Snopes for dummies

Yes, I was tempted to work in the word “dopes,” but resisted the temptation.

As a young man in 1973 I watched a big-hit movie called The Sting. It starred Robert Redford and Paul Newman, and the plot involved an elaborate charade to convince a very wealthy man that he had a good chance of winning a pile of money if he bet on a certain horse. They had large chalkboards and men on ladders listing and changing horse racing outcomes and betting odds, all fake. The man bet, lost a bundle, but importantly, once the ‘sting’ had occurred it was understood that it be permanent. He could never know he’d been had.

I learned quite a bit from this movie, one thing that the expression “con-game” is based on the word “confidence.” In order to be stung, we have to trust the people sticking it to us. Without trust, people are much harder to fool. Thus in our world do news media outlets and journalists go to great lengths to project an aura of reliability, holding a code of ethical behavior that shields them as they lie with impunity.

Brian Williams was once the lead anchor for NBC news, and took a fall. I happened to think that he was a gifted entertainer, perhaps the funniest news man who ever lived. In interviews outside his job he could hold his own with any comedian, even Jon Stewart on the Daily show. In one episode where he was the guest, he mentioned Walter Cronkite, and told Stewart that yes, indeed, people in the news business looked up to and admired Cronkite, just as people in Stewart’s business did so with Carrot Top.

Williams was demoted after publicly claiming that a helicopter in which he was a passenger was nearly hit by missiles, a boldfaced lie. But that could not possibly be the reason, as boldfaced lying is part of the job of any news anchor. More likely, I suspected, Williams lost his position due to his less-than-serious demeanor outside of news, his sense of humor and willingness to step up and confront comics in a comical way. He really could have succeeded as a standup comic, as I viewed it. As such, he lacked gravitas. He was no Walter Cronkite, but rather was  more like the Robin Williams of news.

I distinctly remember one interview wherein Williams discussed his job as lead anchor for NBC. He said that he wrote the news, and was constantly changing it as information trickled in during commercial breaks. This was a lie, as “news” originates from a single source so that all outlets repeat the same lies. It can be no other way. Patrons of FOX and NPR,  supposedly at opposite ends of our razor-thin ideological spectrum, imagine themselves intellectually superior folks, but believe the same lies fed from slightly different menus designed to appeal to different personality types. There can be no variance. All news outlets right now, from the New York Times down to Democracy Now! are claiming that Russia has invaded the Ukraine. In an effective propaganda system, all news is the same. All read from a common source, likely contained within the Intelligence cartel, maybe even in Langley. (By the way, Ukraine is off-topic, but regarding the Russian invasion, I doubt it is happening.)

(By the way, I love the New York Times tagline, “All the News That Fits”, as it is a double entendre, and probably intentional. We are to imagine that the newspaper is packing each edition with everything that will fit in a certain number of pages, and between advertisements. I take it to mean that the Times knows that the ideological content of its news cannot be at odds with power, and must “fit” within the ideology of our system of indoctrination. Similarly, the Washington Post claims that “Democracy Dies in Darkness”. More easily it could change “Dies” to “Died.”)

What, you may wonder at this point, does this have to do with Snopes? It has been annoying me for a long time. More than two years ago, when I was on Facebook, I bristled when some yokel claimed that a story was true. He had, you see, “Snoped it.” In other words, he had gone to an imperial source and found the truth. How easy to lie to this guy, so gullible!

Snopes was created in 1994, just prior to the advance of the Internet. Its founders, David and Barbara Mikkelson, each owned 50% until their divorce, at which time, it appears, Barbara was bought out. David has a checkered past, having been outed in 2021 by BuzzFeed as having plagiarized 54 articles from 2015-2019. He has admitted to the misdeeds, and is currently suspended from duties at Snopes. This part needs fact checking: He is said to have married Elyssa Young, a former escort and porn star in Las Vegas. Mikkelson currently lives in Tacoma, and is said to have a net worth of $80 million.

None of that matters. I have long suspected Snopes to be an Intelligence front, and its founders in truth to be actors. But I cannot prove such a thing – I can only assert that Snopes always follows the party line, never truthfully fact-checking anything that is put forth by our propaganda system.

