22 thoughts on “FAC620-Ab, Videre

  1. Unreal

    Does research even matter ?

    Passion for better understanding leads to interest in thorough research, which in turn change one’s perception and stance.

    What peaks the public (here grassroots Truthers) interest in media fabrications such as 911 is mainly the exposure of false witness and fake evidence. The general public will in face of such information turn a blind eye and reinforce their indoctrinated belief in public institutions while the conspiracy theorist will investigate every other clue outside of mainstream media and officialdom in general.

    In other words, truth-seekers generally will be hungry for new information and research done outside of established/official channels – like on forums such as Fakeologist.

    A bothersome tendency (to me) would be that the hunger for new insight and independent research which is at the essence for the grassroots conspiracy audience is cast aside in favor of inconsequential social chatter. In other words, the very essence of what brings amateur researchers together to form a community – independent research – is replaced by the community itself and its social interactions.

    Anyone the slightest bit awake will be forced to admit the resources behind media-fakery and other hoaxes are tremendous as it implies official organizations funded by mighty nations who both tax us all and print the money we have in the first place. We should thereby be aware that the system as a whole works against truth-seekers and that an important part of the time we spend on research will be to cast aside falsehoods and false testimony.

    Unfortunately, it does not appear that valid research is of any use when it concerns (social) members of our own community. This is detrimental. Not only is this a disservice to the very cause that brings us together (truth-seeking), but it also exposes the motivation for creating a community to about the community – not truth.

    Indeed, it is unpopular to point to pertinent research on this site that uncover “amateur” content providers as frauds. It is nevertheless essential not only to provide such research, but also that this research becomes references part of our understanding of hoaxes and media-fakery – not left out, not ignored.

    Whenever Kham is referred to on this site and her false testimony of the Muckleshoot Casino shooting omitted – it is distasteful and irrespective of the quest this site sets out to seek – truth. Khammad, whoever hides behind this acronym, is lying about witnessing a staged media event – this matters. It is not even debatable if she lies or not as she was recorded on air in a Clues Chronicles podcast stating her false testimony to a collaborative Hoi Polloi.

    As nice as Videre Licet and Ab come across on air, they both do the Fakeologist audience a great disservice by their seemingly voluntary omission* of their duty to be awake to media fakery when it concerns Khammad. Not only should someone like Kham be investigated by Fakeologist members, but above all by those close to her or friends with her – like Videre and Ab. Why can someone be a “friend” of this site and lie about witnessing two deaths* (with her young daughter…) that never happened ?

    To be really skeptical about behavior such as encountered in this audiochat where Kham is let off the hook entirely and remembered dearly, one would need to ask how such awake individuals could possibly ignore live on air the very reason this site and community exist, which is truth-seeking.

    To point out false testimony given in a well investigated media-hoax is not muckraking contrary to how some might like to present such facts – it is Fakeology research in every respect – and very important as well when this concerns a former radio-show host on Fakeologist, a website dedicated to mediahoaxes and critical research.

    *quotes from around the 20 min mark:
    “She’s just a beautiful lady” (Videre on Kham)
    “I got to have her back to talk, she was very good to the site” (Ab on Kham)

    *nobody even officially died in the Muckleshoot Casino shooting, the shooter was convicted of attempted murder in his fake trial

    K shooting

    1. gaia

      So because Kathy Hammad (that is publicly shown on the TYCHOS) had a different witness account than the media narrative you as a “fakeologist”, knowing about media fakery, then reject the account of another “fakeologist” and embrace the media narrative?

      What is going on here?

      1. Unreal

        What is going on in your (Gaia) post above is a complete failure to investigate and inform yourself and others.

        Kathy Hammad is not Gaia’s first failing when it comes to investigating false testimony amongst prominent Truther figures of course. Gaia was among the most vocal to ignorantly defend and support John Adams in his self-inflicted outing with his false testimony to the reality of popular biker girl Annette Carrion’s death-hoax.

        More Carrion

        1. gaia

          Indeed, you are some paranoid attic accuser suddenly married with the media.

