Wednesday, 31 December 2014

Esther in New Year Honours

Esther Rantzen has been knighted in the New Year Honours List. She is to be henceforth known as Dame Esther Louise Rantzen DBE. The veteran TV presenter, philanthropist and consumer protection expert is a household name. She's best known today for her work in child protection. She is the founder of Childline, a helpline children can call if they're being abused; and she has this popular image of being a guardian of the young, see: Childline was launched amid a huge TV telethon fanfare which she hosted herself along with Rolf Harris... no, the irony is not lost on me. But it gets far, far worse. When the truth came out about Jimmy Savile, see:, Esther was asked to comment and she revealed that she had "heard rumours about him". The interviewer sounds shocked and the programme continues thus: I think Esther has some major explaining to do. She sounds uncertain and awkward; is she hiding something? How much does she really know? Have the police questioned her? If not why not!? People who carry out a great service to the government are often rewarded with a knighthood. I remember in the House of Cards TV trilogy, which was written by an MP, all the repulsive antagonists in the story had ambitions about getting a knighthood, see: People with a knighthood are set up for life, financially, socially and professionally, as are their families. Esther has responded to her honour by saying: "I am thrilled that this honour recognises the contribution made by Childline and The Silver Line in transforming lives, and I am delighted that the talented teams at both charities have also been recognised for their inspirational work and devotion." Is it these services that she is being decorated for? Or is it for a more recent action above and beyond the call of duty? Also recognized by the Queen in the New Year Honours List are Paul Cummins and Tom Piper who designed the World War I centenary poppy display at the Tower of London. To me it looks like a pool of blood, and at the occult levels of the Illuminati that is precisely what it is meant to be. The Great War was a ritual blood sacrifice of millions of young men, see: and:
I'd like to wish all HPANWO readers a very Happy New Year!

Tuesday, 30 December 2014

UFO Truth Magazine- Issue 10

UFO Truth Magazine Issue 10 is now available. It can be purchased on this page as a single copy, but please subscribe and save money if you want to read it regularly, see: (IMPORTANT: If you annually subscribe before the January the 31st you can buy the entire year for just £13.99)
Issue 10 includes the fifth article in my column, entitled The Ruwa School UFO Encounter.

Also you will find in Issue 10: analysis of Larry Warren's 1980 UFO photo, what "angel hair" might be by Francisco Correa, Dave Hodrien's report on the Scottish 2014 Paranormal Festival and much much more.
Also in this HPANWO Show programme on Critical Mass Radio I interview the UFO Truth's editor Gary Heseltine:
See here for details on UFO Truth Magazine Issue 9:

Monday, 29 December 2014

Runaway Hybridization

The world of science has created many wonders, and many nightmares. Science and technology are morally neutral and the outcomes of their works depend on the motives of the people wielding them. This is a cause of great concern among the public, quite rightly I think, especially when it comes to biology. Genetic engineering is a very new field of science, yet in its few short years it has transformed the world. Of course humans have been changing the nature of animals and plants by selectively breeding them since we began domesticating them in prehistoric times, yet it wasn't until 1974 that Prof. Rudolf Jaenisch bred the first animal with its DNA altered in a laboratory by artificial means, a mouse. Since then a myriad of new such GMO's- genetically modified organisms have emerged on an industrial scale. Farmers' fields are full of them and we're eating them every day; who knows what long term effect this will have on human health and the environment, see: GM animals are also being herded out of laboratories in droves; pigs with human genes to provide organs for transplantation, goats with spider genes so its milk can be used to make plastics, and mice bred to catch cancer so they can be studied for treatment. The term "mad scientist's laboratory" has sometimes been used to describe the biological sphere today, but maybe the scientists are not mad; in fact they're cold, calculating and purposive. When it comes to restraint and regulation there seems to be worryingly little; in a Machiavellian sense, what works best for the end result is the primary concern. There are a number of rules and laws governing it in relation to public health, but only in terms of immediate risk, such as disposing of chemicals in rivers etc. When it comes to future generations, it's a free for all. This is frankly psychopathic.

One of the most worrying areas is the creation of human animal hybrids. In 2008 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act legalized the creation of animal human hybrid embryoes for research purposes. There are several different methods for doing this. The simplest is natural fertilization of human and animal gametes; for example mixing human sperm with an animal ovum or vice versa. I've written before about hybridization and stated that it would be easy to create a human hybrid with one of the great apes because we're all part of the same biological family, see:; I also said that hybridization of organisms in totally different families was impossible, see:, but am I wrong? There are a few examples of "game hybrids" in which gamebirds have been crossed with domestic poultry. There are stuffed examples of birds that come from the mixing of pheasants and chickens; these are birds from entirely separate families, yet they're mutually fertile. What's more, in a laboratory there are other means of hybridization; one of the most common ones is creating a hybrid cell through cloning. A human nucleus is inserted into an animal cell; this creates a cell with human nuclear DNA and animal cellular DNA. Also embryoes can be generated in which stem cells from different species are fused together as the embryo grows. Even some scientists think this has gone too far and it could result in a "Planet of the Apes" scenario; I think The Island of Dr Moreau is a more accurate metaphor. The response from those behind the project is that these hybrid embryoes can be a source of stem cells for important medical applications, see: There's no doubt that stem cell therapy can do wonders, for example see:, but think how this technology could be abused. According to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 2008 the scientists creating hybrid embryoes have to destroy them within fourteen days, but is the law the only thing stopping them gestating further? This is an extremely worrying scenario because work that is done within the laws and regulations is one thing, but work being done secretly behind that is another. There may well be a covert laboratory run by an evil genius sponsored by a rich maniac; or black budget government institutions like Porton Down and Fort Detrick, where embryoes are allowed to grow beyond fourteen days, their cells dividing and developing. The hazards of breeding human-animal hybrids are enormous, the creation of new viruses for example. However, that's just one of the lesser risks. I'm sure you're all thinking this, HPANWO readers, just like I am; there's also the simple sense of good taste, public decency and ethics. The Dulce Book was written by somebody with the pen name "Branton"; nobody knows exactly who Branton is although he's rumoured to be John Lear. It concerns the alleged deep underground military base beneath the Archuleta Mesa near Dulce, New Mexico. Despite many claims to the contrary, I think there's some considerable truth behind the legend, see: One of the most memorable passages of the book is the description of the section of the base known as "Nightmare Hall": "...Level Six is privately called 'Nightmare Hall'. It holds the genetic labs. Here experiments are done on fish, seals, birds and mice that vastly alter them from their original forms. There are multi-armed and multi-legged humans and several cages and vats of humanoid bat-like creatures... Row after row of thousands of humans and human-mixture remains in cold storage. Here too are embryoes of humanoids in various stages of development..." (The Dulce Book can be read in its entirety here: One of the biggest human health issues surrounding these projects might end up being the psychological stability of the personnel involved. This is why we need to be wary of genetic science and speak out against it when necessary. Genetic science itself is not evil; it's the people who might be using it for evil purposes. The concessions made by the law to those who generate hybrids could be just the tip of a vast and dark iceberg.