Regarding Mikkelson, plagiarism is not a crime (it is a “tort”, subject to legal damages), though engaging in it shows a defect in character. He can marry anyone he wants. These things tend to mar his credibility as the man behind a revered fact-checking website. But this post is less about Snopes than “fact-checking” in general. It is a sting operation.

We all know the story of John Stossel’s lawsuit against Facebook for defamation. That outfit labeled a post he did on Climate Change as “misleading”. In case anyone is not aware, Facebook has long taken it upon itself to set the record straight, not only on Climate Change, but on Covid and AIDS and the moon landings, or all of the LOOT, or Lies of Our Times. It is a guardian at the cave entrance. Stossel sued, and yes, we know this is just lawyers being lawyers, doing anything to win a case, but their defense of Facebook was as follows: Facebook’s “Fact Checkers” are merely offering opinions, and as such cannot be sued.

Fair enough. Fact checkers lie, just like everyone, and are protected in those lies by organizations who employ them by falling back on that flimsy defense. There is no law that says that news organizations have to tell the truth, and no law that says fact checkers have to check facts. It’s all a game, and a rigged game at that.

Fact checking, like news, is a confidence game. It’s objective has nothing to do with truth, but rather with public trust. They willingly go along with power. Snopes has run 269  Covid-related articles, many of them just links to news stories, some “fact checks.” I’ve been perusing these and find them to be carefully worded to avoid outright lying, but also failing to ask the right questions.

For instance, it’s been asserted here and at other websites such as Drs. Andrew Kaufman’s and Tom Cowan that masking and social distancing are nothing more than psychological manipulation and that the Covid-19 vaccines are dangerous, even deadly. As of this moment, the Open-VAERS website linked on our blogroll reports over 24,000 Covid-vaccine deaths and 133,000 hospitalizations. How does Snopes treat this information, which is actually a repeat of information provided by Health and Human Services? They weasel-word by highlighting an absurd claim that there are more vaccine deaths than Covid deaths, easily defeating that particular claim and thereby deliberately missing the whole point. It’s a misdirection tactic, nothing more. ***

Here’s Snopes:

VAERS stands for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a website monitored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The figures on the site reflect the fact that it’s a public reporting tool, not a vaccine death toll.

“VAERS accepts reports of any adverse event following any vaccination,” according to the CDC. “Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.”

The CDC also said the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, and that reports of deaths from the vaccines are rare:

“More than 339 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.”

Significant adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines are rare, but when they do happen, they are usually the result of an allergic reaction.

That last line, written by Snopes fact-checker Bathania Palma, is a blatant and outright lie. The words above about the J&J vaccine and some associated deaths have a ‘strategic retreat’ feel about them. In addition, the 0.0018% figure used is a lie, that is, they are reporting 6,207 deaths (written in July of 2021, that number most likely wildly inaccurate, but does anyone fact-check this stuff?) divided by 339,000,000**** vaccinations (again, fact-check, anyone?) – do you see the diversion? The true death rate would be 6,207 divided by the number of people injected, not the number of injections. And anyway, Snopes might also report the Harvard Pilgrim Medical study linked below that claims that only 1% of serious adverse vaccine events are even reported to CDC. That’s a lie by omission.

Snopes is defending the WHO/CDC narrative that the vaccines are “safe and effective.” Snopes is deliberately trying to deflect information reported by VAERS by downplaying VAERS as unreliable. If Snopes were a real fact-checking organization, they would do more than deflect and misdirect. They would actually follow through and try to get to the bottoms of the VAERS controversy. Instead, Snopes reflexively falls back on official pronouncements of government agencies and other authority figures. There’s a word for that: propaganda.

Here’s something Snopes could fact-check: The Department of Health and Human Services awarded a $1 million grant to track VAERS reporting at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare over a three year period. This study reported that less than 1% of vaccine-related adverse events were being reported to CDC. The researchers went the distance and came up with a proposed system that would upgrade the reporting system and collect reported adverse events to something approaching 100%. Here’s the end of the report:

“Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

“However, real data transmissions of non-physician approved reports to the CDC was unable to commence, as, by the end of this project, the CDC had yet to respond to multiple requests to partner for this activity.”