          I am not accusing Kham or John Adams of lying.

          Based on pure conjecture, speculation and a complete lack of tangible evidence.

          You’re a danger to real truth seekers. If I would take you seriously that is.

          Ontopic: that Davidovits guy is pretty interesting but also pretty wrong. More about that soon.

        2. Unreal

          Your attitude (Gaia) is as per usual rather nasty.

          Threatening words and meaningless language further emphasize the erratic behavior that you so shamelessly display in numerous, neverending audiochats. You (Gaia) are a nonsensical bully – no class, no sound thinking.

          There is conclusive material that proves Kham factually lies when she claims to have witnessed to deaths that never occurred – it is silly to even contend something else, but you (Gaia) are clearly beyond silly*.

          ” Having been in a bar shooting where 2 people died and 3 people were injured from gunfire I have the advantage of telling MY story, regardless of social norms. “
          • Kham on CF, 12 Nov 2018 – cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?…

          ” Yeah – he emptied his chamber in both the females – they died at the scene… “
          • Kham on Clues Chronicles 23, 10 Oct 2017 – fakeologist.com/wp-content/upl…

          Nobody was ever declared dead from the scene where Kham claims (publicly, on multiple occasions) to have witnessed murder on 24th July 2011 at the Galaxy night club in Auburn.


          * going beyond silly could quite literally bring us to… shilly allunreal.com/blog/conspiracy-…

  2. Videre

    Thank you for your kind comments JLB.

    I can truly relate to the phases we move through, adjusting to seeing the lies, living amongst those who are blinded by their emotions in those lies, and learning to keep this knowledge to ourselves and only sharing it with the few friends we have found on this site. It has been a great lesson in psychology – ie. cognitive dissonance, world views etc.

    We are all learning and this is a huge betrayal to overcome. It has definitely brought on the OCD experience in the frantic need to know or understand the lie. I, like many here, did my hours and hours of research. This is known as “safety seeking” and I was a master at it. I am grateful for the experience and have probably added a few decades to my life as I am no longer ruled by the fear or the anger in that betrayal.

    I wanted to share with you the info I was referring to in the audio regarding the pyramids. Like you, I question history and tend to not believe any of it. Once trust is lost, it is hard believe anything given to us by “them”.

    I just see the pyramids as structures that were built with a lot of technology and that they disprove the linear development of man kind as has been told to us. Yes – another lie. (Not surprised,..)

    I find it interesting that this viewpoint has now become part of the narrative and is being spoon fed to us along with legendary tales of Nicola Tesla. I don’t remember this name in school when I was young. Why is he being forced on us now? Is he part of a new paradigm our youth are supposed to ingest?

    Anyways… I am not sold on this theory but it definitely leaves me with a lot of questions about who we really are, what came before us, what is being hidden from us and what their motivation is in its delivery.

    The all seeing eye comes up at the beginning of this video and I especially loved the comments that follow. I think it is getting harder for them to deceive the masses.


    Videre 🙂

    1. aralsea

      Greta’s family is deep into the entertainment industry. I was watching a Netflix doc and they think the Pyramids were huge batteries supplying power to the Egyptian empire. Magnetic power, high vibration, power of creation which holds all things together. Nice to hear from Videre. Take care.

    2. Unreal

      It can be compelling to fantasize about the magic behind the building of the pyramids, and the various types of hidden technology contained within such impressive* buildings.

      The speculation (and ‘rumors’) around the pyramids is nevertheless created purposefully as what we really do observe is a pile of artificial stones, most likely molded (geopolymer) in situ over an existing geological mound. This is the major trick that needed to be in place for generations to come of “discoveries” inside the black triangular box the masons built – a Pandora of surprises that keeps on captivating the public while archeologist invent and dig new chambers inside and conjuring up conspiracy candy.

