John Le Bon dismissed by Bigfoot booster 

like this

Aliens, UFOs, and Lochness Monsters are all believable to this old mainstream radio fossil. Tell him about some and he gets pissy. 

JLB needs to size up his competition better. Short, sharp strikes of and plugs would have gone a lot farther than JLB’s long drawn out responses. 

I’d like to go over this audio with John later to strategize how to talk to msm hosts. 

It was a nice try but mostly a fail. Living down the QEW, I’ve never heard of this host.…

No tags for this post.

22 thoughts on “John Le Bon dismissed by Bigfoot booster 

  1. xileffilex

    John, why didn’t you ask him who were his relatives who allegedly died on 9/11? You had two opportunities, yet you weren’t curious, allowing McConnell to gain the upper hand over plane airspeeds.
    [btw have a read of answer 5 here]

    Incidentally, I keep thinking about the number of toilet bowls in the WTC towers. There’s little curiosity about them, but one source for information is Dr Judy Wood. Don’t laugh, because nobody else is curious.

    And while I was trying to get a handle [….] on the toilets I came across this absurd story about an escape from a WTC lift in an account of the 1993 bombing on page 84 by Eugene Fasullo who, with help from fellow occupants of a stuck lift [allegedly] tunneled their way out of the lift half way up WTC1, having forced open the doors, and onto a toilet bowl of an adjoining bathroom. Suuuuuure they did.

    And while we’re here, Fasullo was also involved in rubber stamping the hoaxed death of a Windows on the World Employee [suuuuure] in 1993, a Peruvian called Mercado [whose WOTW manager was one Johannes Trump….]

    1. John le Bon

      John, why didn’t you ask him who were his relatives who allegedly died on 9/11?

      If I had known at the time that I was going to be booted anyway, I would have done just that. It wasn’t until the end of the call that I realised McConnell was going to become hostile. I was intending and expecting to ‘move on to the next topic’.

      It is easy to listen to an interview like this in retrospect and say ‘you should have done this/that’ but I went into that interview in good faith, AND the first segments were relatively cordial, so I did not know what was around the corner.

      1. Questioning Our Reality

        It sounds like McConnell had you duped into thinking people died on 9/11 when he told you he lost relatives on 9/11. I can understand you were spellbound by McConnell’s assertion that he lost relatives on 9/11 and then all of the sudden you were thinking maybe people did die on 9/11. You did have an opportunity to shake the spell and overcome McConnell’s griping statement about losing relatives on 9/11.

        Ab and Xileffilex have good constructive criticism and surely you will take this criticism with open arms knowing you were under a spell with that 9/11 liar McConnell. If I were you I would not have this audio on This could hurt your paywall in that potential subscribers might rethink if it’s worth it to pay for truth knowing you could get cold feet with your nobody died, nobody got hurt meme like you did with McConnell. Also what if you lose paywall subscribers. I wouldn’t be surprised if Original Simulant has already cancelled.

        You could get McConnell to do an audio for in order to examine his statements about losing people on 9/11. This would be for redemption and show McConnell you won’t fall for his magic tricks aka lies. Nobody died and nobody got hurt on 9/11 and McConnell knows that but he is a gatekeeper with 9/11 and you have to call people like this out in the future.

        1. John le Bon

          It sounds like McConnell had you duped into thinking people died on 9/11 when he told you he lost relatives on 9/11

          Incorrect. Nobody died, nobody got hurt. Period. That’s a fact.

          The problem is that some people do genuinely believe people died that day. This can be due to friends/family/colleagues (more usually friends of friends i.e. distant associations) going missing around the same time, it can be due to faulty memories (seventeen yeas is a long time), and so on.

          In that moment, I did not realise McConnell was a hostile (noun-form). So I was quite happy to let him have his belief and ‘move on to th next topic’. Of coure in retrospect we know there was no ‘next topic’, but this was not clear at the time.

