Sunday 28 October 2012

David Icke- from Wogan to Wembley

(Credit for the title of this article is not mine; it must go to my friend Rob Treehouse.)
In 1990 the BBC sports correspondent David Icke arranged a public lecture at Devises Town Hall in Wiltshire. Twelve people turned up and David put away the chairs himself at the end, poorer afterwards than before. His response to this disheartening outcome? To keep going! On Saturday the 27th of October 2012, twenty two years later, he hosted an all-day lecture at the Wembley Arena, one of Britain’s largest and most prestigious venues, in front of over five thousand people and many many more on a live, international Internet stream. I was one of those who had the privilege of attending.

The weather was very different to David’s previous UK events which tend to take place in the spring or summer. This late October day was unseasonably cold and my hands were numb as I staggered along the windswept road through the modern Wembley complex. Ustane walked next to me her hands plunged deep into the pockets of her overcoat. I realized that I should have brought my gloves and woolly hat. At the end of the road the huge steel-framed bulk of Wembley Stadium came into view; its classic twin-towered, stuccoed entrance replaced by a huge arch support in its recent renovation, towering hundreds of feet over the stadium like a metal rainbow. It struck me that when he was a footballer David must have dreamed about playing there one day. It was not to be because of the way his career was brutally cut short by arthritis in 1972; yet at the time did he ever suspect that forty years later he’d be speaking at the neighbouring Arena about the issues he does today? I doubt it. I tried to make some HPANWO TV videos on my mobile phone camera because I thought my usual Sony camcorder would be confiscated at reception, as was the case with a few people at David’s previous shows in the Brixton Academy, see: ; but as I said, my hands were numb so I had trouble operating the phone-cam. Also the quality would have been very poor so in the end I gave up and decided to do this written report instead. As we entered the Arena and had our tickets checked we were also subjected to a body search; not to the intimate extent a drugs-smuggler might receive at customs, but we still got a pat-down. I was afraid that they might have the X-ray body scanners airports have… Shhh! Mustn’t give them ideas! That would be very ironic at one of David’s talks, even more so than the photo he showed of the plaque on a house saying “George Orwell lived here” right next to a CCTV camera. However it was happily not that bad; and I’ve also checked the map and was pleased to see that there are no suspicious-looking street plans around Wembley like there is in Brixton, see: .

Wembley Arena was originally built as an Olympic swimming pool in 1934 but has since been converted into a concert and sports hall. There was a far larger and better equipped foyer area here than there was at Brixton. Ustane quickly bought a copy of David’s new book, Remember Who You Are at one of the merchandise stalls, see: This was also the title of the event. The auditorium of the Wembley Arena is the biggest room I’ve ever been in. It was only when I looked across at the people on the opposite side that I understood how massive it was; it makes even the West Wing atrium at the John Radcliffe look small. It’s hard to believe a space so huge could be enclosed. One of our friends who was there, a lady who runs a child abuse action group, told me: “The day will come when David will pack out Wembley Stadium!” I do hope so. The thousands of audience-members slowly congregated in their seats. I was told by several people that for large proportion of them this was their first ever David Icke live event, which is great news. Ustane and I had two seats next to each other on the left hand side terrace, near the back; not the best ones in the house, but good enough for us to see David clearly on the stage. Unfortunately we were also very close to the entrance staircase to our block so for the first hour or so late-comers constantly crowded past us, blinking in the dark and searching for their seats with confused expressions. Luckily ushers with torches were on hand to help them, but it was still irritating. My seat was comfortable enough, but I had to swivel round to face the stage so started to suffer from pins and needles in my bottom after a while. It was chilly in the auditorium and so most people kept their jackets on, as if we were outdoors. However difficult this was you can bet David was finding it more difficult. But he carried on without complaining so what excuse did we have?

