entertain, I don’t believe I acted rude. As you do enjoy hearing yourself talk, JLB, you must admit that it is often hard to get a word in edgewise. I find you often like to answer your own questions.

    I don’t necessarily share the views of my dear friends as I haven’t had time to listen to your recordings. I accept their viewpoints, just as I accept ab’s dip into the flat earth world.

    We are often misunderstood as we have gone beyond what most people can possibly entertain in their worlds. They look at us as though we have lost our minds, unable to even grasp what we are so unbelievably lucky to see.

    Knowing what it is like to see the world from a wider vantage point, we should offer respect and acceptance to our fellow fakeologists for seeing something that we are not yet able to see, or understanding and encouragement to them when they have found themselves in yet another rabbit hole.

    Our numbers are few and we should be grateful that we have each other. Let’s not be distracted.

    xoxo,
    V.

  2. Master of None

    It seems to me that whenever an argument is reduced down to who is or is not a shill, rather than focusing on the issue itself, it’s a topic worthy of through, methodical, thoughtful consideration.

    Why else so many contrived distractions?

    In my opinion (once again), this is not a dualistic argument. It is not simply, “is the earth flat or round?”. The real question is “what is this place where we live?”.

    We don’t know who we can trust, but focusing on who is a shill is misdirection, distraction, sideshow.

    Because we can’t know for certain who is co-opted, who is a useless idiot, who is unscrupulous, who is a greedy mercenary, etc. we need to start from scratch, look at observable facts and create our own experiments for testing our theories.

    The truth, if not obfuscated by things that are irrelevant, will be undeniable.

    Could we please stick to the facts and challenge FACTS, not people? This is not the congeniality portion of a Miss America contest (however polite, articulate JLB would certainly win).

    Personality loses out to facts- if you bring them. But again, maybe that’s the strategy KHam. Are you JLBs “bad cop”, leading us down the garden path?

    Perhaps we need a thread devoted to shills. I don’t intend to spend any time there, but for those of you who do, enjoy.

    1. Clueseau

      … focusing on who is a shill is misdirection, distraction, sideshow.

      That’s an extraordinary claim at a blog purposed to “exposing media fakery one psyop at a time”, especially considering how quickly YouTube (owned by Google, close affiliate of space faker NASA) is replacing television as a social engineering platform of choice.

    2. khammad

      “We can’t know for certain”. -MON

      I beg to differ. A shill is mostly known by his/her products that are produced. Most of my judgements of who is or is not shill are based on what is being released in the form of videos, audios and text.

      An obvious example:
      Judy Wood. Her product is mystery space beams which she says destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001. There is no evidence or proof to support the idea of laser beams from the sky. Judy Wood is also heavily promoted by the Alternative news so we confidently say she is paid to lie to us.

      1. Zalian

        Or maybe she is just stupid and wrong, promoting what makes sense to her.

        People belive all sorts of stuff without being paid.

        From her point of view, fakeologists would be the shills no?

        We are all dealing in theories here.

        Untill things get proven, theories stay theories.

        This is where science went wrong. please don’t follow theire example.

        Dualistic thinking, where have i heard that before? oh right.

        “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists” – George Bush

        -Zal

  3. Rollo

    Hey JLB, Here I’m on (See attached Poor quality photo) / was on top of the world champ, I’m Back in Oz now my friend, you’re welcome at my place, contact me on skype if you want.

  4. khammad

    John,

    I was aware you were cointelpro way before I went Italy and met with Simon Shack, Hoi Polloi and Videre Licet this summer of 2015. I just got tired of watching people get duped by you.

    You see, reader, this is the problem with calling out a cointelpro agent; they MUST respond back to counter allegations. Usually, a normal person would counter allegations once or twice. Cointelpro agents counter allegations nearly every time. I have been timing it and a response from a cointelpro agent takes between 1 and 2 weeks, no longer, no shorter. Now that I have said this, I assume responses back to my allegations will NOT fall in that time range. Why 1 to 2 weeks? Bureaucracy. Takes that long I guess for the hire ups to decide what to do next and for the agent to execute the response.

    And John,

    I have not attacked you. I have accused you. Big difference. You seem like a very pleasant young man.