          It is very easy to sit here and say ‘you should have done this’ or ‘why didnt you do that’. And that is fair enough, people are entitled to their opinions. I for one look forward to seeing other people show me how it’s done. When can we expect to see these keyboard warriors walking the walk?

  2. John le Bon

    “It was a nice try but mostly a fail.”

    A fail at what exactly?

    I was invited onto a show, took the invitation in good faith, spoke honestly about my opinions, and was then mistreated by the host in what could be viewed as a planned ambush.

    An amusing reminder for myself and my audience that outside of we are dealing with clowns, fools and charlatans, who are not interested in (or perhaps even capable of) open and honest conversation on these sorts of topics.

    I’m not trying to bring people down, but I am surrounded by people who live their lives in a constant struggle trying to bring other people down. Crabs in a bucket.

    What A Time To Be Alive.

        1. ab Post author

          Xile mentioned one good point about asking who exactly died that he is related to. Fail in the sense that one has limited time with these gatekeepers before getting dumped, so it’s important to use the time effectively.

          1. John le Bon

            I didn’t know McConnell was a ‘gatekeeper’, and if I had known he claims to have family who died in 9/11, would not have even bothered to take up the invitation to be a guest on the show. Remember that they contacted me out of the blue, and did so professionally, and I had no reason to expect that the call would go the way it did.

            Sometimes I wonder if the media fakery bubble can warp peoples minds. This ‘shill hunting’ thing you guys love so much, what does it actually achieve? Suppose I asked McConnell for his family member names and he pulled a David Weiss on us: then what? What is actually achieved?

            Nobody cares. This corner of the internet is a tiny echo chamber which even the rest of the ACT realm pays no attention to. I have better things to do with my time than try to undermine people who invite me onto their platform.

            In this case, I conducted myself politely and professionally, even when the host became hostile. That you would criticise me for this, rather than appreciate the good which came from the call, is a little surprising to me.

            This corner of the internet truly is a feedback loop of negativity. Not good for the soul.

            1. ab Post author

              If they did one ounce of research on your site, then surely the ambush was planned. They promote crazy and scorn mainstream military media critics. Personally, I’d avoid anyone who believes in UFOs and Bigfoot.

              1. John le Bon

                If they did one ounce of research on your site, then surely the ambush was planned.

                This is possible.

                Ultimately, though, what is the harm? I have learned that the plane speed issue is too easily ignored/rejected by hostiles (or potential hostiles), so next time I am discussing 9/11 planes, I will either not mention the speeds, OR make sure I can produce an appeal to authority (‘expert’) to avoid getting stuck on the ‘muh experts’ issue.

                In reality, this experience taught me some useful lessons (the above being only one of several). I like to look at the bright side of things, always learning (or trying to learn) from experience 🙂

                1. ab Post author

                  It was a good learning experience. That’s why we should analyze it and build on it. I’m routing for you and your site JLB, so don’t get your back up when the warriors here are really trying to help.

                  1. John le Bon

                    All well and good but you still have not explained what about this call was a ‘failure’. What exactly do you think I was trying to achieve? Against what metrics does one assign a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’?

                    As for the ‘warriors’ here, with the greatest of respect, apart from yourself, none of the regulars of this site are really in the game. Taking potshots from the comfort of their computer desks is about the limit of their ‘warfare’.

                    1. ab Post author

                      The fail wasn’t so much on your behalf, it was the total show. You didn’t gain, and his show didn’t gain. Overall, no one’s agenda was advanced. I figure if we make it on any MSM show, it’s imperative to get a few plugs in on some of our strongest points. The fail reference was nothing personal.

            2. xileffilex

              Suppose I asked McConnell for his family member names and he pulled a David Weiss on us: then what? What is actually achieved?

              Suppose he didn’t and started floundering, like you did John when he pulled the air speed rabbit out of the hat towards the end. You might have gained some tempo. Aren’t we all trying to expose the lie system – and he might well have been lying. Have a shot at goal.