      The funny part is how no sane population ever would populate a dessert if they had ships to travel with around the Mediterranean – one of the best places to live on earth if you only choose your land with care. But instead of living on lush Greek islands, or even better French Riviera locations – we today think the most advanced civilization that ever was rather would prosper in what clearly never has been a very comfortable location: sandy Egypt… Oh, of course this aspect is minimized – the inhospitable environment of Egypt – because we are supposed to believe there once was lush vegetation in Egypt millennia ago… Only problem here is of course that this not only is unlikely, but rather beside the point.

      The real point is that there is no better scenario for inventing a story than from a clean, dessert plate where nobody lives and nobody ever lived. In this position all one needs is to build the past from scratch with nobody close to witness whatsoever. Then, bring in a clueless, uneducated population and teach them their “glorious past”… Which is what Egypt and Palestine really are – clean dessert slates in which you build history, then import a clueless population to be educated in the story you’d like to tell and they would enjoy to hear – like Pharaonic and Biblical past glory…

      Pyramid – Army Did (combined anagram/ambigram)

      A Pyramid the Army did

      *the pyramids are not as impressive as advertised, and we could easily build these today contrary to what most archelogists claim. Of course, minimising the technological feat of the buildings does not play well wth magical stories, so it has become a fact these are incredible pieces of art – well, they are not. Only the neverending fairytales of marble casing and golden casing stones really do point at any form of mastery and funny enough this is just lore – not built facts in any shape or form

      1. gaia

        “The pyramids”, there are way more than just three, are a marvel of mankind. Period.

        “Napoleon did it” is just as empty as “aliens did it”.

        Really? Since when did soldiers in 1798-1801 (that is just 3 years) have the technology to build 3 different pyramids? The manpower, strength, tools, documentation, plans, etc.?

        That is 1 pyramid a year.

        Anyone making these stupid claims is not a truth seeker, but someone looking for a new narrative, no matter how little thought through. No sense of credibility whatsoever.

        These people really are claiming that all the marvels of those pyramids, the secret chambers, the different hallways, all the incredible level of craftmanship and incomprehensible technological advancement were built by soldiers on horses who needed to load their guns by pouring gunpowder in the barrels?

        No experience whatsoever in building pyramids, but some soldiers somehow built a pyramid every year, the first time right?

        Keep dreaming.

        And “Egypt is a sandy place”? Really? We are not talking “Egypt”, we are talking the very fertile and dynamic Nile valley here. One of the biggest rivers in the world, in terms of water mass.

        The river has shifted course a lot over the last thousands of years and the overbank clays of the river are fertile lands. That is where people start to live, look at Paris, London and other cities built along meandering rivers…

        Why would you go live “on a Greek island” (nice for holidays and if your name is Onassis) when you have a fertile river valley to populate?

        I have heard these “geopolymer” ideas before and that may have been used (nobody has ever replicated it, so it is just a hypothesis), but that does not make it modern.

        Which other buildings did Nappy and his buddies build then? Tiwanaku? Cusco? Chichen Itza? Angkor Wat? The sunken pyramids of Japan? Those between Cuba and Yucatán? And so on, and on and on…

        The timeline of history and the architectural marvels that are real and tangible need to be separated first from the clear historical fakes.

        On Cluesforum there is a very interesting thread about the mysteries of the pyramids of Gizeh, but also others:


        The problem is that they take the Piri Reis map as real, I highly doubt that and have shared that in many audios (some are linked) and of course also on Fakeopedia:


        1. Unreal

          Hereunder a video on intial findings of artificial stones in ancient South American sites*:

          Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers
          Geopolymer Institute – 03 Mar 2019 – 1h01 – 16K views

          *the historical narritive is not a focal point in the technical approach of Dr Davidovits and his work mainly take mainstream historical timeline as the basis of interpretation. Regardless if one chose to maintain the timeline, what is truly interesting here is that the use of artificial stone demystifies all the outwordly speculation and magic claimed to accompany these major historical artefacts

      2. Unreal

        Gaia is as know-it-all as usual in his abrasive reply hereover, missing the point and misrepresenting research.