Sunday, 28 December 2014

Contactless Travel

A friend recently came back from a trip to London and handed me a flyer they'd picked up while travelling on the London Underground. It was a promotion for "Contactless" travel, a new scheme Transport for London are introducing (Transport for London used to be called "London Transport"; how long did it take them to come up with the innovative new name?). It is an electronic cashless payment system similar to the existing Oyster cards; it is already available on the Underground, Overground, buses, the Docklands Light Railway, trams and journeys within Greater London on national railways. The river boats are not on the list for some reason. Instead of buying a ticket at the TfL kiosk or from a vending machine with cash, you simply wave a card containing an RFID transmitter in front of a scanner and this takes payment from the card. The card must be charged with sufficient funds or the turnstile won't open. You can top up your Oyster at vending machines or online with cash or a bank card. This is very useful if you're travelling around London; it saves a lot of time and fuss. I have an Oyster card myself; I also have a "Mango" card which is a similar system for use on Trent Barton buses which I travel on regularly. Both Oyster and Mango are a lot cheaper than buying normal paper tickets. The difference with Contactless is that instead of the card being charged manually by the customer, the money is paid directly from the customer's bank account using a special draft order. The passenger has the option of whether or not to register the card; alternatively you can use a mobile phone or other device, on a personal TfL customer account. The advantages to registering are that if your card is lost or stolen they'll refund any unauthorized payments and give you a new card. You can also obtain a log of all your journeys and equivalent spending; this helps when applying for refunds or contesting penalty fares. However, even if you do not register your Contactless card you still have to connect the card to an approved UK-based bank account... Regular HPANWO readers will know where I'm leading to here. The crucial difference between Oyster and Contactless is that with Oyster it's still possible to travel anonymously; with Contactless it's not, even if you don't register for a TfL account. I bought my Oyster with cash from a kiosk and I've always topped it up with cash too; therefore there is no paper-trail at all through which somebody could trace my movements. This somebody could be a person who hacks into my account and could work out my location that way for a criminal purpose, or it could be an official authority with legal access to the data, like a targeted advertising agency. I might be sent certain marketing messages based on where I'd been travelling; an entire profile can be built up on an individual this way. "This one likes art galleries and wine bars, but this one attends football matches and plays at a casino in Hammersmith." Something like this is already being done through your internet habits; it's known as "spamdexing", see: Government electronic intelligence agencies, both domestic and foreign, could also monitor my movements for their own covert motives, maybe for their benefit and not mine; indeed perhaps to my enormous detriment. I've noticed these practices increasing by slow, stealthy, frog-in-a-saucepan increments. Based on the official Contactless website, see:, and from doing a few internet searches, it appears that few, if any, Transport for London customers are concerned about the issues I raise in this article. This could be because of the gradualism; after all, nobody is telling us we can no longer use cash to buy conventional paper tickets or top up our Oysters are they? No they are not... yet! Nevertheless ways and means can be found to whittle away at the option designated for disposal. We see it already with the monetary incentives for using the new system. Also conventional tickets can be made more awkward to purchase due to unmanned stations (as an aside, this is what the Tube staff were striking over back in February, see: My prediction is that TfL will announce cheaper fares for Contactless than Oyster in the same way that Oyster is cheaper than conventional tickets; see here for another example: Anonymous use will become more and more inconvenient until everybody will just give up on it, unless we get wise and stand up for our rights to cash-paid, unmonitored public transport.

Saturday, 27 December 2014

Panic Saturday

Today is the day after Boxing Day and the core Christmas holidays are over for another year. Whether you feel regret or relief will depend on you as an individual. One thing I've noticed is that when elements of American culture are introduced into Britain they tend to proliferate quickly and become very established; a good example is the TV soap opera Dallas, see: (Ironically the BBC got so annoyed with this upstart of a US import topping the viewing figures charts that they replaced it with TavistockEnders). Another of these phenomena is Black Friday, which I reported on last year, see: This year there was a Black Friday in the UK; I expect it was introduced as a test to see whether we Brits could be corralled in the same way. It was a roaring success so no doubt there will be another one next year. Interestingly it worked even though virtually nobody in the UK celebrates Thanksgiving, see: The traditional British equivalent of Black Friday is the post-Christmas clearance which in progress right now; as I walked through the shopping streets of Oxford today I saw "sale" notices everywhere. The period leading up to Christmas is also a commercialism fest and the Saturday before Christmas is always remarked upon in the business news. However this year it was given a name: Panic Saturday. The actual sales figures have yet to be published, but economic forecasters are currently predicting a 21% increase on last year's profits. "Consumers"... that's human beings to you and me... apparently are more confident then in previous years, see: Now, surely I'm not alone in suspecting that this whole enterprise is just a marketing gimmick; I wouldn't be surprised if just giving it the name Panic Saturday is enough to get more people out buying more presents for relatives they don't like, who will probably just throw them away. There's an underlying political agenda too to give the viewer the impression that this much-promised economic recovery has finally arrived. With an election coming up in a few months, memories of people walking down Oxford Street with full shopping bags could be a significant vote decider.

Thursday, 25 December 2014

The Christmas Truce 100 Years On

A century ago today, on Christmas Day 1914, the guns fell silent in the Great War and the soldiers of both sides walked out into No-Man's Land and had a celebration. They shook hands, embraced, buried their dead, shared food and drink, and even played a game of football; which legend says Germany won (so giving England a score to even forty eight years later in the World Cup of 1966). This story moves me like almost no other in history. The photographs of the two sides celebrating together is like nothing else I've ever seen. For this reason I find it pretty distasteful, cheap and tacky that the supermarket corporation Sainsburys has decided to exploit the story of the Truce in their advertising, see: The Christmas Truce happened after just a few months of the war, see:; the worst was yet to come. Millions more were to be wiped out, sometimes over a quarter of a million in just a few days of a single engagement. We saw the first widespread use of chemical weapons, tanks, machine guns and other demonic technology. Of course at the end of that Christmas Day in 1914 day, the two sides went back to their own trenches and continued blowing the Greek buggery out of each other. The war that "will be over by Christmas!" went on over three more Christmases, nearly four; and there was never a Christmas truce again. I wonder... on that day a hundred years ago, while those British and German soldiers were toasting each other amongst the mud, barbed wire and mines, if they could have seen into the future, if they had glimpsed the horrors that were yet to come...

...would they have gone back?