I was familiar with some of the information David was presenting, having been to… how many is it now… seven of his live shows before? However this talk differed from all the previous ones David has given in several ways. Firstly it was far longer; it was divided up into four segments, with intervals in between, instead of the usual three. All in all David spoke for about ten hours and we were there for about twelve. Secondly it featured some live music. The segments all began with songs played live by Gareth Icke, David’s son, who is a singer-songwriter. I’ve heard him play twice before, at a pub in Harrow in London and at AV3 in Bristol, see: . On those occasions he’d played solo and unplugged, but this time he was accompanied by a full rock quartet which filled the Arena with energy. He began with his appropriately-titled song Remember Who You Are, and later on played another, What’s Love without Meaning, which is available as a single, and which was actually launched on Programme 6 of HPANWO Radio, see: Musical interludes were also provided by a troupe of very individualized and mixed dancers who moved independently to scintillating spiritual music. Ustane remarked how similar this style was to bellydance, which is always performed either by a solo dancer or by a troupe moving without formation. This is very symbolic to me of nonConformism in general; the need to metaphorically dance to the beat of your own drums. It was very effective and the audience began clapping along to the music.

The first segment of David’s talk was about the holographic nature of reality; something I’ve heard David discuss before, but never in this much detail. As always he brings his lines of research up to date with all his latest discoveries and conclusions, so there’s always new material to learn about. For instance David has started reading Wal Thornhill, of whom Ustane and I are fans too, and his theory of the electric universe, see: At the beginning of the second segment David told us how a reporter from The Independent newspaper had turned up and wanted to do an article on the Wembley event, but had only just arrived. Too late to hear the opening segment which David regards as essential for understanding everything that comes next. David was openly angry about this; and that’s understandable after his experience with The Guardian a few years ago where a journalist again arrived late, hardly paid any attention to what David said and then went away and wrote an article calling him a “New Age Nazi” which was illustrated by a photo montage of David dressed like Adolf Hitler! During the second and third segments he spoke about the history of Planet Earth from a conspiratorial perspective. David and I have both understood the true nature of the phrase “The Fall of Man” which is independently repeated in myths around the world in culture after culture. It seems that in the past we lived in a paradisiacal state symbolized by the Garden of Eden, Atlantis etc, but then something went badly wrong. Neither I nor David are suggesting that it literally involved a snake and somebody eating an apple etc; but these stories are very important to study as allegories for what actually took place. The event which changed everything David calls “The Schism”. It appears to be when intelligences of some kind from beyond this universe, outside the 3D-linear time umwelt that we can perceive, the three dimensions, invaded this one to steal its spiritual energy. David likens this to a scientist working in a sealed glass tank with those gloves that poke through holes in the walls. The gloves in this case are the Illuminati bloodlines, which again appear in legends all over the world, even from cultures that apparently had no contact. This is the cause of the New World Order and psychically-sensitive people can see these individuals taking the form of the Reptilian humanoids. This sounds crazy, but if you saw the first part where David talks about “decoding” the nature of reality it all fits. Hence, David’s annoyance that the reporter from The Independent missed that important first segment. This is key to understanding the whole subject and therefore the reporter is probably typing out an article about how: “He reckons they’re all lizards! Ha Ha!” as we speak.

The third segment was all about the conspiracies that are currently plaguing the human race as the Illuminati attempt to goad us into the New World Order: 9/11, 7/7, the financial crash, vaccines, chemtrails and so much else. But the ending was very uplifting and this was where the music was used again. Gareth came on and played and David also showed a song about how we all need to “choose love”. It sums up very much the whole theme of David’s lecture, see: This was when I think the loving energy David planned to release into the world to counter that being injected by the Illuminati at Satanic rituals really burst out. It was one of those tearful-and-smiley moments that are so joyful and so precious. Then the dancers entered the stage again and we all came together in a pantomime of positivity! We all jumped into the aisles and joined in with David’s “Non-Comply-Dance” David himself danced and sang along as well… and he did a good job too, despite telling us earlier he was a crap singer

Ustane and I left the Wembley Arena to catch our train back to where we were staying full of light and inspiration. I’m so glad I went and want to give a big thank you to David for hosting this event, and also to everybody else involved who made David Icke-Remember Who You Are happen.