    1. Clueseau

      You see, reader, this is the problem with calling out a cointelpro agent; they MUST respond back to counter allegations. Usually, a normal person would counter allegations once or twice. Cointelpro agents counter allegations nearly every time.

      This behavior fits the “gotta have the last word” syndrome consistently on display in online social engineering ops.

      The agents of these ops are very concerned with “impression management”, as it’s called. According to their operations handbook, a well stated allegation left unanswered leaves the impression of guilt in the mind of the general reader. So any answer, no matter how tangential or weasely, is better than silence, as long as that answer keeps the ball rolling rather than letting deliberations conclude on “guilty”.

      There is also the reverse application of this rule, where the agent raises tangential or weasely doubts about your position in a way that makes a reply by you unlikely, e.g. in an obsolete thread. Then your failure to answer counts against you, according to their handbook. One funny way they do this is as follows: “You claim X, which obviously implies Y, but where have we ever seen Y? Haha…never mind that! Let’s get back on topic. Now, what’s this you were saying about Z?”

      Of course, when open discussion of the “impression management” rules in the agent’s handbook occurs, an agent often will – for a short while – act conspicuously contrary to the handbook in order to cancel the impression that they’re acting according to a handbook. This is also in the handbook.

        1. Clueseau

          Hello Clueseau, did you ever find more information for us all about those ‘south-pointing compasses’ of yours? I am interested to hear more.

          Explanations of the principles of the magnetic compass are available for free on the internet. A remedial class on the subject in the comment section of a blog about media fakery would be unwarranted, though I will start you off on your journey of discovery by informing you that a compass needle points both north and south, due to its shape and magnetism. Whether a particular compass is considered to point north or south simply depends on which end of the needle is read. That end of the needle is marked in some way, usually with color. Otherwise, a south-pointing compass and a north-pointing compass are essentially the same device. The original magnetic compass, invented 2,000 years ago by the Chinese, pointed south. This type of compass is used even today in Feng Shui.

          1. John le Bon

            So these ‘south-pointing’ compasses of yours are really just standard compasses, then? If you wanted to know how flat earthers account for ‘north’, you could read or watch any of their posts or videos on this very topic. They accept that there is a magnetic north, which they place in the middle of their maps/models. They deny the existence of a ‘south magnetic pole’. Without your fancy ‘south-pointing compass’, how would you go about proving the existence of the ‘south magnetic pole’?

          2. Clueseau

            The relevant magnet field surveys have already been done and redone, and the resulting maps are available on the internet. If you’d like to confirm these findings for yourself, locating the magnetic poles (which always occur in pairs) of Earth’s field is a simple task. It only requires you to move around the surface of the Earth with a standard compass, to show field direction, and a $150 device that measures magnetic field strength which you’ll find to be maximal in two locations. One of these locations is in the Arctic region of Canada, and the other is near Antarctica south of Australia. These are Earth’s two magnetic poles, which will be shown to be opposite poles by their opposite effects on the compass and field meter. And, as you would expect on a sphere with one pole of a magnet at each end, the field goes to a minimum all around the middle, i.e. at the equator.

          3. Clueseau

            The method I described, or substantial equivalents thereof (such as with a dipping compass), have been used for centuries to survey Earth’s magnetic field, mostly by research institutions aboard ships. Anyone trying to revise our understanding in this area should at least look at the magnetic field maps (free online) this research has produced.

            As for independent confirmation of the South Magnetic Pole shown on magnetic field maps, that’s done by everyone sufficiently south of the equator with a standard magnetic compass. The south-pointing end of a compass needle in any such location will indicate (by pointing toward) a geomagnetic pole at the same location: off the coast of Antarctica near Australia – even when that implies the most direct path to the magnetic pole goes across Antarctica, as is the case in South America.

            Yet, significantly, the north-pointing ends of these compass needles well south of the equator point in inconsistent directions in terms of indicating a magnetic pole to the north (see magnetic field maps). This means the south-pointing agreement among the compasses must be due to a different, and nearer, geomagnetic pole – the counterpart of the North Magnetic Pole which has to exist somewhere because magnetic poles always occur in pairs – namely, the South Magnetic Pole known for centuries to exist near the coast of Antarctica south of Australia.