CDC knew the system was broken, and did not want to fix it. Why? CDC is not talking, but we can speculate: The vaccine regime run by pharmaceutical companies is extremely corrupt. We know this because that industry approached Congress to immunize them from lawsuits caused by vaccine-caused adverse events. That Congress went along with this scheme speaks volumes about the power that resides in PhRMA. It is therefore safe to speculate that PhRMA controls CDC, and PhRMA did not want an effective adverse event reporting system. So, CDC shut down the Harvard Pilgrim study.

There. I’ve now reported more and done more fact-checking on the Covid-19 vaccine than Snopes. Furthermore, I’ve not resorted to misdirection and weasel words. I’ve simply reported what has happened, what has been reported by HHS, and about a study that HHS authorized and financed, only to have it shut down by CDC.

I fact-checked. Snopes could take a lesson here.


***(I might agree with that statement, as I regard the number of Covid deaths to be zero, given that a virus has never been isolated. But heck, that is because I fact check while others do not.)

**** Long after writing this today, and too easily letting that number, 339,000,000 slide off as having some serious meaning, I realized that our “fact-checker” was approximating the population of the US, 344 million at this time. “339”, spook alert, is 3333, but let’s not go there. Just understand that Snopes made it up. It’s a lie. Most people I know have vaxxed, but let’s not kid ourselves. The number of unvaxxed far exceeds official truth.

58 thoughts on “Snopes for dummies

    1. I originally assumed that the word was a play on “Snoops”, or diligently looks into things, but I gather from Wikipedia (a trustworthy source, like Snopes, of course) that it is taken from a Faulkner story about the name of a family who happened to be very unpleasant people. So, you see, the Snopes tag could have as easily been Gore, or Biden, or Gates. My Facebook yokel could have said “I Gored it” or “I Bidened it” …


      1. I’m guessing that the “Snopes” family from Faulkner are “deplorables”… So the site name is probably a sneer directed at the political opposition as rednecks, working class, uneducated, etc. Unlike those who believe the official narrative, who are Professional Managerial Class. (Or the Physicalists vs the Virtualists as Fakeologist puts it, from an essay he linked recently.)

        Liked by 1 person

  1. You can put your doubts to rest. This is World War 3, and it’s what the USA & UK have been working towards and actively preparing for many years, at the very least since 2014 when they launched, via their Kiev puppet regime, the so-called Anti-Terror Operation in the Eastern off-topic Ukraine. Once again, the nations of Europe will bleed to death, especially Russians & off-topic Ukrainians, and the puppet masters will rejoice.

    The U.S. GDP is, for a very large part, a GDP of death and destruction. The USA thrives on war, death, horror, misery & destruction of other peoples’ lives – arranged to happen far from home.

    There has been no peace in the 20th century and there will be no peace now until the people of the USA understand their role & responsibility in this cynical death match they’re putting others into. But chances are slim, as they’re under mind control by mainstream media, and get to enjoy the safety of having an unassailable continent of their own, from which they can elect to watch the war on TV or not and laugh about it or something else if it suits them. But I guess this is also off-topic.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The US and Russia, since the end of WWII, have played good cop-bad cop, the object to keep us in a state of tension and fear. North Korea plays the same role. However, I think those who reside in NK and who resided in the USSR live/lived in real hellhole-type prison states. We here in the US, at least until Covid, enjoyed relative liberty.


      1. I don’t disagree wrt good cop bad cop and state of fear. That is the internal perspectie. It is not the only one, though.

        There is the geopolitical one. In 1972, Nixon went to China, and in 1979, Deng Xiaoping went to America. The USA switched to mainland China in the 1970ies. That was part of the strategy to turn against the Soviet Union, to bleed and bankrupt it. Via war in Afghanistan and arms race. They succeeded. But with Putin, Russia miraculously recoered.

        This is not virtual reality. It is World War 3. It is about extermination. Organized by the US & the UK. Please think about it.

        George Friedman, “Europe: Destined for Conflict?”
        Chicago Council on Global Affairs, February 2015


        1. That comment was directed toward you Mark about the US and Russia playing good cop- bad cop and how we here in the us,at least until covid have enjoyed relative liberty.