Wednesday, 24 December 2014

No, Virginia, we DON'T see Santa Claus

On September the 21st 1897 the New York Sun newspaper published an editorial that was actually a reply to a letter written in by an eight year old local girl called Virginia O'Hanlon. The original handwritten letter was recently valued on the Antiques Roadshow for £20,000 to £30,000. Although unseasonable for the time of year it was originally printed, it has become a major part of American Christmas folklore. It reads as follows:

We take pleasure in answering thus prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among the friends of The Sun:

Dear Editor—
I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so." Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?
Virginia O'Hanlon
115 West Ninety Fifth Street

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas, how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished. Not believe in Santa Claus? You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are, unseen and unseeable, in the world. You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else as real and abiding. No Santa Claus? Thank God! He lives and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

I'm guessing that the New York Sun of the 1890's must have been a very different journal to The Sun of the United Kingdom in the 2010's. These words have become legendary and have inspired books and films, like this one: That film is highly fictionalized, but deeply enjoyable and very intelligently put together; I think so anyway. Some might find it a bit treacly, on my side of the Atlantic anyway, but I don't. I think it's heart-warming and thought-provoking. An interesting theme is its powerful anti-Skeptic message, which even I accept is slightly excessive. It specifically states that the observation of rational data is not the ultimate method of defining reality. It even goes as far as to say reality may directly contradict what your senses and cognition tell you exists, or does not exist. What's more it coins the neologism "unseeable", meaning something that can never be perceived or comprehended no matter what we do. This is totally contrary not only to the Skeptic movement but much of post-enlightenment Western thought. Why then is it so popular with people in the heart of the Western world, supposedly the most materialistic nation on Earth?... That's an interesting subject, but a big one; I'll leave it for a future article. However, for now: the issue over the existence of Santa Claus does bring up another vital question: why do none of us see him? You have to think about that question for a moment to understand all its implications. The Skeptics tell us that paranormal phenomena are all the product of an over-active imagination. Witnesses don't really see these things, say the Skeptics, they just think they do. They see a perfectly ordinary object and then their mind and flawed memory distort, exaggerate and embellish the incident. A seagull glimpsed at a particular angle at sunset morphs into a story in which an alien spacecraft swoops down, snatches the witness up and probes his rectum with diamond rods. The UFO meme simply comes from popular cultural symbols. In that case, wouldn't we also see Santa Claus? Correct me if I'm wrong, HPANWO readers, but I've been studying books full of reports of encounters with UFO's, ghosts, lake monsters and other cryptids, fairies, elves, gnomes, green men, blue men, pink men, moving castles in the sky etc etc etc for many years. I've not come across one single case of an adult witness on Christmas Eve taking his dog out for a walk on Cannock Chase and looking up to see Santa Claus in his sleigh being pulled by the reindeer, bells jingling and Santa himself yelling "Ho ho ho!" Why not? Santa is himself a cultural icon in the same way UFO's are. People see UFO's but they don't see Santa Claus... Discuss. Of course every adult knows that Santa is not real, but then doesn't every adult also know that UFO's and ghosts are not real? Despite claims to the contrary, I think that in our culture the supernatural and Santa occupy a very similar status; and if you admit that then you have to admit that this makes it more likely that there is some objective reality to paranormal reports otherwise Santa would be seen regularly as well, and he's not. There's also intriguing evidence from an incident that started out as a Skeptic hoax, but then backfired in an unexpected way. A TV production company employed a team of special effects engineers to design and build a drone that looked like a flying saucer; they then flew this over Avebury, Wiltshire. The plan was to fly it over this ancient monument, which is gathering place of counter-culturists, pagans, mystics and hippies, to see how many of them would be fooled into thinking that a real flying saucer was in the sky above them, see: Many of the people at Avebury did indeed report a UFO, but... and this is very important... they reported pretty much what they saw. There were none of the embellishments and exaggerations that I think the hoaxers were banking on. It showed that even the so-called “most gullible members of society!” have turned out to be much better witnesses than was previously thought. All in all this Santa Claus no-show every year is not good news for the Skeptic worldview.

Tuesday, 23 December 2014

Carla Buckle Released

I'm very pleased to report that Carla Buckle is now a free woman. She was released from HMP-YOI Bronzefield yesterday evening at 7.35 PM. Thanks very much to everybody who helped fight for her, especially Danny Bamping, Yvonne Stewart Taylor and Martin Beard. The complete tale of the struggle to get Carla out of prison I'm sure will be told in full during the coming days and weeks, but right now we're all just celebrating her release. We haven't always agreed on strategies; I have not contributed to the bail fund because I'm not sure if Carla would want that; because it was so hard to communicate with her in jail we never got the chance to ask her. She's a political prisoner and she might not have wanted us to pay what was in effect a ransom. Nevertheless, that's now all academic because she is out of jail, walking the streets and breathing open air. I'm so happy about that.

Monday, 22 December 2014

The Anti-Kevin Annett Cult

This will not be a long article; in fact it is mostly a continuation of another that I wrote a few days ago: It has come to my attention that an attack has been launched against Kevin Annett, a former vicar from Canada who has been exposing child abuse and genocide, see here for background: The accusation is that Kevin is lying to, intimidating and cheating people who've been supporting him. This is not the first time a wave of hostility against Kevin has occurred, see: However, this time it's more serious. These videos were put up: and: Immediately afterwards a collection of people began informing everybody they could about this supposed revelation. I say "informing", but is that the right word? I was approached by this group through a comment on a HPANWO TV video. Did they say: "Hey, Ben, have you heard that Kevin Annett is a fraud? Here's the evidence against him; take a look!"? No, the person "informing" me addressed me like this: "You should be ashamed of yourself, Ben!... You should be ashamed, ashamed of your long term wilful ignorance... Your rant on his behalf was nothing but an emotional empty diatribe... You're promoting a liar and a confidence trickster... He's a conman and you're a dumb easy target for him..." In the midst of this memo my... er... correspondent... included a few questions that I should ask about Kevin, the nature of which lead me to think that all he has done is watch the video with Araya Soma linked above and maybe read a few four-year-old blog postings, and accepted it all as factual without further contemplation or question. If you Google "Kevin+Annett+fake" you'll actually find very little information available that I haven't seen long before; I cover these existing points in my own interview with Kevin on HPANWO Radio, see above. In response to this shrill and hysterical tirade I made the same points that I do in the background link about Danielle la Verite. This man answered thus: "I've seen you a few times this year and just driven by... If you want to respond with 'fuck you' and would like to stick your finger up, then I might just pull over next time and make sure you never can stick it anywhere ever again." See: I have called the police. I've also warned this individual that I'm perfectly capable of defending myself with force and will do so to the full extent of the law if he attempts to assault me. It is sad that we have yet another example of people completely failing to understand that persuading others can only be done through adult, civilized discourse. You can't menace and bully somebody into repeating your viewpoint and then claim that your viewpoint is therefore true as a result of that. That is what organized religions and oppressive state regimes do. Interestingly my assailant also berates me for my "praise" of Charlie Veitch. What he probably means by "praise" is that I said that Veitch didn't deserve death threats and threats to kill his baby son. Polarization, that's another trick sophists use, see: Unfortunately some people are complying with the wishes of the anti-Kevin Annett cult. Alfred Webre, a man whom I respect for some of the other things he's done, has disowned Kevin and removed all his interview recordings from his archive. I wonder if Alfred decided to do that because he was convinced by evidence presented to him in a rational and respectful manner; probably not if my own experience is anything to go by. If anybody really does have evidence that Kevin Annett is a fraud and wishes to present it to me in a mature, friendly and rational tone then I'll have a look at it; I'll also present it to Kevin for his response. But I refuse to be harangued and terrorized by online autocrats. That kind of behaviour is totally incompatible with how I wish to be treated by other people. To everybody who chooses to approach me in that way, my response will be the same as it was relating to Danielle la Verite and Darren Perks. Understood?