Wednesday 24 October 2012

Way Upstream

Way Upstream is a stage play written by Alan Aykebourn in 1981 and performed several times at theatres in Scarborough and London, usually with himself doubling up as director. In 1987 it was made into a film by the BBC which is currently free online:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Part 6:
Part 7:
Part 8:
(I advise downloading it because it has never been released onto DVD.) It is about two couples who go on boating holiday together aboard a cabin cruiser on an English river. During its shows a real cabin cruiser was used as a central prop and during one performance a huge pool of water was installed on stage for it to float in, for added realism. The play is supposed to be an allegory of the political situation in Britain at the time it was written, with some of the characters representing the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and others being a metaphor for the Labour Party and Liberal Democrat opposition and socialist movements; but I can see a far more sophisticated theme in it than that.
There are four main characters: Keith, Alistair, Emma and June. Keith is a very conventional "Essex man", the director of a manufacturing company. He's the dominant personality of the quartet. The moment they step aboard the boat he declares himself to be the skipper, jumps into the pilot's seat and begins giving orders to the others. He does so though in a jocular manner. His authoritarianism is very light-hearted; he is not malicious, merely foolish and ingenuous. He wears a nautical captain's hat and acts pretentiously as if he knows a lot about boats and waterway life, when in fact he doesn't know very much more than the others do; and this is a source of a lot of humour in the first part of the play. He is also something of a workaholic; despite leaving his factory under the control of a junior manager and claiming that he's going to wash his hands of the place for the duration of his holiday, he has his secretary, Mrs Hatfield, report in to him daily... in person! Mrs Hatfield presumably has to track the boat's progress up the river every day and drive to meet it via the nearest road. June is Keith's wife. She is pessimistic and bad tempered, and she constantly complains about the accommodation facilities on board the boat and anything else she can find. It turns out fairly soon that she and Keith have a very unhappy marriage, in fact they despise each other. Their matrimonial strife comes to a head when June puts on a costume and performs a dance on the upper decks of the boat while it's moored beside the beer garden of a packed riverside pub, and Keith scornfully criticizes her for "making a complete and utter bloody idiot of herself!" This results in them splitting up for the remainder of the play. Emma is a quieter and more easygoing woman than June, and she is by far the most intelligent and aware person on board. She distrusts both Keith and June and also appears to express a sense of subconscious foreboding about the situation they're in; this is illustrated by her insistence on wearing a life jacket despite the reassurances of the other three that they're all "perfectly safe". Alistair is Emma's husband and also Keith's equal business partner in the company; but despite them being officially fifty-fifty Keith is clearly the de facto boss and orders Alistair around as if he were a junior employee. Alistair is a quiet and genteel man, but also very feeble and ineffectual. He constantly voices agreement mindlessly with all the other characters, especially Keith, and never even expresses, let alone enforces, any will of his own. Emma is frustrated by his weakness but still cares for him. Alistair seems to exhibit dithering indifference towards her as his wife, as he does everything else, but later on in the story this changes.
The four holiday-makers head upstream and for a few days they enjoy a fairly normal outing. Then their incompetent navigation skills lead them to run their boat aground and they are helped out by a very handsome, charming and virile man called Vince who dives into the water and heroically pushes their boat by hand until she refloats. The four main characters are very grateful and invite Vince aboard as a guest. From the way Vince speaks it is very clear that he is extremely knowledgeable about boating and worldly wise in general. June is instantly besotted with him and when she and Keith finally separate she dives straight into his arms... and his bed. But before all that happens: Vince remains aboard and, little by little, works his way into their lives with consummate skill. If you watch the movie version in the link above you'll see how he does it. It's hard to describe in words, but in no time at all Vince has totally taken over the boat and Alistair, Emma and especially June are eating out of his hand. Keith is the one main character who refuses to submit to Vince's rule, however he has to leave the boat after a strike breaks out at the factory. He returns as quickly as he can, but Vince manipulates the others into abandoning him. After his row with June she has completely rejected him in favour of Vince. It soon becomes obvious that Vince's dashing, debonair and urbane persona is merely a facade to hide his true nature: that of a violent, controlling and sadistic psychopath. He exploits and brutalizes Alistair, June and Emma; and a new character, a friend of his called Fleur. His madness culminates in him marooning Alistair on an island and attempting to drown Emma. This outrage causes Alistair finally to break out of his apathy and fragility. He escapes from the island to rescue his wife from Vince's clutches; in doing so he ends up fighting with Vince and killing him. The play ends in a surreal fantasy scene, with the boat reaching the upper navigable limits of the river and entering an unidentified, idyllic Eden. Alistair and Emma then strip naked and swim like Adam and Eve which completes the last act of the play. 
I have never forgotten watching this film although I was only a child when I saw it. The reason it stuck in my mind was that it matched perfectly the experiences of my own family, although I don't think I knew it consciously at the time. The way the man I call "Centaur" worked his way into the lives of my family and the way he succeeded in controlling and abusing them, me especially, really rang a bell with me; see: and: Way Upstream truly is a must-see because Aykebourn has identified and dramatized the way a psychopath behaves with other people very perceptively indeed. I would find it hard to believe that this was not his deliberate intention, despite the claims that this play is merely a symbolic political satire. Vince is the closest fictional portrayal of Centaur that I've ever seen. It's painful for me to watch it because of my personal experiences, but this is a very educational film for everybody else. Beware the psychopath!
Another way of analyzing the play is to see it in conspiratorial terms: Vince symbolizes the Illuminati, the parasitic and malevolent Reptilian consciousness, preying on humanity which is represented by the other main characters. Keith and June are the prison of conformism. Keith is the consumerist and hedonist side of ourselves, hypnotized by excess materialism. June is the embodiment of our insecure spirit and broken morale, psychologically attacked and mesmerized by Vince, and made to feel inferior by Keith; and dragged down into low self-esteem and self-loathing. Alistair signifies the New Age; kind and tender, but detached and effete, incapable of action. Emma is the newly emerging spirit of awakening; she has Alistair's tenderness, but more drive and strength. From the very beginning she is intuitively aware that something is wrong with the situation and looks for guidance from the others, unsure of how to act until the end. The scenario becomes increasingly surreal as the story goes on and it reminds me very much of the book Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. If Way Upstream is a metaphor for the real world then how the real world will play out is currently undecided. Will Emma drown? Will Alistair be willing to intervene on a practical level? Perhaps Keith will return to the story to help. Or could June regain her spirit and fight back. Only time will tell, but remember: we are not just actors reading a script; it is our play to write and to direct.