        The importance of successive conquests (and their armies) in the manufacture of the aggrandized history of Egypt is quite self-explanatory, and out of the armies responsible for establishing the Egyptian civilization, Napoleon was more responsible for the propaganda and narrative than any form of masonry or building. In fact, the most astonishing aspect of Napoleons conquest of Egypt was his emphasis on including a large portion of scholars and experts, which led to founding the “science” of Egyptology and discovering the Rosetta stone.

        So, as i’m not claiming Napoleon’s army built the pyramid as such, we would need look further back in time as to discover who built the primitive mounds that centuries of archeological digging have turned into the engineering “masterpieces” we know today.

        The aspect that i’ve investigated most regarding Egypt is the method employed, and it is clearly foundational for all types of archeology* (dinosaurs included). The main concept behind academic “findings” is to very publicly create protected sites for digging – from that point onwards the public will have no insight but a lot of interest, and then experts can calmly invent whatever objects, animals, infrastructure or buildings they need for their narrative.

        A clear draw-back with merely digging holes in the ground and protecting a site is that the results in the end will be somewhat underwhelming. It is impossible to sell the story of a tall building from merely digging a hole in the ground. What is needed rather, when one wish to sell a refined culture and their incredible feats would have to impress the bystander, thus stand tall and proud in the light of day (sort of). How would this be possible from just a hole in the ground ?

        By inverting the hole in the ground into a mound reaching for the sky – the situation has changed completely. The drawback here of course would be that it would take years to build a multistory building, and it would require a lot of skilled workers too who would surely be troublesome for a historical narrative. The next best solution then is what we see in Egypt : you build a primitive mound in a seemingly advanced fashion, then this mound (pyramid) serve as a screen for building an artefact inside – which will take a long time and be awkward – just as we see in Egypt.

        Looking closer at Egypt is is clear that the pyramids in reality were built around sand rock hills, and that the gradual levelling off the ground around the “pyramids” thereby helped a lot in making these “buildings” quite sizeable in height. The essence in making “pyramids” is to wisely choose the location in order to benefit from the site topology in order to easily gain height and general shape. I guess St Exupery made the best illustrated example by his simple drawing for the little prince of a boa snake swallowing an elephant*. It is the same for pyramids – they look elaborated with their large linear surfaces, but can easily be manufactured around a hill with compatible shape.

        The use of geopolymer or another method for in situ concrete is not at all far-fetched or ill-documented. The Geopolymer institute led by Joseph Davidovits have quite easily reproduced the very same blocks of sandstone we find in Egypt, and with the very same water content, which is important as artificial stones consist of a higher percentage of water than natural stone. Again – the stones in the Cheops pyramid show water content consistent with artificial stone, not natural stone as the water content is too important for this to be the case.


        Regarding the lushness or not of Egypt, i suggest going onto Google Earth or looking at satellite imagery in order to realize that a thin belt of vegetation around the Nile is not enough to call Egypt the garden of Eden nor in any way an attractive location for a highly developed civilization. For Egypt to become a highly hospitable place one needs to imagine quite a lot with eyes closed in order to have blind faith in evolution narratives about how the desert was less present way back when, and how forests once were ripe royal hunting-grounds. Not that it really matters, but game is for the upper class and wheat for the peasants. In Egypt there is only wheat…

        *the clean slate black box model can also be said to be how the empty WTC towers worked on 911 – just facades that act as shield for the culprits to place the dynamite of carve out the odd sarcophagus, new tunnel or “hidden” chamber.

        *The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupery (chapter 1), herunder a link to the two drawings by Le Petit Prince:

          1. gaia

            Ce n’est pas vroi…. juste, really?

            No explanation whatsoever how “sand rock hills” work, how the pyramids need to show evidence of man-made structures built over natural formations, etc. It is arm-waiving. Neil DeGrasseTyson level.

            The “geopolymer” thing is centered around water? Sorry, no, the difference between a geopolymered rock and a natural sedimentary rock is shown in the sedimentological structures (natural yes, artifical no), in the contacts between the grains (you see contact dissolution with microscopy), etc. Anyone with a little bit of trained eye can see the difference between a natural sedimentary rock and an artificial one using a microscope.