Sunday, 21 December 2014

Madonna's Illuminati Song

A while ago I interviewed Mark Devlin on HPANWO Radio, see: He is a disk jockey who is very concerned about how occult Illuminati symbolism is inserted into modern pop music. The idea that music can be used as a form of psychological warfare is in the publicly available realm; in fact it was developed long ago by people like Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School and Maj. Gen. George Owen Squier of the Muzak corporation. Devlin describes how artists like JayZee, Rihana and Lady Gaga include strange magickal themes in their song lyrics, imagery and videos. Sometimes these themes are very subtle and nebulous and at other times more blatant. I myself have discussed this feature of the 1980's new romantic band Duran Duran, see: However Madonna has recently written a song which is by far the most obvious example I've ever come across. It's actually called Illuminati and the lyrics are something to behold: The first verse names some of Madonna's fellow musicians who have been accused of using Illuminati symbolism by people like Mark Devlin and Jemma King, as if she is parodying or discrediting these conspiracy theories. The second verse and chorus continues with this notion. The third verse sounds like it's referring to the Bavarian Illuminati, see: After that the tone of the song changes and it becomes more sinister: And now the media's misleading us all. To right and to wrong. It's time to dance and turn this dark into something. So let the fire burn, this music is bumping. I could interpret this as a description of an Illuminati ritual. This song is the fifth track on Rebel Heart, Madonna's new studio album that is due to be released early next year. However some of the demo tracks have been leaked early including Illuminati. Whether this was unintended or was done deliberately as a piece of viral marketing, we can only speculate. The album cover has a photo of the singer with her head wrapped in black wire; this is disturbing, you can see the wire digging into her skin. The Illuminati song can be heard here: I don't have the means to play it backwards; but if any HPANWO readers do, could you let me know if there are any hidden messages? Madonna has had occult magick symbolism associated with her work before; in fact during her unenthused and abortive career as an actress she wore a leather jacket in the film Desperately Seeking Susan with an Illuminati pyramid on the back, see:

Saturday, 20 December 2014

Will the Queen Abdicate?

In just a few days the British Habsburg Annunaki Reptilian, more often known as Queen Elizabeth II of England, will make a ten minute televised speech to the nation and commonwealth, something she has done every Christmas Day since 1957; although of course a lot of the content is recorded in advance. Every year there is intense speculation about what she will say and this year all bets are off after a run on the bookmakers Coral; this happened when they offered odds of ten-to-one that she will announce her abdication, see: It is extremely rare for an English monarch to deliberately or willingly step down; they almost invariably die on the throne. If the Queen were to abdicate she would only be the second sovereign to do so in all of British history, and ironically the only other would be her own uncle King Edward VII who relinquished the throne in 1936 so he could marry his divorced American lover Wallis Simpson, in the UK forever labelled "Mrs Simpson". A Royal abdication by "Her Madge" would strangely come just a year after the pope resigned, another event virtually without historical precedent, see: However, as the Coral spokesman said, there's no smoke without fire. Despite the extreme privacy under which the content of the Queen's speech is kept before the broadcast, have rumours leaked out? If so, why would the Queen suddenly quit? One possibility is for health reasons; the International Business Times has reported that the eighty-eight year old Queen has been displaying the early symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, a tragic condition that causes progressive brain deterioration and eventually death in elderly people. According to the online newspaper, Elizabeth II has been found wandering the grounds of Buckingham Palace late at night completely lost and confused. She also has trouble remembering the wedding of William and Kate, her own grandson and his wife. She also apparently gets Prince Charles and Prince Philip confused, her son and husband. This is a sad affliction I observed in my own great-grandmother before she died. According to the IBT there is a conspiracy among the Palace staff to keep the Queen's condition a secret, but that it has leaked out. If she does indeed have Alzheimer's then obviously there's no chance she will end her life in some cheap and grotty council-run care home like most other suffers of the disease do. Her memory will deteriorate and so too will her language skills and other mental abilities until she passes away, but in that time she will be maintained by every piece of medical technology known to man. Already there has been signs that Charles and Camilla have been taking on a lot of the roles that the Queen used to do, as have William and Kate; indeed William had to step into the Queen's shoes to attend the fiftieth anniversary of the independence of Malta. Charles himself is no spring chicken today and might like his own shot at kingship before he himself starts to lose his marbles. However, there might be more trouble brewing for which the Queen might want to be safely out of the way from if it strikes.

In September 2012 a skeletonized body was found buried beneath a car park in Leicester; the thirty year old male had died in the fifteenth century from a fractured skull, probably caused by a blow from a weapon. In life he had suffered from major spinal problems that must have been very painful and had left him with a hunchback. The body was exhumed and examined and the truth was finally confirmed by DNA analysis, the body was that of King Richard III whose grave had been lost since his defeat and disgrace all those years ago. He had died in the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, ending the long domination of the Plantagenet dynasty. The victor in the battle, King Henry VII, took over from him, beginning days of the House of Tudor. However this DNA test also revealed something unexpected; there was a break in the male line of their common ancestry. It turns out that John of Gaunt, the grandfather of Henry VII, the first Tudor king, was not really the son of King Edward III after all; Henry's grandmother, Queen Philippa of Hainault, must have had a bit on the side, and it was he, not King Edward who was Henry's grandfather. This would mean that none of the Tudors would have had the right to rule. But it gets worse; if the Tudors were usurpers then so are the House of Windsor because they themselves derive their own right to the throne from the Tudors through marriage and descendence. The geneticist revealing this news is hasty to stress: “We are not in any way indicating that Her Majesty should not be on the throne.” But can he really say that? I suppose it's an instinctive response brought on by courtesy over the obvious implications of his discovery, but I can well imagine that some constitutional scholars are right now fidgeting nervously, perhaps cursing the day modern genetic technology was invented, see: If somebody made the decision to challenge the Queen's right to rule they would have a case. There could even be a plea from one of the living descendents of the Plantagenets, perhaps the individuals who helped the scientists test their DNA to identify Richard III's bones. Would any of them like the idea of being King or Queen? This is not the first time there have been challenges to the Queen's right to rule; in fact another has recently come from a Brother Porter of mine, see: However this new threat is far more serious because it involves hard scientific evidence, the same kind the police use to identify murder suspects. If this evidence is good enough for a criminal prosecution then why should it not be applied to the legitimacy of the monarchy? After all, it's her own Crown Court. The only way to find out for sure is to watch the Queen's speech on Christmas Day; if she does announce that she's jacking it in then you can be sure it will be one Christmas speech to remember. Will the bookies open before then...?

Friday, 19 December 2014

Nuke False Flag next Year?