    2. If there’s going to be any WWIII in the near future, it’ll probably be just another scheme to inject trillions into the economy in order to fatten up the middle and lower classes with more money and create huge widespread (temporary) prosperity, which the controllers will then extort from them again through corporate socialism, which is essentially the rich stealing from the less-affluent and the poor via taxation, as well as using their corporate monopoly power to obliterate or swallow the businesses of those middle- and lower-income earners through acquisitions or threats by their business ventures (Amazon, Google, Monsanto, etc.) The rest of the carnage will be faked or exaggerated to frighten and distract the masses from the economic con that will be played on them again.

      We’ve seen this pattern before under WWII: they realized that they could make tons of money off of our labor in the near future if they could inject billions into the economy from their central banks’ printing presses and public treasuries – so they can fatten us all for the slaughter in decades to come, metaphorically speaking. It’s also no coincidence that there has been a massive rise of socialistic programs put in place during this period since the Great Depression (e.g., Social Security), which were (and are) massive schemes to generate more tax-payer revenue for themselves to bilge on. It’s all part of their boom-and-bust economic scheme which has served them tremendously well.

      The American Economy during World War II:

      “The federal government emerged from the war as a potent economic actor, able to regulate economic activity and to partially control the economy through spending and consumption. American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production (for example, aerospace and electronics) or completely dependent on it (atomic energy).”


  2. They say its rare

    Hiding jabbed deaths – unconscionable lying with statistics
    By making “vaccinated” status only apply to those who’ve been had their second jab two weeks before, they make out that unjabbed are dying more than jabbed when it’s really the other way around.

    Brian Williams had to have been in on 9/11. This is 100% scripted.
    Conversation between Brian and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7 after its collapse:

    “Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?” [“Went in” is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]

    “Yes, sir.”

    “And you guys knew this was comin’ all day.”

    “We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”

    Absolutely love the brazenness of this song to Tom Petty’s Free Fallin’ (conversation above ends the song). It is soooooo brazen. Why does no one ask the question: “Who filmed WTC-7’s collapse from seven vantage points and WHY?” Why would the perps go out of their way to incriminate themselves? (To move focus from the more revealing planes and make it all about the buildings. They knew the majority would believe the fire nonsense and thus they had carte blanche with the small percentage of disbelievers to control the focus just the way they wanted.)

    Snopes on the Challenger disaster
    Ironically, I think Snopes does a brilliant job of exposing the hoax all the while protesting it wasn’t.

    Interestingly, while they show a circle around Michael Smith in the main photo, they don’t do a comparison of his younger and older photos.

    “Born on May 19, 1939, Commander Francis Richard Scobee was 46 when he died in the Challenger explosion. He would be 75 years old if he were alive today.Strangely, there’s a man also named Richard Scobee, the CEO of a Chicago marketing-advertising company called Cows in Trees, who bears a striking resemblance (factoring in the 30-year timelapse) to Commander Richard Scobee — same high forehead, same eyebrows, same wide-set eyes that are slightly tilted down in their outer corners.

    These two Scobees are similar in appearance, but there are distinct differences that can’t be accounted for by the passage of years (such as the difference in ear shapes). Moreover, at the time that Francis Richard Scobee, the former Air Force pilot, was training with NASA as an astronaut and serving as an instructor pilot for the shuttle’s 747 carrier aircraft, Richard Scobee, the current CEO of Cows in Trees, was serving as CEO and President of The Marketing Edge, Inc. in Chicago. The same man couldn’t have been holding down two such disparate jobs, in two widely separated geographic locations, at the same time.”

    Differences in ear shapes? No difference in shapes as far as we can tell, they simply look flattened – common procedure.


    1. Ears, in my work, have been problematic, but useful. Very slight degradation in camera angle can obscure them. If you get a full side-on angle, you’ve got usable evidence. But it is rare. In fact, it is hard to find true right or left profiles of these people. You gotta dig. Profiles are key. Most quality photos are smily front-ons.


      1. Yes, it’s simply a lie to say the ear shapes are different because you can’t tell from the front-on photos. What’s clear is that the ears are flatter to the head in the later photo, an effect produced by a common procedure and exactly the kind of thing we might expect to “differentiate” versions of the same person.