Sunday 21 October 2012

Moon Landing Sites Protected

The age of private space travel is upon us. At first it was just Russia who managed to get into space, then America quickly followed. Many years later China and Japan jumped in, then France, the UK, India... today there are a dozen or more nations with astronautical capability. But in the past the huge cost and complexity of launching rockets and sending craft across the heavens made it always the realm of governments; however nowadays private companies are making serious plans to put rockets... and even people... into space. To encourage them, Google has launched a competition: the Lunar X Prize, for any privately-funded project that can launch rocket to the moon, deploy a mobile lander onto the lunar surface, have it travel half a kilometre and then send a radio signal back to Earth, see:

One of the contestant teams, founded by an American company called Astrobotic Technology, announced its chosen landing site as being near Tranquility Base, the supposed landing site of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module. It then planned to send its mobile lander into the vicinity of Tranquility Base to take photoes and video footage of the LM descent stage, the flag and all the other things supposed to be there. NASA's reaction to this was to approach the Google X Prize organizers and asked them to observe a set of exclusion zones around the landing sites of at least two of the Apollo missions; probably the others will follow. These zones will be between 75 and 225 metres across. This is in order, so they say, to preserve the locations in their pristine condition and let them remain untouched for future historians and scientists to study. The no-go area will include a no-fly zone for ascending or descending rockets above the sites so that even a rain of rocket exhaust vapour does not pollute the stasis created there from 1969 to 1972. See: There is a major political statement being made here; because it's a far-reaching issue to say that a national space agency, or any other terrestrial authority, can decide who has access to a location on the surface of a heavenly body. The landing sites of the Apollo missions were not intended to be beachheads for an empire or colony of any kind. This may constitute a breach of the 1967 Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use Outer Space, the Moon and other Celestial Bodies.