          4. John le Bon

            @Clueseau: In other words, no, you cannot cite a single independent, documented case of verifying the ‘south magnetic pole’. That is all you needed to say. The rest is just fluff. Saying things like, ‘it has been known for centuries’, is trite rhetoric and useless amongst people versed in fakeology. Your claims require documented evidence; ‘citation needed’. Cheers.

          5. Clueseau

            Not at all. There are ample cases, centuries worth of cases, to be cited confirming the South Magnetic Pole. However, fakeologists will note the weasel word “independent” in your question, the definition of which can be arbitrarily expanded to exclude every observation on record except those one can conduct personally, which I described.

            Given your dubious approach to this topic, including the haste you just demonstrated in jumping to your foregone conclusion, that’s all I can do for you at present. Perhaps, when you give the appearance of having done the first hour of study in the subject matter, it may be worth discussing this further, though your meeting that condition doesn’t seem likely.

          6. John le Bon

            @Clueseau: ‘Independent’ is a ‘weasel word’ now? If you have not already jumped the shark, the ramp is soon approaching. Why claim there have been ‘centuries worth of cases’ if you are not going to cite even one? We both know the answer, as would most people who frequent this site. Unless you can begin to provide evidence for your claims, I will not bother replying further to this thread. Cheers.

      1. ab Post author

        Do you have a copy of this handbook you’re so well versed in? Why are you so familiar with this book? Why is John so suspicious to you & K and not to me?

        1. Clueseau

          Do you have a copy of this handbook you’re so well versed in? Why are you so familiar with this book?

          Why are you charging ahead based on so literal an interpretation of my post? Would it cost so much to allow for the possibility that my comment was intended differently?

          Why is John so suspicious to you & K and not to me?

          Are you asking for a mind reading, Ab? K is handling herself quite well. My comment was merely a general addition, about no one in particular, concerning the methods of ubiquitous alternative-media psyops – which is presumably a topic we’re all interested in here at Fakeology.

    2. Zalian

      Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

      Present proof, or stop making accusations.

      A guy defending himself is not proof of anything, anyone with a decent level of self esteem does that.

      -Zal

      1. khammad

        “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.
        Present proof, or stop making accusations.” – Zalian

        First, being a cointelpro agent is not extraordinary. Perhaps 90% of the internet is controlled, according to Rochello who has been doing a lot of research in this area. See Creative Arts Agency www.caa.com/

        As for proof, all we have is circumstantial evidence as I do not have the security clearance to know for sure. And if I had the clearance it would mean jail time if any top secret information was revealed. So give me a day or so and I will come up with a circumstantial list. I know I have done this before but I can’t find the post so I will update my circumstantial evidence list that supports my accusation that John LeBon may not be who he say he is.

        1. Zalian

          The internet is controlled sure.

          But i highly doubt its the limited number of schills that do it (maybe there is like 1 million of them, and now im being generous, worldwide that is nothing, and most of them would be forum posting factories, not entire fake personas)

          Its way easier to controll the plattforms like Youtube and Facebook themselves.

          That basically means that the few cointelpro agents there is, usually are in the leading positions of whatever movement they try to infiltrate.

          JLB strikes me as neither, he seems like just a person to me.

          gather whatever list of “circumstancial evidence” you want.
          It’s basically an excuse for having nothing solid.

          And compiling a list where he does not measure up to your take on the “truth” does not prove he works for anyone.

          Would you like it if i accused you of being cointelpro cause we disagree on some subjects?

          -Zal

    3. John le Bon

      I am posting this from the CIA committee meeting as we speak. The Chief of Station says the entire team I front for can’t leave the room until we find a way to counter your evidence against me. The problem is that you still haven’t provided a shred of evidence to support your accusations. Please help us out, here. This could be a long day in the office.

      By the way, I have spent more time looking into the nonsensical ‘Cavendish experiment’ which can supposedly weigh the entire earth. Video(s) on the way soon. From memory, you agreed that that such a device could not weigh the earth, which makes you a ball earth skeptic (as we all should be). You have made it clear that I am not welcome on your channel but I want you to know that you are still more than welcome on mine 🙂

      Cheers.