The well-known Romanian hacker Marcel Lazar (any relation to Bob?), online name: "Guccifer", has told the New York Times that he has found top secret military documents stating that there will be a false flag terrorist attack on a major city in Pennsylvania USAin 2015 using nuclear weaponry, see:, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are the biggest cities in that region. Lazar claims that he has these documents in his possession, but has not yet released any but a handful of them. He is currently in jail in Romania because of incidents in which he hacked the emails of several premier statesmen like Colin Powell, George Tenet and Richard Armitage; so he has a good track record. The idea that some big push for the New World Order will take place next year is one I've already come to, see: Lazar is currently fighting extradition to the US for his alleged offences, like Gary McKinnon did; i hope he is equally successful, see: It's possible he will use these documents, which are in a series of emails, as a bargaining chip, and who can blame him; he doesn't want to end up in Guantanamo Bay any more than anybody else. If this story is true and is publicized widely enough then the perpetrators will have no choice but to abort the attack, as I believe they did in 2012 in London, see: This won't reduce the incriminating nature of these documents, if they exist. However we must also be wary that this story could be a smokescreen to draw our fire away from another location and time when a real false flag attack will take place. It's possible somebody threatened Lazar into complying.

Monday, 15 December 2014

The Shill-Shaming of Danielle la Verite

There's a lot of bad feeling in the air at the moment. In the world of the Rendlesham Forest Incident Col. Charles Halt has told the world on live radio that Larry Warren is a "substance abuser", see: This is false and Larry is understandably enraged with Halt about it. That very same day I discovered Trystan Swale's critique of my views on Prof. Brian Cox, against which I had to strike back, see: Then this came to my attention on the website of the Kent Freedom Movement: It concerns Danielle la Verite, a relative newcomer to the Truth movement who has nevertheless made a big impression with her popular YouTube vlog, see: Here's her website: Her style is a simple talking-head narration, usually from a corner of her bedroom, but she is very intelligent, perceptive and witty, albeit in a rather X-rated way. Like Chris Spivy she is plain-speaking and doesn't hold back from swearing. I admire her creativity in that respect; she has popularized unusual profanities like "cuntwaffle", even if she didn't invent them herself. In her radio interviews she comes across as very dedicated and concerned about the New World Order, and that she takes what she does seriously, but she has a clever sense of humour too. In this world, having a laugh can be the only way for some people, including me, to maintain our sanity. For this reason the article on the Kent Freedom Movement made me sit up and read. The title itself sets the tone straight away; I've spoken before about the misuse of rhetoric, see here in the introduction: Of course the KFM blog's author is entitled personally to regard Danielle and what she does as "degenerate filth" if they like but the leading illustration is a still from Danielle's Dear Forum Haters video with the word "SHILL" embossed over the colander. Shill is conspiratorial jargon for a government agent who has been inserted into the conspiratorial movement by the intelligence services to do it damage. Accusing somebody of being a shill is a very serious matter.

The Kent Freedom Movement author deeply dislikes Danielle's style, her foul language and anomalous frolics. The video in which she appears in a rabbit costume supposedly makes us Truthers "appear like idiots!" I've watched that video myself and I disagree. To me it just looks like a rather avant-garde comedy piece; I don't see any harm in it myself. I don't think it makes people in the Truth movement look like idiots at all; it's simply Danielle's chosen expression of satire and fun. Naturally it doesn't appeal to everybody; it's even bound to offend some people, like the KFM author. I'm afraid that's life! The author then compiles a highly detailed dossier of all the expletives Danielle uses, complete with time-stamps, and claims that they are good at "spotting cointelpro" (government psychological operations agents). They state that if they'd feel awkward or embarrassed about showing this material to their mother then it's suspicious. No, it's just that it doesn't appeal to the author's taste, or their mother's; nothing more, nothing less. There are people I myself would not show Danielle's videos to because I know they'd be upset by them. This does not mean that Danielle is therefore automatically an undercover infiltrator from the Frankfurt School; it might just mean that different people like and dislike different things. There are those who are repelled by bad language and certain kinds of humour; again, that's just life. The author might feel that Danielle is driving people away from the Truth movement because of her style, but they are actually only putting themselves in the shoes of everybody coming into contact with the Truth movement for the first time; they cannot possibly speak for all those people. If the author prefers, there is plenty of promotional material out there which is far more family orientated; why not try HPANWO TV? I hardly ever swear in my own output. The author also objects to Danielle's posts on Facebook in which she gets into bitter and aggressive arguments with other people... well, hold the front page!... As somebody once perceptively said, logging into Facebook is like stepping into a nightclub; almost everybody is constantly battling with everybody else using a rudeness of tone they'd never stoop to in face-to-face conversation. I could show you some of the comments posted on my own wall, and more so the HPANWO Forum, which make Danielle's look like passages from a Ladybird book. The internet is a place where trolls and cyber-bullies trawl like sharks. If you get attacked by one there are several ways of defending yourself, but this has to involve biting back in some way if it's to be effective. The author suggests that Danielle herself initiated a series of publicized keyboard duels, but the small screen-captured comments boxes illustrating that passage don't contain enough information to prove this. In these arguments, both sides will invariably blame the other, and only they themselves will know who is lying and who is telling the truth. The KFM author then refers to a video in which Danielle and Thomas Sheridan pretend to channel the ghost of Jimmy Savile with a third individual, off camera, imitating Savile's voice. I don't particularly appreciate that video either. It is rather facetious and this time I can sympathize with the author's feelings; but does this mean that Danielle, and presumably Thomas Sheridan too, are shills because they've made a video we dislike?
Rhetoric like the kind in the KFM blog article makes it difficult to analyze the text rationally. As I said in my Dr Jonathan Reed video, excessive use of rhetoric is effectively threatening the reader; it's saying: "You have to agree with me, or else!..." This is an insult to our intellectual sovereignty and it's often used as a substitute for a reasonable argument where none exists. I really am not interested in knowing if the KFM member who wrote that article feels offended by a few four letter words or doesn't see the funny side of certain off-beat jokes. If they are going to make a specific accusation against another person then I want to see their reasoning. What evidence do they have that Danielle la Verite is a shill? Do they mean her name? La Verite is not Danielle's real surname; it simply means "truth" in French. I'm not sure how that is significant; I know several people who use more than one name, especially in cyberspace; and pseudonyms are perfectly acceptable. I have used them myself several times. No, you need to give us more than that. The author first encountered Danielle via a contact in a group called The Reset. This is an issue of legitimate concern; I've heard of The Reset a few times already and it appears to be similar to the cartel of organizations that were behind the controlled Occupy camp in London, see: The author links to another KFM article about The Reset and quite rightly exposes what looks like connections to Agenda 21, the manipulated environmental tendency and New Age mind control, see: However Danielle's alleged links to The Reset, according to the same author's report, are very tenuous indeed. Danielle knew somebody who was in The Reset, that's it. Is she involved more deeply in The Reset? If so there should be documentary data like text and video etc. Danielle became interested in the Truth movement during her study of serial killers and how they tended to have links to military mind control projects; this is a legitimate subject which many researchers have covered, yet the KFM pours scorn on Danielle doing it because apparently she has no written works currently available. Well maybe she was just reading and thinking; again, is this a case for the prosecution in a shillhood trial? The same goes for Danielle's own experience of the social services and her children's school; so what if she's reluctant to talk about it? I've been in a similar situation myself with my daughter and I don't bring it up in every radio interview. What's the author's point here? I put Danielle's comments about the discredited Hollie Greig case down to inexperience; she's only been involved in this business for four months after all. The author also believes that Danielle's "affiliation" to the UK Column is evidence for her being cointelpro because the author believes UK Column are such as well. However they don't explain exactly what form this "affiliation" takes; does Danielle work for the UK Column or what? This is something I've heard a lot about too. The UK Column is a newspaper and website featuring several people I respect including Brian Gerrish, Lou Collins, Ian R Crane and Bill Maloney, but in recent years they've been accused of being a government-run psychological operation to derail the Truth movement. However when I looked into this issue and began talking to people about it I came across a very similar mindset to that of the Kent Freedom Movement towards Danielle la Verite, and also the community in UFOlogy which is opposed to Darren Perks. They may well have a genuine gripe, but it's impossible to know because nobody wants to have a rational civilized discussion about it. What you have instead are a collection of warring tribes with whom you are either for or against. If you raise a single word of doubt or even inquiry you will be instantly and reflexively denounced as a shill yourself. Either that or you'll be patronized with emasculating platitudes like being called a dupe and a weakling. Here's a good example quote from the KFM article: "...whereby she has her Facebook and YouTube sycophants supporting her day and night to cuss and curse at anyone that might question their precious Danielle." That well and truly puts me in my place doesn't it? When it comes to these factions you're either with them or against them. You cannot disagree! It's not permitted! You'll be told that the evidence against the accused exists... but you won't be allowed to examine it because it will never be shown to you. Instead what will happen is you'll have a package that supposedly contains the evidence contemptuously hurled in your face, with a wrapping paper consisting of insults, threats, rhetoric and moral blackmail, see here for more details: I think one of the reasons I'm writing about this case is because I myself have been in the same position as Danielle and feel sorry for her as a result. The irony is that no real shill could ever hope to achieve the level of discord, mutual hostility and suspicion that currently exists in the Truth movement, thanks to the Shill Squad. I think real shills exist; there's no doubt about that. There are people I myself suspect of being shills, either knowing informants or "useful idiots"; but if these accusations are going to progress anywhere beyond my private doubts and wariness, then I will need to have proper evidence, it's as simple as that. There are a particular group of people within the conspiratorial community who have appointed themselves the armchair policemen of the Truth movement. Some of them literally do nothing else except constantly pontificate over the character of other personalities in our community. They will judge and condemn individuals and organizations without hesitation and regard any appeal from third parties as being inductions into the very same guilt they have so single-handedly dispensed. Sadly some members of the Kent Freedom Movement area a part of this tendency. This is a great pity because the KFM has also done such brilliant research and activism work; it was they who first joined forces with Nick Kollerstrom to expose the false flag sham that was the Woolwich incident, see: I have good friends who are members of the KFM and I've travelled with them to attend KFM meetings. I regret that after this article is published I'll probably never be invited back again. I'll miss that. I've seen very little reason to think Danielle la Verite is no more than a genuine person who wants to take action against the New World Order. She is eccentric in her delivery, but then so am I in my own way. We are individuals and proud of it! The last thing the Truth movement needs is its own brand of political correctness; on the contrary, a bit of Wilsonian Discordianism could do us a lot of good. Danielle's manner is uninhibited and blunt; she likes satire, adult humour and black comedy which many viewers will find personally distasteful. There are some vague suggestions that she's encountered some dubious individuals and organizations in the course of her brief career in the world of conspiracy; these matters are worth keeping an eye on, but there are no signs that she has decisively planted her flag on any of them. The Kent Freedom Movement have presented no case at all to suggest that Danielle la Verite is shill. They have expressed a profound personal dislike for her, and that's all. I know very well that I'm losing friends by writing this article, but so be it. I've learnt that this is a price we all have to pay for speaking our minds. If an issue is important enough to write about and people don't like it, tough! And as I've said many times before, especially over this past year, a friend to all is a friend to none.