On the one hand I can see that there's good sense in requesting such an action because there are, allegedly, very delicate items of historical importance there: equipment used by the Apollo astronaut's, the footprint of Neil Armstrong's "one small step", which will not fade naturally on a world without wind or rain. It would be the decent thing to do and I'd support that. In fact a professor at the University of New Mexico, Prof. Beth O'Leary, wants the all spacecraft landing sites to be declared national monuments: That brings us back to the question of whether the word "national" can be used to include anything not only beyond the borders of a sovereign state, but beyond the planet Earth! However wouldn't it make sense for NASA to take advantage of the opportunity by negotiating and cooperating with the Lunar X Prize organizers to maybe approaching the Apollo landing sites and studying them from a distance whereby nothing within them would be disturbed? It would be interesting from a historical and scientific perspective, as well as being a money-spinner in terms of publicity! Perhaps NASA have another motive for not wanting anybody to go near the Apollo landing sites: That they're simply not there! See here for more details:

Saturday 20 October 2012

"Petrol produced from Air and Water"

I saw this on the BBC earlier today: Let's leave aside the pat climate change statements: is this any different to the hydrogen-powered car sensation? "It sounds too good to be true"? This is the same way the hydrogen-powered car was marketed. This new fuel sounds miraculous, but it's important to understand that the ingredients for conventional fossil fuels are present in things like air and water: hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. This is not free energy; don't get it confused with the water-powered car designed by Stanley Meyer and others. All this does is extract the fuel elements of petrol from air and water using conventional methods like electrolysis. This is schoolboy science that can be done by anybody. Of course far more electrical energy is needed to make the fuel than the fuel contains. Even this report admits that, like the hydrogen-powered car, this is a method of fuel storage and not generation. I wouldn't be surprised if this story has the ulterior motive of distraction and confusion. See here for more details:

Tuesday 16 October 2012

Gary McKinnon- a Free Man

Well, obviously he will still have to be prosecuted for the charges he faces, but he'll be tried as a British citizen in UK courts, which is another world away. If he'd been extradited he'd be in Guantanamo Bay now. This ruling ends a decade-long struggle for Gary and his family and supporters. There is hope in truth and freedom after all!