              What, incidentally, did you want to achieve by going on his show? End all belief in the efficacy of V2 rockets once and for all?
              At least you steered away from mentioning SH right at the beginning, which might have resulted in 40 minutes less chat. Good move [or omission] that.

              1. John le Bon

                Suppose he gave me some names on the spot: what am I going to do? Google search the names midway through the call? How do you think that is going to work out?

                It is the same problem as if I were to say, ‘Well a person named X claims to be a pilot and say planes can’t be flown at 500mph at sea level’. Who is X? Is he really a pilot? We’re not going to be able to find out mid-way through a call, are we?

                Hence why the idea of covering opinions and the reasons behind the opinions is more sensible in a call format, rather than a focus on the minutiae.

                I suspect the fundamental reason behind the negative reactions from some quarters to this call is because people feel it was a missed opportunity for me to ‘bust a shill’. I lost interest in ‘busting shills’ a long time ago.

                The ‘shills’ I have interacted with are regular people who propagate the official narrative of their own volition, to help maintain their own bullshit belief system. Most humans are, generally speaking, dumb as rocks. The ‘shills’ are the least of my problems, even if they do exist, which in my opinion, they probably do not.

                At least you steered away from mentioning SH right at the beginning, which might have resulted in 40 minutes less chat. Good move [or omission] that.

                Thank you. I learned my lesson after YouTube struck me for a recent video on Sandy Hook. Prior to that, I had forgotten how touchy the Baby Hoaxes are for some people. I probably got an extra segment or two out of the call by not naming SH directly. Lesson learned 🙂

                1. xileffilex

                  Authority 1 Hoaxbuster Nil, as it will always be – because the lying authorities will tell us what’s in the box and we can’t look to check. [except in some of the baby hoaxes, which is why they’re so well defended]
                  Sooooo, the question remains, why did you go on, John? I would probably have been tied in knots by McConnell after about 1 minute, [no criticism in that department] but I would, had I lasted that long, just asked about his relatives out of curiosity – surely he ought to have been delighted with the news that they didn’t actually die, if they indeed existed. Why are all the ‘paid/unpaid shills’ so keen wanting people to ‘die’ in staged events?

                  BTW is Osama bin Laden worth being in a division above SH etc etc. in the hoax pyramid? I hardly ever hear anyone talk of him these days.

                2. crochime

                  Not sure i’ve could have held on to my cool by ” Give your head a shake mister, you don’t know what your talking about!” ….In ad Hom. Attack style.
                  (I shut the stream down right there, so i guess = not keeping my cool)
                  The whole odd deal is a pretty good mirror on what most awake on this level encounter when trying to explain these things: “Well have you consulted the “experts”?” ? (underscore: You are a nobody and no matter how high a level of logic your arguments represents I will not listen).
                  Hats off 4 sticking up 2 it.
                  I noticed you got the strike on YT.. (Personally i never leave the house without a least one YT active strike :o))
                  I, like Ab, like audio shows a lot, and have trawled the web for years 4 “truth” podcasts and the like and I 2never heard of this up2nogood fellas show before.
                  (And hopefully I’ll never hear it again..)
                  PS. I’ve visited NY for (from Denmark) twice post 9/11. Once as sleeping, skeptic by nature, but def fast a sleep. & once as awake.. and the contrast is staggering with the glasses on. (I will say that’s to late 4 U by now :o))
                  Happy Hoaxaversary again friend & Merry X mas 2 U all.

                  1. xileffilex

                    Don’t mention [Fakeologist] glasses – they’re not recommended by the expert opticians round here 😉
                    Happy [Lockerbie] Hoaxiversary to you too.

                    1. Tom Dalpra

                      Don’t call me an expert 🙂
                      I didn’t say you couldn’t term it ‘wearing glasses’.
                      Excuse my pedantry before.

                      And yeh, Happy Hoaxiversary to you and to all !

Leave a Reply

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