            The paleomagnetic point is also excellent. This is the original paper, it is just 3 pages long?? The “references” are pathetic.


            “Our paleomagnetic investigation of the two great
            Egyptian pyramids, Kufu and Khafre, is based on
            the assumption that if the blocks were made in situ
            by the concrete technique described above, then
            their magnetic moments would all have been parallel,
            oriented approximately in the north-south direction.
            However, if the pyramids were constructed from
            blocks transported from the nearby quarries, having
            been rotated randomly during transport and construction,
            then the directions of their magnetic moments
            would be oriented randomly.”

            How does pouring sedimentary grains with water and probably calcite and other binding materials make all the grains aligned in the same way? Makes no sense; all the paleomagnetic directions would scatter because the grains making up the polymer come from different rocks, orientations and locations.

            So if the data shows a very similar paleomag direction that would be evidence AGAINST the “in situ geopolymer pouring”, not FOR…

            The Sahara was in general way greener than today in the past, estimated around 5000 years ago, so in the era the pyramids were allegedly built. I don’t subscribe to that date so much, a much older date (Orion alignment) makes more sense.

            But the Nile valley is green, yes. And fertile, because you see the meanders. Even though at surface the soil may be dull and sandy on Google Earth, the deeper soils contain fertile clays.

            Egypt has only grown so much this and last century, for ages it was not populated so much. And same today; most people live along the Nile or at the coasts and very very few outside of that.

            That is the other thing; witnesses. If you now claim the pyramids were NOT built by Nappy’s soldiers, then at any moment they needed to have many witnesses seeing how to build such gigantic and geometrically so perfect buildings. Internal architecture is jaw dropping.

            Even today we cannot replicate the methods and ways to build such a pyramid.

            It is a mystery, either way. And that’s cool, very cool.

          2. Unreal

            More abrasiveness…

            As to scientific debate – there are many studies on the Geopolymer Institute website you seem to not have consulted or read*. To be general, more water is needed for creating artificial stone (in this case made from local sediments) which is why it can be effortlessly manipulated and poured into molds on site. Geopolymers will expel excess water after molding in order to obtain structural compact, loadbearing form as the “rocks” we know today. Such locally fabricated rocks will have a different hygrometry and structure compared to natural rock, but look very similar as local soil is the main component.

            Herunder is an informal video of how students of the Geopolymer workshop manufactured pyramid stone in a day in St Quentin Les Yvelines, about 20km from Paris.


            If you (Gaia) have qualms with the nature of Geopolymers or other artificial stone, you should debate directly the intricate details you put forth with competent experts of the subject matter. In this case reading Dr Joseph Davidovits specifically is of interest as he’s among few to dedicate time and effort to the study of archeological sites for in-situ-made stone. Not only in Egypt is there artificial stone found from scientific structural analyses, but also in major South American “ancient” sites like Gate of the Sun and Pumapunku.


            Suffice to say several contemporary studies of pyramid stones are in support of their artificial, poured-into-place nature which only makes sense as this would be the most efficient way to build such big projects as seen in Egypt. This holds true regardless of when one believes the pyramids were made – be it 10.000 years ago or in the early renaissance.

            Whenever i hear Egypt was way greener 5000 years ago, i hope most readers will know these are unprovable facts that scientific propagandists use on a naive public in their own benefit – like moonrocks. When i hear that the soil looks grey and dull but is lush under the surface – i’m not sure what to say, at this point i’m just bemused. Fact is advanced civilizations wisely choose where to settle – and it’s not in overheated desserts nor impossible jungles, despite what archeologists today propagate. Four seasons – it is even a five star hotel.

            It is rather symptomatic that great, lost civilizations all resided in unlivable places for most men presently – under the ocean (Atlantis), on unattainable mountain peaks (Machu Picchu), in the middle of the dessert (Petra) or in overgrown Jungles (Tikal). This makes the likelihood of any witness to construction rather unlikely and easy to contain if occurring. Egypt is quite like any other “ancient” site, it was “discovered” late and heavily restored (euhh, manufactured) – and the population scarce and uneducated.