BBC Conspiracy Road Trip: UFO's

Conspiracy Road Trip: UFO's can be seen here for a few days after it was broadcast on the 15th of October:
By the time you read this article the link might be dead, but by if another long term link becomes available I'll post it here. (Edit- got one:)
This was a slight improvement on this series' previous shows, perhaps because there are no cases of alleged terrorist incidents committed by UFO's; therefore there are no heartbroken victims to batter the road-trippers' reputation with. See here for my review of previous Conspiracy Road Trip programmes: and: Here is also a HPANWO Radio interview with Franky Ma, a friend of mine and one of the... what do I call them?... "contestants"? See: (When the podcast becomes available I'll change this link. Edit- Done it!)
This programme used some additional props: A cartoon head of a Grey alien on the radiator of the Road Trip coach, and a second one above the windscreen, see the photo at the top. However the mission of the show was the same: the presenter, Andrew Maxwell, would try to persuade a group of UFO-enthusiasts that their beliefs are wrong by subjecting them to the contrary argument. The choice of experts used by both sides to reinforce their case was curious: Seth Shostak is the leader of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, see: He spends his days scanning the cosmos for the signs of intelligent life, but doubts that it is visiting us now. Well, I suppose that would make him redundant from his job! However I don't think he needs to be concerned because that whole question, and therefore the debate between him and the road-trippers, is that the classic Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is true. The theory that UFO's are solid nuts-and-bolts machines, more sophisticated versions of our own spacecraft, flown by flesh-and-blood creatures from physical planets within our own universe that we could see through a telescope, is very much an assumption; there's very little hard evidence for it (In this interview with Brian Allan we give more details: However later in the show they question whether UFO's might be interdimensional manifestations. So the points they were trying to push forward appear confused and tentative to this viewer. As you'll hear in my radio interview with Franky Ma above, there were plenty of other guests suggested who were far more credible, like Richard Dolan and Paola Harris, but they were not presented on the show. It all got a bit surreal when PZ Myers entered the stage, and PZ himself has expressed confusion about his role, see: I'd have thought PZ would have been better suited to the previous week's show about religious creationism, see: As I predicted there was a scene at one of the alien souvenir shops in Roswell or near Area 51. There's a notion among Skeptics that UFO culture is just a money-making racket, however I think this is unfair and have explained why. To accuse Roswell and the people in the towns near Area 51 of anything nefarious is like going to the people of Stratford-on-Avon and saying: "You lot are just milking this Shakespeare thing for your personal profit, aren't you!?" In my view, there is nothing morally wrong at all with exploiting your local history for tourism.
The bizarre nature of the evidence examination took another twist when the subject of animal mutilation came up. A researcher joined the group to suggest that the whole thing is a secret government project; there's strong reason to doubt this, see: However the researcher managed to convince the road-trippers of his views instead of giving the alien theorists a different focus. But naturally the serious researchers were not invited and the really important questions not asked. The same can be said when they paid a visit to an Area 51 museum. Annie Jacobson, the curator, and an ex-Area 51 employee both claimed that there were no extraterrestrial operations going on at the base, that there were no frozen aliens or crashed flying saucers. What's more the curator then tabled the theory under discussion in Nick Redfern's new book: that in the legend of Roswell (although she did not specifically mention Roswell) that the UFO's and aliens were a Russian experimental aircraft and its badly injured pilots, see: Yet another "explanation" to add to that long, long list. And yet again an important question was omitted: Nobody disputes that the Area 51 base is indeed used for secret intelligence and aviation programmes, this does not mean that even bigger secrets are not going on there too. It's important to understand that, just because he served on the base, the employee interviewed would not necessarily know about those things unless he was directly involved. There are compartmentalized levels of classification even within a top secret facility. Other former Area 51 employees like Edgar Fouche, Bob Lazar and David Adair say that there are aliens there; so who's right and who's wrong? Annie Jacobson also follows the idea that UFO lore is government disinformation to hide their real secrets. This is a popular idea at the moment, being written about in books like Mark Pilkington's Mirage Men, see: (There's a film coming out soon too.) However even if this theory is correct, which I think it might be partly, it can in no way account for the entire UFO phenomenon, despite many claims to the contrary. In fact I've often wondered if there's some kind of elaborate double-bluff going on, see: The piling up of this tower of "final declassifications" to do with Roswell and other UFO events is confusing. In fact a member of the cast says so, the one with the tin foil hat and a love of guns... I was wondering if he would also be filmed photographing people on the street like Mel Gibson's character in the movie Conspiracy Theory; then the cliche could be complete.
There's no way of knowing for sure exactly what the motivations are for making this programme. I was contacted by somebody who worked on the show after I posted my review of the 7/7 programme and they vigorously protest against my idea that there is propaganda going on with this production. I don't doubt that most, if not all, the people involved in the production are innocent, including my contact. However when I examine the underlying theme of the series, it arcs in a certain direction that makes me suspicious. In the case of the UFO episode of Conspiracy Road Trip it's not so much a cover-up, but what the researcher Andrew Johnson calls a "muddle up".

Saturday 13 October 2012

Jimmy Savile Correction

Over the years I've written several articles praising Jimmy Savile as a great man and a great Hospital Porter, for example: and I don't intend to edit those articles. A lot of what I've written about all kinds of subjects in the past I no longer believe and would not write now, but Constant Revision Syndrome is hard work and gets harder the more you write. Of course with Jimmy Savile this is an extreme case, for obvious reasons; however I'm not willing to make an exception even for him. I hope it will suffice to say that I no longer stand by the praise I gave him. In fact I find this case particularly upsetting due to the fact that he was a Hospital Porter.
The BBC has just launched an enquiry into Savile's long career with the Corporation, see: One thing that should be pointed out is that people in the conspiratorial community have been warning about Jimmy Savile years before it was picked up by the mainstream media and we were ignored and ridiculed! I ask those who did the ignoring and ridiculing to think again next time we warn you! I have a horrible feeling that these new revelations may be just the tip of the iceberg. Jimmy Savile was a regular visitor at the infamous Haut de la Garenne children's home on Jersey, where the bones of children have been found in the basement; is there a connection? I think we should be more than suspicious! This disturbing but important film by Bill Maloney gives the full details:

Saturday 6 October 2012

Hillsborough Cover-Up

People who use the phrase “conspiracy theory” as a pejorative term for something meaningless and insane would do well to remember that conspiracies do exist and until they’re exposed anybody who suggests their existence is, by definition, a conspiracy theorist. The Ian Contra Scandal and Watergate were conspiracy theories at one point, as was the Dodgy Dossier and the Profumo Affair. Last year I discussed the Claudy Bomb Conspiracy, see: In the last week or two there has been disclosure over another conspiracy theory concerning the Hillsborough Disaster. This was a terrible incident, in which almost a hundred people were crushed to death at an FA Cup football match in April 1989. The full horror was seen by millions of people on live TV. This has been the subject of a long campaign to overturn the official verdict of “accidental death”. Just in the last few days it has been revealed that evidence was indeed covered up by the police and other authorities at the highest levels to falsely mitigate their role in the disaster, see:

As with all conspiracies the media often plays an underhand auxiliary role in keeping the truth at bay. This piece of meaningless and irrelevant trivia may have been attempt to knock the Hillsborough story off the headlines: Richard D Hall theorizes that the Phone-Hacking Scandal of last year may have been staged to do the same to the inquiry over the July the 7th 2005 London Bombings, see: This is more theorizing that might eventually turn into factualizing.

Friday 5 October 2012

HPANWO Facebook Group

Several people have asked me: “Ben, why don’t you set up a HPANWO Facebook group?” I’ve thought about that; after all, almost everybody else seems to have one. But I’ve decided not to for several reasons. Firstly, security: People have often theorized that one day the Powers-that-Be might decide to “pull the plug” on the Internet. I’ve looked into this and I don’t think that’s possible because the Net is so decentralized today. It’s certainly possible to shut down a part of it, or even cut off a large region, temporarily; but to cut off the whole Net for a long period of time would be like trying to paint over the sky! However to offline one website is the easiest thing in the world; Facebook’s owners just have to press a button. Therefore it’s not a good idea to put all our eggs into such a sole precarious basket. I know conspiratorial people who use Facebook for their online life and nothing else! What will they do if there is no Facebook? Also Facebook makes it very easy for intelligence agencies and psychological warfare organizations to monitor, profile and attack conspiratorial users. Sure, they don’t need us all to be on Facebook to do that, but if we spread ourselves out a bit more then it makes their job that bit harder, which is something I want to achieve.

Another reason for not wanting to use Facebook too much is that FB has destroyed much of the traditional website community and especially the “Forumosphere”. In the old days websites had their own in-house forums. Today those forums stand almost empty while most of the discussions go on in FB comments boxes. This is a shame because I love the good old forums. It’s been forgotten that these are sites specifically designed to make discussion easier with sophisticated and ergonomic threaded conversations and easy edit and quote options. The bland and crude functions of FB commenting just don’t compare at all. For these reasons I will not be setting up a HPANWO Facebook group. I will still use FB for socializing, sharing HPANWO publications, answering other people's comments and gathering information, but for nothing else. I still hope to keep the good ol’ fashioned HPANWO Forum alive, see Links column… That’s a hint by the way! If anybody wants to join you’ll be very welcome.

Monday 1 October 2012

BBC 7/7 Conspiracy Road Trip

Well 7/7 Conspiracy Road Trip is upon us. See: As regular HPANWO-readers know, I was asked to participate in this series myself and refused, see: Did I make the right decision?
The programme is available on BBCi Player here, but only for a limited time after broadcast. By the time you read this article it may have been taken down:
However here’s a YouTube version:

The show featured two people that I've had contact with; Tony Topping I’ve met several time and Sacha Christie, whom I’m familiar with only through the Internet. The format of the programme was virtually identical to the original Road Trip; see here for my review of 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip: The only major difference is that the discussion of real evidence was even more minimal and distorted, and that they played the moral blackmail card even harder than this time. The “road trippers” had to face two grieving victims this time and there were many shots, including the end title ones, of memorials and flowers being left at the scene and close-ups cards with moving sentiments written in them. The message was loud and clear: “Shame on you! Shame! If you question the official story of 7/7 then you don’t care about the people who died and their loved ones’ feelings!” I’ve written several articles and made several films explaining how unfair and ridiculous this attitude is. See: Shame on the BBC! Shame on them! Did I make the right decision? What can I say… Yes!