        1. Clues Forum found six of the seven Challenger astronauts alive and well, including Christa McCaulife, who merely changed her name and claims now to be her own sister. Scobee is one of the six. I did facial splits on all of them and they all lined up perfectly, but since it was CF’s discovery, I removed that post from here. But do check our CF.


          1. Well, They couldn’t let Christa the school teacher go to the moon, when they had never been there themselves. So, it was time for… N.A.S.A….”NEED. ANOTHER. SEVEN. ASTRONAUTS”.


          2. I know about CF and Simon Shack (who may have been the original analyst although – who knows – perhaps the perps pushed it out themselves as part of their “hidden in plain sight” obligation). Perhaps Simon Shack is the designated “hidden in plain sight” person, I don’t know. It’s always hard to know who’s who in the zoo, isn’t it?

            My point is, Mark, that Snopes uses exactly the same side-by-side image comparisons but argues they’re of different people by pointing out trivial and easily changeable differences such as the ears and the gap between the front teeth (which could easily be created by “moving” the gap between neighbouring teeth). That’s the irony. They use the same images as CF and Simon Shack although, unsurprisingly, they don’t put out quite all the comparison images – not the image of Judith Resnik where the mouth shape is highlighted as looking exactly the same and they simply miss Michael Smith altogether even though he’s highlighted in their photo showing all the astronauts.


          3. And just to add I came across your post where you say they use a different person for at least one of the images of Judith Resnik as an astronaut. I also came across a few images of the alleged Challenger team which don’t seem to be all the designated six people but a mix.


            1. Been a long time, and I know I found two Resnick’s, one looking more like a model. That was a surprise as my original work found that the original and the current matched up very well. This gave me discomfort about CF, as I recall, and a feeling we were being diddled, again. I never truck at CF, not since years ago when I tried to join and was stonewalled. Note they are not on the blogroll. I do not trust Shack.

              Regarding my techniques, which I rarely use anymore, I trust my own eyes and work. It is useful in telling me that two people are the same, and when they are not. If others want to dismiss it, I cannot help them. Generally speaking, instant experts do not impress.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I gotta say, I can see all of them except, possibly, the McAuliffe example as matching their earlier selves. Yet, thinking of this controversy, which I had been alerted to over the past 3 weeks (I hadn’t EVERYthimg despite occasionally reading CF), I was surprised to chance on a bit of CNN on t.v. Off their usual Covid round-the-clock reports, they showed an ’80s “Decade” special that featured none other than Christa’s mom talking about her “late” daughter… and she’s wearing what’s meant look like Jackie’s pink suit (we just the upper part of the outfit, the coat). One way of signaling spookiness, I guess, but I think it is totally ridiculous to assume JFK “faked”
                His death. (It is possible, I think, that Jackie fired the gun!) but this Challenger controversy is joining “Mathis”’s Manson expose as something to really make me think again about what I thought I knew


    2. Meanwhile, the scam continues. Remember the 9/11 Compensation Fund? That’s another doozy. Altogether, it costs the American taxpayer approx. $7 billion to run. There’s also no proper oversight by Congress over how the funds are distributed (the Federal Register admits this), leaving it open to all manner of malfeasance. Reminds me of the Titanic insurance scam. Many parallels, same scriptwriters.

      September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001:

      Disbarred Attorney Pleads Guilty To Stealing 9/11 Victim Compensation Funds:

      Trump administration secretly withheld millions from FDNY 9/11 health program:

      There’s even a Hollywood movie about this scheme. It’s called Worth. Gotta love the ridiculous wordplay that accompanies such fraud.

      Fascinating stuff, don’t you agree?


      1. Oh my goodness. The Victim Compensation Fund stuff makes your head spin that’s for sure but it’s hard to know how much is complete fabrication – just because stuff is reported as being completely dodgy, is it really, or is it so many red herrings so you don’t know what’s totally dodgy and what’s totally made up? They make these things so convoluted your brain just gives up even when you are familiar with the technique and you know that’s exactly their intent.