            The outside-in construction method behind the logic of creating archeology from earthmounds and pyramids is quite straightforward to comprehend once one realizes the great interest and power the Elite gain from creating the past of their liking. Which is why pyramids will remain on dollar bills for time to come. As everything about money is artificial, it is also why pyramids figure prominently, just like the obelisks stand so tall and proud in the most powerful cities where the true overclass actually resides (alongside the biggest museums that tell their lies so convincingly – backed by solid science such as Egyptology).

            *The study in the article referred to was merely a recent referenced study by the Geopolymer Institute who themselves produce and reference a wide array of scientific papers, books and manuals. If three pages is too short to prove a point, there are hundreds of pages to consult on the Geopolymer website:


            1. gaia

              Thank you for the links.

              I am not contesting any expert in geopolymers, how could I? They have way more expertise than I have.

              What I have studied myself is sedimentary (and other rocks), mostly petrographically. You make a very thin section (30 microns) of a rock and can see much more using a refractive microscope.

              From that analysis it must become immediately clear what we talk about; natural sedimentary rock or artificially poured grains in a matrix with (“too much”) water.

              It simply is impossible to replicate nature. We can approach it, but never replicate it. No matter how well your ecological plan is, an area that started as a park will never be the same as a naturally developed green area.
              Artificially produced diamonds, sapphires, rubies, etc.

              I have been in Yucatán but not Tikal myself, but those pyramids cannot have been mounted with geopolymers around “standing hills”. The land is flat and the limestone blocks clearly are blocks. I of course cannot prove/pinpoint who build them.

              You can “laugh” whatever you want and equate Earth-bound analysis of the Sahara with “moonrocks” (you don’t even realize how ridiculous this sounds?), but climate changed all the time and the Sahara was way lusher and greener. Have you looked at the data?

              It is amazing to realize that at one moment in time the biodiversity in the Sahara was higher than that of the roof of Rollo’s car…

            2. Unreal

              What is suggested in my previous posts is that scientific data is manipulated to fit a predetermined narrative, here in the case of Egypt being a lush location*, which is necessary for the Egyptian Pharaonic narrative to be credible*.

              We live in modern “advanced” times, and not even tomorrows weather can be predicted with accuracy – so my opinion is that when we go back millennia, we are discussing biased guesswork, despite any scientific report. Such studies and reports also clearly do not all come to the same results and equally change over time.

              Climate change is a topic that perfectly demonstrate how malleable even recent scientific data is. Global warming is a subject many Fakeologists are familiar with where most will distrust the official findings and the scientific reporting. Going further back in time does not make climate findings more accurate, rather the contrary.

              *Europe and the Mediterranean does not appear to have changed the slightest for a very long while, so i see no logical reason Egypt would be so different

              *the obvious reason being that no advanced civilization who could conquer any land or nation at the time would choose to “prosper” in an inhospitable dessert

  3. John le Bon

    I enjoyed this chat.

    Videre seems to have progressed to a much happier state of being, almost ‘post-conspiracy’ as my comrade Fuhng from Chicago would describe it, and it is nice to see evidence that people can learn about media fakery and then move on to a more peaceful life, once the reality has set in.

    I have previously thanked Videre and KHam for helping me to move beyond the doomporn mindset I was in circa 2015, when topics like ‘mandatory vaccines’ were causing me much consternation.


    It was a little surprising to hear Videre mention at the end that she believes the egyptian pyramids are made from some kind of unknown or otherwise-mysterious material. This is the kind of thing you hear people like Graham Hancock propagating, but it is based on zero evidence that I am aware of.

    The fact of the matter is that ‘ancient egypt’ is a hoax, a recent fabrication, no more than a few hundred years old.

    See this short video for an answer to the question, ‘why would they lie?’:

Leave a Reply

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