FAC633-Ab, Geris,Beevie, Rollo

likes this

We discuss child abduction/murder psyOps from the 80s.

No tags for this post.

3 thoughts on “FAC633-Ab, Geris,Beevie, Rollo

  1. gaiagaia

    An enjoyable Freya-Saturnday chat guys. Nice to hear Beevie again after his successful and promising return chat with Chris scientist-who-doesn’t-dare-to-call-himself-one Kendall.
    Beevie and me may have very different views on women and marriage (“There cannot be rape in marriage, because one day you both said yes”) or gays (you are a fresh father; focus all your energy on that and not on gays you and me luckily have no business with other than tolerating our different choices in life?), but he is a sharp and critical thinker who can outline his points calmly and clearly. More audiochats, especially on the “CC” topic (see below).

    Nice to hear you liked our FRAC 13 – Paper Rockets podcast. It was indeed the best prepared of all the hours we have done and Geris is right; it was exhausting. But more than 50 points you haven’t heard or considered before about the Clownesque Clumsy actors (in 2 stages!) for the Apollo scam was important to share with the world. For free, how cool is that?

    Beevie made a very interesting and important point on CO2. Not that it is “denser than air”; it is part of air; air is just all the gases forming the atmosphere, but that it is denser than N2, O2 (99%) and the other minor gases is a no-brainer.

    That makes indeed that it concentrates at certain heights above the surface. Living high up in the Andes I see it and now it maybe even helps explaining the treeline. Just a thought, but it could be that at the elevations where the treeline ends (variable per climate, geography, soils, etc.) the air is not dense enough to maintain enough CO2 concentration for the growth of energy-inefficient trees (versus shrubs and other flora). Interesting.

    Please release more of these wise thoughts on “Climate Change”.

    Which, in preparation for the Colombia Conference of Agenda 2020, brought about another idea.

    In order to have “climate change” you need to have a definite change of climate. We classically classify climates using the Köppen classification.

    So, logically and basically:
    1 – if Köppen “defines” which climate is which
    2 – a change from Köppen X to Köppen Y needs to be happening in order to have climate change

    Or is my reasoning wrong here?

    I won’t pretend I have a better idea of climates than Dr. Köppen, but climates here on the highly variable Altiplano Cundiboyacense of the Eastern Andes are grouped together that are extremely different. (I added a bonus photo of the Big Dipper this morning; it is not only the Orion test, also the Big Dipper no flat or concave earther can explain)

    I am making my own classification based on experience and association with climates elsewhere.

    That aside; when did we have a change from let’s say a Cfb to a Cfa or to a Csb?

    The only time I have heard mentioning was the “Medieval Warm Period”, with vineyards in England and Vinland (fake map, just one settlement? gimme a break) in North America.

    But, researching “Pompeii” and “Herculaneum” (1631) makes me wonder about the what I coined Prenaissance even more.

    A change of weather is not climate change. A change of weather IS climate. Climate is nothing more than weather taken over a period of 30 years. And that classified in these useful but restricted as with every classification Köppen climates.

    People do not even know or use the correct terms and that leads to whitecoatism; an unnatural, crucial suspicion and skepticism-reducing belief in authorities who in many cases don’t know much better either.

    Chris and Beevie expanded on that. A good listen.

    The only real contributors to changes in climate are obviously the (activity, eccentricity and visibility (cloud cover) of the Sun and large volcanic eruptions.

    Even the mainstream claims that the “human” factor of CO2 is just 2% of the whole carbon cycle. And in my geologic view that is way way overestimated.

    Of course planting a begonia on “Earth Day” (every day is Earth day) looks sexy for the Facebook feeds feeding the moral superiority complex, but the vast majority of carbon is recycled by our oceans; the plankton in it. But of course that is a bit harder to sell by Gréêèttta not-related-to-Svante-greenhouse-effect-Arrhenius Thunberg, I understand.

    More important things; great suggestions by John le Bon (in the chat he had with Geris, I keep it central here) and he read my mind. Indeed, open, anonymous or semi-anonymous video interviews I also had in mind. Exactly why I plan the trip like I do; first practice together and then do the fieldwork in the bigger cities. Maybe we even find English speakers, a rarity in especially Colombia…

  2. UnrealUnreal

    Just after the 55-minute mark on this FAC 633 there is some discussion around Chris Kendall coming back on air and both John Adams and the Annette Carrion death hoax (FAK Forum thread) is mentioned.

    During the short dialogue on HBC & affiliates, Geris mentions how he enjoys my research, but that i have an overly suspicious mind and that he (Geris) would welcome John Adams back without asking any questions.

    If a researcher like Geris “enjoys” my research, he clearly would not welcome John Adams back on Fakeologist without debating his role in the Annette Carrion death hoax. Clearly, Geris exaggerates on being enthusiastic about my contributions and is not truthful in this statement, thus misusing the term “honestly” repeatedly.

    Normally Fakeologists engaged in alternative research would have an inquisitive mind (which i’m apparently guilty of) and this should give us the right to investigate any media-hoax we come across without being labeled or misrepresented.

    What is truly suspicious ireagarding John Adams particularly is howcome any Fakeologist researcher can defend and encourage others to NOT investigate and debate media-fakery as in the Annette Carrion case.

    Not only is the fake Annette Carrion motorcycle death a contemporary news-event, it also directly involves an established Truther figure that many (like Geris apparently) have spent hours listening to – which makes disinterest even more unnatural and un-Fakeologist-like.

    Contrary to what Geris wishes to establish as overly suspicious behavior on my part, it can never be an overly suspicious mindset for Fakeologists to research media-fakery – it is what being a Fakeologist means – to research media-fakery.

    NOT researching media-fakery is what clearly constitutes abnormal Fakeologist attitude and a suspect mindset. And encouraging others not to investigate such select media-hoaxes is even worse as this attitude directly acts in support of media-fakery and their participants which no true Fakeologist would ever be in favor of – except John Adams, Chris Kendall, NotSoFreeMason, Gaia, Rollo, etc,,, and now Geris.

    The list of supporters of non-investigation of media-fakery in select cases will no doubt grow longer as time goes by and suspect Truther front figures will need to get back on air doing their jobs.

    No number of researchers will however be able to change the fact that non-investigation can never solve a single media-hoax. Such an attitude is contrary to the interests of Fakeology altogether which is to do research.

    To encourage non-investigation, ban or set aside research and facts is what Geris apparently proudly will do in profit of selfish pleasure from a familiar voice and temporary distraction – no questions asked.

    ” Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ”

    -B. Franklin

Leave a Reply

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