        So funny. From just the thumbnail of the trailer I thought Michael Keaton would be Ken Feinberg and then when I just started to watch it I thought Stanley Tucci would be Charles Wolf.

        This is what I’ve got about Ken on my page on death and injury fakery.

        11. Lawyer looking after victim funds not convincing

        The Wikipedia entry on Kenneth Feinberg, a former Chief of Staff to Senator Ted Kennedy (interesting, no?), and lawyer who’s looked after the victim funds of some of the nation’s alleged worst tragedies, including 9/11, the Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings and been involved in a whole host of other activities, supports the death and injury fakery thesis.

        Feinberg worked for 33 months entirely pro bono [on the 9/11 victims compensation 1600 hearings].
        The magical 33. Why on earth would he work pro bono?

        Feinberg personally presided over more than 900 of the 1,600 hearings. At the end of the process, $7 billion was awarded to 97 percent of the families.
        900? What happened with the other 700 hearings? If there were 3,000 dead why only 1,600 hearings and what about the 6,000 injured? What about the other 3% of families? Where did the $7 billion come from?

        Charles Wolf, whose wife died in the north tower, renamed his highly critical Web site called “Fix the Fund” to “The Fund is Fixed!”. At first he called Feinberg “patronizing, manipulative and at times, even cruel.” He later remarked, “To have one of your sharpest critics follow through on a promise and not only join the program he was criticizing, but promote it to his peers, says a lot about you and the way you have adjusted both the program and your attitude…Today, I have complete faith in you.”
        How does the sentence in bold make sense? If it’s Charles speaking why would Kenneth be joining his program – isn’t it the other way around? And if it’s Kenneth why would he say “I have complete faith in you”. Lack of sense supports H1c – they tell us. The Fund is Fixed website is remarkably simple considering the complexity of a victim fund that should, in theory, cover a total of 3,000 families and, at least, a reasonable percentage of the 6,000 injured.

        From Wikipedia
        Special Master for Executive Compensation
        On June 10, 2009, Feinberg was appointed by the U.S. Treasury Department to oversee the compensation of top executives at companies which have received federal bailout assistance.[12] As part of his policies, he has suggested to many bank executives that they emphasize long-term stock compensation rather than cash payments.[13]

        Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in a statement about Feinberg’s rulings on executive pay, said, “We all share an interest in seeing these companies return taxpayer dollars as soon as possible, and Ken today has helped bring that day a little bit closer.”[14][15]

        Doncha love it?


        1. Very nice comment. The numbers are always around spooky events. 900 hearings? Say, just for speculation, that each hearing was at least one hour, and that research beforehand required staff work of another six, that means that we are looking at 900 hearing hours supported by 5,400 hours of staff assistance … over 260 days of hearings and staff work followed by transcripts … all plausible, of course, and all easily made up fiction. It should all be supported by transcripts, and not just a Wikipedia entry. Is there any mustard here?


          1. The level of hoaxery and its ongoingness for numerous events blows my mind, it really does. So Richard Gage has now disengaged from A&E – supposedly prompted because he said something indiscreet to Spike Lee about covid but they’re still all good mates, it was just thought it would be better if he resigned from his position and the board. Now he has his own website and blog on substack. I actually think he might be genuine but, if so, he’s totally bought all the controlled opposition nonsense.

            I noticed this page on witnesses of “molten steel” which I’m sure is fake.

            Click to access Witnesses-of-Molten-Steel-at-Ground-Zero.pdf

            So many liars.

            Molten steel fakery

            Mark, or anyone – any ideas on why they would fake molten steel?

            Here we have some first responders talking about it “running down the channel rails” – what are channel rails and how do they relate to buildings?