    4. Curious

      @Khammad,

      It is in my humble opinion absolute ridiculous how you behave yourself.
      I have to speak my mind. You made me thinking ( realizing) that Khammad and Clueseau are the same person. The interaction between the two of you( making each other compliments, etc) but far more important the syntax, which is about the same.
      JLB forced you to rethink the ball model theorie and you came up with a greater ball model. In a chat with Ab you stated that one. However you made a hughe mistake by stating something very different to me in the reply-section, here I came to know that you simply don’t know how this whole thing called “planet” looks like.
      S. Shack stated in a reply section that he did not except your greater ball model and did not want to give you the support for it. There you were, nobody to back you up. As nobody wanted to back you up and you needed someone to back you up, because you realized to well that your greater ball theorie was on very shaky grounds, not to say rubbish ( spinning with 1000 m. an hour), you started thinking to yourself: if nobody wants to back me up, I will create one myself. And this creation was called Clueseau.
      From the very beginning there were suspicions about that “Clueseau”. Someone thought , S. Shack was behind it.
      It came very much to my attention, not only the relationship between the two of you, but much more important the syntax, it drove me steady but slowly to the conclusion that Khammad and Clueseau are the same person.
      Khammad I came to the conclusion, that you created Clueseau as your back- up, because nobody wanted you to back-up in your greater ball model.
      Having said that. it is none of your bussiness what someone has to believe or not to believe. Blaming somebody else, what you are doing yourself? Why this gigantic push for a greater ball model?
      A couple of weeks ago Unreal wrote in the reply section, after his chat with Ab, (Paris hoax), a message directed to you. As expected no answer.
      This whole thing is getting out of proportions and for what? What is to gain with it?

      1. khammad

        I am not Clueseau, nor he I. We do, however, share similar viewpoints on certain subjects. There are other fakeologists who also share similar viewpoints with me on certain subjects.

        Mr. Curious, my greater ball model was speculation. No proof at all so I have moved on. This is the third time I have told you that I am done with the greater ball earth model. Let us now discuss the regular sphere earth model, according to my own calculations of monuments that I can see that are some distance away on this sphere earth, I have proven to myself that I am on a regular size sphere earth. Mount Rainier is seen exactly as my math shows and so is every other monument I have seen and calculated. So far, looks like we are on the globe they say we are on.

        More measurements are forthcoming.

    5. Tal Shiar

      Thanks for the GREAT post, Kham!

      JLB is the reason that I left for a long time. I always thought it was odd that AB liked him. Recently, Ab said that he liked JLB because he had a great radio voice. Which I would have to disagree, because I instantly lose interest when he talks. How can anyone conclude that a person with a great radio voice canNOT be cointelpro? I can’t seem to draw that conclusion . . .

      What ever happened to JLB’s scare tactics about vaccines that he rudely attacked Videre about?

      Oh wait, JLB is promoting the fake flat earth movement that Obama talked about.

        1. Curious

          @Tal Shiar

          What ever happened to JLB’s scare tactics about vaccines that he rudely attacked Videre about?

          I start with a quote from Dr. med. Buchwald: Vaccines bussiness based on scaremongering. As a victim of vacc. myself (pertussis) and have seen a former dog of mine severely damaged by Parvo vacc ( 1995) I discovered afwards that from the very beginning this whole vacc. bussiness ic nothing more as big money and making people deliberate sick. Vacc. don’t work, can only cause damage, because the socalled immumesystem don’t exist, viruses don’t exist , stated by Dr. Stephan Lanka ( molecular bacteriolog and virolog) and the case with bacteria is a hoax as well. Bacteria builds up or off. Good or bad bacteria don’t exist. Laboratorium inventention.
          germannewmedicine.ca/documents…
          www.whale.to/ Has a lot of good info
          nancybanksmd.com/

      1. John le Bon

        @Tal:

        1) I am not ‘promoting flat earth’. I have spent much of the past six months questioning the establishment spinning ball earth theory, and lately I have been spending more time questioning the leading flat earth map known as the Azimuthal equidistant projection. Contrast this with KHam who did indeed promote ‘greater ball earth’ theory without a shred of evidence. Who has promoted misinfo here?

