Any Greenland fakeologists?

Be the 1st to vote.

I didn’t get a chance to see an iceberg while in Newfoundland this month, but tis the season for them as summer peaks.

Icebergs are real, but is the famous 11 ton video real or are we dealing with CGI?

Icebergs melting is a normal thing in the summer. Linking it to the 0;climate change” hoax is just to reinforce the business model built around it.

If anyone speaks Danish that can place some calls to Greenland to see what’s going on up there, let’s hear a call.

Picture-perfect iceberg dazzles on Newfoundland’s Bonavista Peninsula | CBC News

No tags for this post.

6 thoughts on “Any Greenland fakeologists?

  1. xileffilex

    Some articles e.g this one are linking the projected iceberg calving tsunami with the 2017 “earthquake” tsunami in Greenland
    The videos look very very hoaxy, note the involvement of National Geographic.…
    The usual shaky camera, the predictable “Oh God!” style soundtrack. with lots of “panting”. Suuuuure someone would be filming… looks like all that household junk was already placed outside ready for the “waves”, however they were created.……

    One big isolated film set.

    BBC Reported 4 missing…

    BBC photo dump of the hoax…

    best photo – Firefighters customarily posing for the camera…

    Strategic relocation, #NDNGH
    Strangely not recorded in theWiki list of 2017 Earthquakes.

  2. xileffilex

    This photo is dated December 2017 of an icerberg in Innaarsuit.…
    Hans Peter Kleeman, the local resident who photographed it doesn’t seem to exercised about impending disaster in Greenland

    And the scientists just happened to be there on 22 June 2018 when the latest calving occurred…
    and the only imagery we have is the Speeded up version.…

    And three weeks later, we have a Tsunami threat.


    It’s smelling very hoaxy.

  3. UNreal

    Icebergs are real, but is the famous 11 ton video real or are we dealing with CGI?

    Contrary to what appear as “common sense” – Icebergs are not necesseily as “real” as they are described by science with 90% of the ice-mass under the surface of water being pretty unlikely.

    The most disturbing fact about icebergs is that they mostly exist in scary narratives* as fantastic stories, since more or less some years before the Titanic*…. The unfortunate situation of icebergs is that they are most scary by their “unseen” size underwater which is a feature that can not be reproduced at home or in a laboratory. This is reminiscent of other scientific “facts” we are unable to reproduce like the Big Bang, planets in orbiting in a void (space) and water bending & sticking to a (spinning) oblate spheroid.

    It is unfortunate that we need to be skeptic even about fundamental “scientific facts” but it is recurrent that the Elite seem to change reality whenever thay can and make it bigger, more dangerous and more to the point – unbelievable..

    “The largest icebergs recorded have been calved, or broken off, from the Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica. Iceberg B-15, photographed by satellite in 2000, measured 295 by 37 kilometres (183 by 23 mi), with a surface area of 11,000 square kilometres (4,200 sq mi).”
    Iceberg – wikipedia

    *the topic of icebergs has been a recurring topic on YouTube, mainly questionned by the likes of Junglesurfer, Aaron Dover and Hans Wormhat – not foolproof researchers but often raising interesting topics

    *there was no system to track icebergs to guard ships against collisions before 1910, most likely because they weren’t considered a serious threat as ships had managed to survive even direct crashes.. In 1913 the International Conference on the Safety of Life at Sea met in London to form the IIP – the International Ice Patrol (the anagram of ‘IIP’ being ‘Pee’ of course,,)

    1. UNreal

      “The iceberg suspected of sinking the RMS Titanic; a smudge of red paint much like the Titanic’s red hull stripe was seen near its base at the waterline.”

  4. ricky

    Considering “common knowledge” says two thirds of an iceberg is underwater, that image suggests the water is freakishly deep right offshore, not likely.

Leave a Reply

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