Sunday, 14 December 2014

David Icke is Human

Roll up, roll up. Read all about it. Yes, David Icke is not a reptilian MI5 agent, nor is he a flawless messiah. He is human. A few years ago The Daily Mail published another of their archetypal scoops in their women's column, predictably called Femail. This was written by Natalie Clarke and put on the online version of the newspaper on the 9th of January 2012; this was following on from a comment in the public box posted in an abysmal trashpot they wrote about David a few weeks earlier, see: The comment was by Pamela Leigh Richards who is David's ex-wife. David rarely speaks or writes publicly about his private life; he once gave a hint on stage at one of his shows: "Bah! If dolphins could sue...!" I've heard from several people close to the Icke family about how Pamela was a vicious gold-digging harridan who tried to ruin their lives; but it sounded so simple that even then I knew there had to be more to the story. When it comes to personal relationships, the whole truth can only ever be known by those directly involved in it, but if, or when, it does go public both sides of the story have to be told. The report of how David and Pam met is one I'm familiar with because of a two-part radio interview on News for the Soul Pam gave many years ago while she and David were still together; this show is no longer available. Pamela and David met very fatefully; both felt that psychic predictions were fulfilled when they walked past each other by the swimming pool at that conference. She was wearing a mauve gown and he had an English accent. It sounds to me like in the initial period of their relationship they were totally loved-up on each other in a very adolescent way. I've found in my own life that this can be a bad sign; falling too quickly and too deeply for a girl often leads to disappointment and stagnation. Both parties resent the other for failing to maintain the situation, when in truth the affair was an attempt to launch a rocket into orbit on the booster stage alone; it doesn't work. To love a girl for year after year after year, you need more than hormones; you need a sense of companionship, affinity and mutual acceptance. In this case Pam was getting involved with a man who already had a massive amount of personal baggage when it comes to the opposite sex. David had fallen in love with Linda Atherton during his football career and they'd married in 1971. He still loves her; according to a channelled message: "he is the roses and she is the rose bowl". However during his spiritual emergence crisis (I won't use the word "breakdown" because that's inaccurate and pejorative) he also got involved with a woman he met during one of his earth-healing missions to Canada. Her name was Deborah Shaw, yet she goes under the name "Mari Shawsun" today. She lives not far from me and practices in alternative medicine and lives with her and David's daughter Rebecca who is now in her early twenties. Almost unbelievably, from an outsider's point of view, David, Linda and Mari agreed to have a ménage a trois; Mari would come and live with David, Linda and their children in their home on the Isle of Wight as David's second wife. This is very similar to Ayn Rand and her affair with Nathanial Brandon, see: and: It was equally disastrous. In the end they could bear it no longer and Mari was told to leave. By that time Rebecca had been born and David had to make a crushing decision regarding his involvement with his daughter. He chose to stay with Linda and his other children, and break all contact from Mari and Rebecca. As a loving father myself, I can begin to imagine the emotional agony this must have caused David. And of course David's fame... or infamy... meant that everybody in the world knew about it as the tale was splattered all over the centre pages of the Sunday Murdochs. Nobody gets over and moves on completely from something like that, and these are the waters Pam was diving into, see: Here's Pamela Leigh Richards' personal website:

The article about Pamela is filled with the same typical rhetoric, condescension and sensationalism that the first one about David was, but at least some of it is factually accurate. According to Pam the trouble started when money became involved, and money is another great destroyer of idealism. David Icke is a businessman, that's undeniable, and this is the fact that has launched a thousand clickbait crusades by the self-appointed armchair gauleiters of the Truth movement. I address this problem in more detail in my review of David's 2014 Wembley gig, see the background link at the bottom; but suffice to say it has become incredibly cool to be anti-Icke. In fact this coolness borders on the cultish. There are hundreds of websites and Facebook groups filled with people who gather every evening and carry out ritual desecrations of David Icke and pour emasculating scorn on anybody who so much as utters a kind word in relation to him. These people are more often than not fellow conspiracy theorists instead of Skeptics, and they accuse David of every misdemeanour and atrocity you could name. The most common, as well as one of the more minor, of these is that David is "in it for the money!" And indeed The Daily Mail article on Pam reinforces that point of view with: She says her lawyer has instructed her not to disclose the size of the settlement she is seeking, but it is likely that Icke is a rich man. His tour is a success, he has written 18 books, published in 20 countries and sells DVDs of his performances. As I said in my Wembley review, this doesn't make sense. It's highly unlikely David made any significant cash off that lecture, or any of his other tour events. Book selling is becoming less and less lucrative every day, see: David gave up a career in TV presenting that could have made him a millionaire to do what he does today; his is a classic riches to rags story. David is an entrepreneur who earns a reasonable amount of money from his business, but so what? Is that illegal? Did the communist party take power during the night? "Rich" is a relative term; David probably is a "rich man" compared to me and many other people I know, but lives in abject poverty compared to his former BBC sports stars, with his one-bed flat and driving his blue C-reg Proton Wira. But let's face it, the anti-Icke posse would still claim David is making lots of money if he lived in a rolled up newspaper in a septic tank. Business life is intricate and conflict can easily emerge from disagreements, especially if your working life and family life are combined. According to Pamela, Linda was the one who initiated the falling out and David harshly turned against Pam afterwards; however my source told me that Pam was the snake in the garden. You see how difficult it is to fathom other people's personal issues? It's something I'm not going to even attempt, let alone pass judgement on. David Icke is a human being, and more precisely a man. And, like any other man, if you deprive him of female company for a certain amount of time it adversely affects his thinking processes. It can't be easy for a bloke to be approaching your sixties and have no wife or steady girlfriend. What's more the catastrophes of the past must have still been weighing him down. When I looked at Pamela and listened to her talking I found her very beautiful, charismatic, intelligent and elegant. She comes across in her News for the Soul interview as empathic, cheery and sweet. How can we blame David for letting himself be taken by a woman like her? Like many men of his age he might well have been suffering from a touch of le feu a midi. I have a lot of respect for David Icke, as I explain in my Wembley review, but I regard him as very fallible. As I said, I won't comment further on his relationships, but he has made some bad errors of judgement in his professional life, especially relating to The People's Voice. The problem with a lot of folk is that they misjudge David because they either did regard him as the son of God and had enormous expectations of him which he failed to live up to; or the opposite: their entire identity and sense of self-esteem depends on David being the subhuman antichrist chicken-fucker from Hell during times when he actually shows considerable character. I can only reiterate what I said about Wembley; David Icke is human, and none of you will ever find peace with him or yourselves until you accept that basic fact.

Friday, 12 December 2014

Trystan Swale on Ben Emlyn-Jones

Trystan Swale, the well-known Fortean Skeptic, paranormal researcher and radio show host has written an article about me; this is the second time he has done so. He published his previous article Blogging Costs Jobs in January 2012; it is no longer available, but you can read my response here: This latest article was one he published on his current blog Leaves that Wither and is entitled HPANWO- on being Curt with Conspiracy Theorists, here's a link to it: He put it up on the 13th of September last year; that's a long time ago; I'm somewhat surprised I never saw it at the time. I only picked it up when I was casually ego-surfing last night. As always, it's not my place to tell Trystan what to think; his opinion of me is inconsequential. However some of his statements call for a reply. It's hard to know where to start so I'll be traditional and begin at the beginning. I'll give Trystan's article a true Skeptic-style dissection review. His words will be in the normal style of text and in quotes, mine will be in emboldened text:

"I am not a fan of Professor Brian Cox..."

At least he opens with a statement we both agree on.

"...Not that I have anything against him..."

As regular HPANWO readers will know, I do have something against Prof. Brian Cox and I don't deny that. I explain why I have something against him in this article, which Trystan also cites: It must be said that Trystan also has antagonists in his life too, and he can be very zealous in his focus on them at times, like Don Philips, see:

"...he seems to have jolted my friend Ben Emlyn-Jones’s hands to the keyboard..."

It's strange to hear Trystan describe me as his "friend" when he blocked me on social media. This happened a few months ago spontaneously and very abruptly. I was deeply dismayed and baffled when he did it. We were getting along absolutely fine; he'd even been a guest on the HPANWO Show, see:, and I'd been on his show too, see: Then suddenly he's vanished from my Skype and Facebook feed; just like that.
I don't have a personal problem with Skeptics at all, when they're well behaved; Trystan was always polite and respectful to me, as was I to him.

"...Ben’s issue with Cox is that ‘he is notoriously rude and aggressive to non-skeptics’, branding them ‘nobbers’, ‘nutters’ and ‘twats’..."

Got it in one, Trystan. Is that so unreasonable?

"...All the whilst, Cox is busy presenting the ‘extraordinarily one-sided’ Science Britannica television show..."

Trystan's sarcasm is not lost on me. Actually I rather enjoyed parts 2 and 3 of Science Britannica; they were professional, factual and very informative. The only problem I had was with part 1 which was one-sided and full of propaganda; I explain why in the above link to my main Cox article.

"...Ben sees him as a ‘useful idiot … sincere in his foolishness’, an unwitting employee of the cackling keepers of forbidden knowledge. Ben asks: Why do the keepers of the secrets think this is necessary? Simply because more and more people are waking up to the reality of what is kept from us, and therefore more intense forces of reaction are being needed to keep the lid on that reality..."

Again, this is exactly what I think, and I love the metaphor "the cackling keepers of forbidden knowledge"; may I use it myself, Trystan?

"...Now, to rewind, I cannot speak on behalf of Cox, but I am someone who has been accused of giving short thrift to people who have ideas that are most accurately described as conspiracy theories..."

To be honest, Trystan is one of the more genial and tolerant members of the Skeptic community... even if he does inexplicably and suddenly block people on social media for no apparent reason... If he were anything less I'd want nothing to do with him. I know only too well how malicious and toxic the more extreme elements of the Skeptisphere can be. I've been the target of a hate-campaign by "Team Droike" and the Skeptic cyber-bullies have even turned against their own side, see:

(Photo caption) "Professor Brian Cox: not Ben's type."

No he's not. My "I'm-completely-straight-but-if-I-were-gay" crush at the moment is the delectable Dr Steven Greer. I have a close female friend who does consider the good professor her type and I always wonder what she sees in him.

"...In my case it was because, as a skeptic, people would frequently ask for my opinion on this or that, with the whole intention of convincing me I was wrong..."

If you listen to the two radio shows I did with Trystan, I don't think that comes across in my case.