        2) That audiochat with Videre was well over six months ago. Videre and yourself have had plenty of time to either move on, or contact me to discuss things directly. Instead you snipe from the sidelines – why? You say I attacked ‘Videre’, which is nonsense. Post the timestamp of when this allegedly occurred in the audiochat. I recall Videre rudely interrupting to the point that I had to ask her to refrain from doing so, so that I could finish my responses to her questions. Is this what you are talking about?

        3) Note that in the past fortnight, the legislation I spoke of in that chat passed our Senate and is now locked in to be law. Parents will lose up $15k in tax concessions and so forth if they refuse to have their healthy children injected with chemical concoctions. As I explained in that audiochat, this will affect people of all income brackets. You might not see this as a problem, but many people do. You accuse me of running a ‘fear campaign’ and yet KHam and yourself are spending your time claiming that a ‘cointelpro agent’ has infiltrated this website. Do you not see the irony?

        It seems to me I am not the only one who has grown tired of these baseless accusations. If you have any actual evidence for ANY of your claims against me, please present it. Otherwise you are wasting everybody’s time, including your own.

        Cheers.

        1. Tal Shiar

          Hey John,

          I initially wrote this LONG response and I have too much going on in my life to keep this argument going.

          Here’s the deal! How about we setup a time to talk through team speak and I will personally tell you where I am coming from. I have no problem explaining myself and my thoughts on where other Fakologists are coming from. Also, its a great place to talk and maybe we all can clear the air.

          Let me know what you think . .

      2. smj

        what’s with the cointelpro shit?

        are y’all gals suggesting that your nemesis, john le bon, works for the fbi in a program from the sixties that fucked with the panthers, the klan, and bobby kennedy? seriously?

        cointelpro was narrative driven by devices like william sullivan. hopefully, i don’t have to translate the following narrative from his wiki into fakeologist for y’all:

        “Suspicious death
        The following passages were published in 2007 by Robert D. Novak in his memoir, The Prince of Darkness.
        “Sullivan came to our house in the Maryland suburbs in June 1972 for lunch and a long conversation about my plans for a biography of Hoover (a project I abandoned as just too ambitious an undertaking). Before he left, Bill told me someday I probably would read about his death in some kind of accident, but not to believe it. It would be murder.
        “On November 9, 1977, days before he was to testify to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, twenty minutes before sunrise, sixty-five-year-old William C. Sullivan was walking through the woods near his retirement home in Sugar Hill, New Hampshire, on the way to meet hunting companions. Another hunter, Robert Daniels, Jr., a twenty-two-year-old son of a state policeman, using a telescopic sight on a .30 caliber rifle, said he mistook Sullivan for a deer, shot him in the neck, and killed him instantly.
        The authorities called it an accident, fining Daniels five hundred dollars and taking away his hunting license for ten years. Sullivan’s collaborator on his memoir, the television news writer Bill Brown, wrote that he and Sullivan’s family were convinced that the death was accidental.
        Sullivan was one of six current or former FBI officials who died during a six-month period in 1977, before they were to testify before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, all men who were slated to give testimony about FBI circumstances related to the death of United States President John F. Kennedy, and the FBI role in the Warren Commission.[4]
        “Sullivan’s death did not prevent publication of the memoir, telling all about the disgrace of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. After Watergate, with all the principals dead or out of office, it received little attention.””

        the term cointelpro is just executable code. supposed fakeologists shouldn’t be tossing the term around all willy-friggin-nilly and whatnot. at least google monster it first for fuck’s sake.

          1. smj

            nice handle tal; spaceships ain’t real of course:

            “The Tal Shiar was the elite intelligence agency of the Romulan Star Empire. It was a highly-respected and feared force in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants. Its purpose was guarding the security of the Empire, both from the Romulans’ interstellar enemies – most notably the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire – as well as from traitors within the Romulan population itself. The covert, often invisible presence of the Tal Shiar kept the general populace in a constant state of paranoia. Dissent and dissatisfaction with the status quo were met with severe punishment and often dissidents have been known to “disappear”. (TNG: “Face of the Enemy”)”
            memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Ta…

            hopefully you’re just out of your depth. maybe you should go catch up on your television, do some fashion or whatever. do you like isreali movies by any chance?

            www.thedailybeast.com/articles…

Leave a Reply

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