              1. Mark
                So Judy Wood is not legit then? I was taken in by her UK presentation. Where do you suggest I go for legitimate background information on the truth about the 911 fakery?
                I haven’t read MM on 911, though have on many other issues.
                Thank you


          1. I do remember the $2.3 trillion but could that have been some kind of red herring – something to just reinforce their evilness, just like the gold bars gone from the basement of 6 or whatever it was. I don’t for a moment suggest there wasn’t $2.3 trillion missing or that gold bars weren’t stolen, not for a moment, but the thing is how do we believe anything they say at all without clear evidence? They pushed out that they killed people on 9/11 to the truthers when they didn’t and now they’re making out they’re saving people while they’re killing them. Everything just about … except the moon landings 🙂 … is a big, fat lie


            1. I don’t know about the moon landings, but there’s definitely a lot of chicanery when it comes to how all of this is financed. I’m definitely sure that none of the tax dollars invested in the 9/11 VCF scheme went to any actual survivors of what happened. A lot of that money probably went into the pockets of their intelligence moles as hush-money payments and probably bonuses for their participation in this psyop. What do you think?


              1. “Actual survivors?”

                I’m not sure what you mean, Harry. Don’t you think 9/11 was a complete hoax except for the building damage and destruction, that is, no passenger airliners and death and injury faked? Charles Wolf is an agent – and I think it’s clear from what I quoted from Wikipedia which makes no sense and is typical of what we get from agents that VCF is a complete hoax – I shouldn’t have even questioned there being any truth in what’s said actually – it has to be a complete hoax.


                1. Even if the 9/11 VCF itself is a hoax, and nobody is really given compensation through that program, we’re still f**ked as taxpayers, nonetheless. After all, where do all the funding for such hoaxes come from?


                  1. Oh we’re the bunnies who fund them, that’s for sure. They’re charging ludicrous amounts to travellers for the bogus PCR tests which they’re compelled to take otherwise they’re not allowed on the plane. How much was donated to Sandy Hook? The mind boggles. I really wonder how they work out the finances.


                    1. It’s an endless money-making scam. And since they print all the money, anyway, we’re merely using a product rented out to us that we have to pay back in return in fees, taxes, etc.


        2. Also, when it comes to the airlines industry and the massive public subsidies they received around this time, keep in mind that the 9/11 VCF scheme was set-up to basically discourage people connected to the events of September 2001 from directly suing the airline companies implicated in the manufactured attacks. Doesn’t this bring to mind America’s federal vaccine court, which was set-up in a similar fashion? Socializing costs, privatizing wealth. Rinse and repeat.


            1. The people who played a role in 9/11. From those who owned the airlines and ran the government, who all conspired to manufacture this hoax, to the alleged victims and survivors of the “disasters”, all of whom were crisis-actors. That’s who I was talking about.

              And, of course, none of them would actually sue the airline carriers implicated in 9/11. They’re all in bed together, so they’re not going to stab each others’ back. That’s why they organized this heist in the first place.

              Liked by 1 person

        3. Just by glossing over his CV at Wikipedia, I could tell that 9/11 wasn’t the only scam he partook in. He also participated in other taxpayer cons such as the state-sponsored compensation funds for the BP Oil Spill and psyops such as Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon fracas. He also worked with Senator Ted Kennedy, who oversaw the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund as well as the TARP program, a scheme in which the U.S. “government” acquired toxic assets from the financial sector during the 2007-08 recession, which basically was another way of privatizing the nation’s wealth into the hands of a few moneyed white-collar criminals and socializing costs to society at large (i.e., leaving the taxpayer to hold the bag, as usual). He even took interest in the Kennedy assassination story, being one of the “three arbitrators who determined the fair market value of the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination”, according to the encyclopedia. (The JFK death hoax was also an insurance scam. Apparently, Jack drew up for himself a life insurance policy with the U.S. Veterans Affairs in 1947, which was initially set at $10k. In 1963, it would’ve been $13k. In today’s money, it’s approx. $200k. That means it was another con job on the taxpaying public, as the VA is a “gov’t” institution. Sound familiar to the other insurance scams we’ve seen before?)


      2. To me, the whole VCF scheme is just another way to launder hush money to the co-conspirators of the 9/11 scam as a way of buying their silence, much like how the multi-billion-dollar Federal ‘Vaccine Court’ launders money to so-called vaccine victims from pharmaceutical companies – via a ¢75 tax on each inoculation vase – to buy theirs. Corruption at its finest.


  3. “Relative liberty,” Mark? That seems at odds with my understanding of liberty’s foundational principles and intent. Seems to me, you have it or you don’t. We can, and generally have been, conditioned to adapt to other meanings, however relative, all share one thing in common: these (variant) definitions are untethered from all that is grounded in nature. I am speaking of individuals, not society, or culture here.