"...In itself that doesn’t present a problem, but the arguments against my doubt were frequently based upon hearsay, cherry picked, fictional or non-existent ‘evidence’..."

Again, this does not include me.

"...Failing that some flaw in my qualifications, past, schooling or postcode would be used to explain why I just couldn’t see the truth..."

I'm well aware of the ad hominem fallacy and its sub-fallacies like "poisoning the well". I make an effort to avoid committing them.

"...And the same old nonsense would be brought up again and again and again: WTC7 was brought down in a controlled explosion..."

Is this meant to be something I said? After all, the article is about me. Or is Trystan just talking about conspiracy theorists in general? I do not claim that the Building Seven was brought down by explosives. No, no; a far more sophisticated directed energy weapon was used, as Dr Judy Wood has discovered, see:

"...why did MOSSAD tell the Jewish workers to stay at home on 9/11?..."

This is the most worrying part of Trystan's article. As far as I can see he is not attributing this statement as a quote by me; if he were then he'd receive his very own "being curt" notice to cease-and-desist from my solicitor in the next post, if he were lucky. As it stands, I feel uncomfortable with those words even being present in an article with my name on it. I'd like to be able to tell you that nobody in the 9/11 Truth movement really believes that the Jews at the WTC were all warned to stay off work that day. Unfortunately that's not true. There are a tiny minority who do maintain that nonsense, and I always challenge them when I hear it. In actual fact over three hundred Jews died in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, including five Israelis. I know hardly anybody in the 9/11 Truth movement who doesn't understand that 9/11 was nothing to do with Jews. Jews are a simply cultural and religious group who are completely innocent of any New World Order-related wrongdoings. In fact it's the Jews who have often suffered very badly as a result of the globalist agenda in many different ways down the centuries. Nevertheless when a Skeptic comments on 9/11 conspiracy theories they will always, and I mean always, bring up the people who think the Jews were all phoned up on 9/11. In fact in Richard Dawkins' TV series Enemies of Reason the only reference he makes to 9/11 truthers at all involves that little epithet. Why? Because it's a useful strawman. It would be the equivalent of me saying about Skeptics: "And the same old nonsense would be brought up again and again and again: Rebecca Watson deserves to be threatened with rape and mutilation. All psychic mediums should be locked up in concentration camps! That's what these damn Skeptics are like, aren't they?" I'm not saying Trystan is libeling me directly or doing anything else illegal, but I'm very disappointed in him for playing that cheap shot.

"...I would guess there is an element of this in Cox’s position. Why argue the same points again and again when, ultimately, it isn’t going to achieve anything except wasting time?..."

This statement is based on the assumption that the said wasting of time has nothing to do with the fact that he has no argument to counter the points made.

"...Throwing up that wall of unapproachable contempt is a very good method of keeping time wasters at an arm’s length..."

This is a completely circular argument. Why the unapproachable contempt? Because Cox' detractors are time wasters. How do you know they are time wasters? Well, why else would he putting up a wall of unapproachable contempt?

"...All the whilst you get a reputation for being controversial and people increase your profile by blogging about you!..."

Hmm yes. I wish there were a way round that.

"...I also think that Ben should perhaps consider how the conspiracy theorist brethren could help themselves. They are often their own worst obstacles to being taken seriously by the part of the world that developed a greater understanding of critical thinking..."

I'm well aware that the conspiratorial community is far from perfect. Many say things I don't agree with. Some say support crazy ideas that have no basis in reason. Some get angry with me for not agreeing with them. Some call me a government agent because I mention that the moon is probably a natural celestial object and not an artificial alien space station. Not to mention the horrific reaction from the 9/11 truth community to the defection of Charlie Veitch, see: But there's the implication in what Trystan says that to be a conspiracy theorist is to be separated from critical thinking because you believe in conspiracy theories, and that being a conspiracy Skeptic automatically means you are a critical thinker simply because you express disbelief conspiracy theories. There are many people who use science and reason, including many highly qualified and experienced scientists, who would not be described as Skeptics; in fact they’re usually labelled “believers”. Then again there are people who know nothing about science and never use its methods who say things like: “Nah, I don’t believe in all that crap! There ain’t no such things as ghosts or UFO’s. It’s all in yer head innit?” Yet this person would be described as a Skeptic. So it’s impossible to avoid the fact that it is opinions and conclusions about certain subjects that separate people called “Skeptics” from those called “believers” or “non-Skeptics” and nothing else; not methods, not science, not education, not qualification. Trystan has failed to understand that.

"...Conspiracy theories are often part of a bigger, unproven narrative. For example, many believe the wide narrative that select individuals are actively attempting to establish a global government. The reality of this allegation is dubious, but those who believe it are adept at finding the signs: the establishment of the European Union, OPEC, the Commonwealth etc. That quasi-ostentive approach of fitting misatrributed events into a greater legend may convince those who accept low quality evidence, but few others, never mind someone whose scientific work is based upon the collection and analysis of data.

Conspiracy theorists also tend to demonstrate the nail bomb approach to disseminating new ideas. Lots of pieces of shrapnel blasted out in the idea that at least some of it will stick. It’s actually quite an effective method in some ways. It covers the bases and suggests there is no smoke without fire. Hey, all these ideas and so many people talking about them. Must be something to them, right? Well,  possibly. But don’t get too excited. The presence of smoke doesn’t automatically mean flames will be leaping, as most on-engine motor oil spills demonstrate.

Of course, this is not to say genuine conspiracies don’t occur. The nature of government and governance necessitates the keeping of secrets. (In the interests of defence, it pays to have a technological upper hand.) Yes, you could easily argue the existence of a ruling class. But at the same, so many groundless conspiracy theories are thrown around that it is easy to become buried in a deluge of paranoid gossip, innuendo, misinformation and outright lies. You need a tin foil hat, plugs and opaque goggles to stop your brain being fried by the radiation waves of crap from the internet..."

I think this is just another misrepresentation and generalization of we, the conspiracy theorists. It may be a valid criticism for some people... whose names I won't mention... but not for all by far.

"...I can’t blame anyone, Brian Cox included, for becoming so fatigued under the weight of nonsense that they will no longer engage with its proponents. It isn’t polite to dismiss conspiracy theorists as ‘nobbers‘, but in many cases Cox has a point. They’ve brought it about upon themselves..."

Trystan concludes the article with the same fallacy he's used before. The fundamental assumption is that conspiracy theories are nonsense, ergo anybody who grows fatigued under their weight is doing so because they're nonsense. Could another possibility be that the fatigue comes from Cox being presented with arguments which are unwelcome due to his emotional and ideological motives, yet he has no rational answer to refute them? In this circumstance there are only three directions of progress: 1. Admit he can't refute them. 2. Ignore them. 3. Dismiss them as nonsense a priori. The Coxxer has chosen the third option. If he wishes to do that then it's his choice. However, in the same way I would never dare to second-guess him when it comes to particle physics, I'd expect the same intellectual honesty in return when it comes to matters he might have neglected to study when I haven't. If he's not willing to have that intellectual honesty then Trystan should not expect me to let him get away with it.