    From Webster’s (1828): “Natural liberty — Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.” All man-made variations violate this principle, and by design and intent diametrically oppose the “negative laws” of nature.


    1. OK, I am kind of with you – years ago, and I mean many years ago, when I still subscribed to National Review, one of Buckley’s or someone’s comments on Firing Line that stuck with me was that there was no such thing as natural law. That’s a broad statement, but maybe what he meant is that nature is not codified, does not recognize good/evil.

      Anyway, there are, maybe we can agree, degrees of tyranny, so that people in South Korea are better off than their neighbors to the North. The flip side of that would be that we can then say that South Koreans, while not free, of course, have more liberty than North Koreans. ?


  4. No argument here. There are other — not of Source/Nature — forms of liberty created by man. Relative liberty. Relative liberty is a lot like relative slavery. Nothing legal, however, is Naturally Free. The rabbits and deer in my back yard are naturally free. Man is also as free “as a bird, ” except for when he chooses instead legal things which exist only politically as a limited liberty. Man cannot serve two masters. “Freedom is slavery.” – Orwell

    It’s always a choice.


      1. Look up the “clarksdale crossroads”, Highway 49 and 61…And then you’ll understand where it all started. Mr. Zimmerman (a.k.a,) Bob Dylan, took his stage name from the “first” names of two famous poets. “Robert Frost and Dylan Thomas”…and put the two of them together. Bob is a very cool yet complicated guy. A trip to the crossroads back in the 60s, He found out that, “You might serve the Devil, or You might serve the Lord…But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.


        1. The story goes, That if you need something bad enough, You can make a deal with “Elegba” or Satan…You go to the crossroads at “Midnight”and wait until he shows up…That’s when you sign your soul away and lose your chance at salvation in exchange for whatever gift it is you want or need.


  5. in Europe the Ukraine pushed Corona away for now. In Germany the temporary regulations end sometime in March, we’ll see what will happen then. They still want to keep the masks even though it is officially admitted that they are useless in healthcare. We’ve been to Turkey recently, no regulations at all, just some people still wearing masks voluntarily. Corona though cleaned everything there. I’ve never seen such clean restaurants on any of our holidays. Mainstream uses old pictures, Hollywood movies, pictures from gas explosions, etc. for fake Ukraine propaganda. It wasn’t as bad in the Golf War or after 911. It even tops the Corona propaganda in its absurdity, yet still people seem to buy it. Like they needed something to hate. Putin could easily show his own propaganda, I haven’t seen any yet. He also comes from the Klaus Schwab school of the Global Leaders. Ursula von der Leyen was pretty furious in her recent speech. I suppose they made some arrangements there but Putin doesn’t stick to it anymore and is now making his own thing. According to the Heartland theory, what the Elite fears most is that Germans will become friends with the Russians. They’re doing everything they can to avoid that.


  6. As if we didn’t already know they’re lying. Business as usual.

    And here’s some interesting info about the Ebola vaccine from the CDC. The inoculation was first released on the eve of the Coronavirus psyop in December 2019, which is extremely convenient, I must say. Does this sound safe and sound to you?

    “Vaccination with ERVEBO may not protect all individuals. Its safety and effectiveness have not been assessed in immunocompromised individuals. The vaccine may be less effective in immunocompromised individuals.”

    There are no well-controlled studies of ERVEBO in pregnant women. Data available from human clinical trials with rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP are not sufficient to establish whether the vaccine poses a risk during pregnancy. In a randomized, unblinded vaccine study in Sierra Leone, there were no statistical differences in pregnancy loss among those who were vaccinated versus those unvaccinated.”

    So it’s not very effective at providing protection for human immunity, nor is it completely safe. Of course, they admit this vaccine hasn’t been fully studied and properly tested, but still it doesn’t look too promising. And they extorted billions of dollars for this? Pathetic. Although, it did make Big Pharma fabulously rich, as usual. It’s a miracle that only two severe adverse cases out of 15k vaccine recipients were reported, although I suspect the number to be higher than that, at least a quarter or so.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s