Thursday 29 September 2016

Ben Emmerson Suspension

The screwed up, rusty old can of the UK government's "Independent" Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has been kicked a further down the road yet again. This time they know they can't get away with a fourth resignation of the chairman, so they have instead suspended the chief legal counsel for the case. Ben Emmerson QC studied law at Oxford and is an expert in international crime and human rights issues. He is one of the most expert and experienced solicitors in the country and so was the ideal choice for the child abuse inquiry when he was appointed in 2014. The inquiry made a statement that it had "recently become very concerned about aspects of Ben Emmerson QC's leadership" without specifying what those concerns are. Mr Emmerson himself has made no comment. While he is under investigation he probably won't be allowed to. Nevertheless, there are rumours circulating that Emmerson has clashed with the new chairwoman, Prof. Alexis Jay, over the direction the inquiry is taking. I can guess what his concerns might be. The last thing the inquiry needs, from their point of view, is a whistleblower who goes public with evidence that the inquiry is deliberately dragging its heels and is set up to fail. Even if this is not Emerson's intention, this action plays for time. Child abuse survivors like Ian McFadyen call this a "devastating blow" and has described progress so far as "catastrophe after catastrophe". No doubt my friend Brian Clare will feel the same way. Source:

Wednesday 28 September 2016

Stefan Molyneux on UFO's

Over the last couple of years I've been closely following the lectures of Stefan Molyneux. This Canadian philosopher has one of the most popular YouTube channels and he covers everything from politics, economics and the media to family relationships, psychology, history and sociology. I find him very interesting to listen to, even though I don't agree with him on everything. Every so often he does a live call-in show and he brings on listeners to discuss various subjects. A short while ago he did one on UFO's, see: Although Stefan accepts the possibility of extraterrestrial life, he is skeptical about UFO's. The first guest, "Victor", is a keen UFOlogist and tries to persuade Stefan that UFO's are real. Victor claims to be an engineer and scientist and uses logic to try and explain his position. Stefan is intellectually honest and genuinely curious, but makes a number of mistakes that come from a lack of knowledge. He asks questions about how UFO's perform the manoeuvres that they do, which is impossible according to our science. Victor rightly points out that this is literally correct, but it doesn't mean therefore UFO's aren't real. Stefan keeps coming back to the point that speculation about unknown alien technology is not an explanation for what UFO's are doing. That's technically true, but Stefan seems to think this is evidence that UFO's themselves are not real. I don't gather how that necessarily follows. He even compares it to appealing to magic which is foolish. Victor outlines the role of the state in UFO secrecy and Stefan doesn't address it, which is unexpected because Stefan Molyneux is a dedicated anarchist. He also anthropomorphises the aliens as well. He assumes they're free market capitalists and not government-run, so he asks "where's their shopping mall?" This is assuming the ET's are similar to us in terms of their psychology, economics and politics. We can't make that speculative leap in my view. This is also why he misunderstands the abduction phenomenon and the way UFO's stop car engines. Stefan scorns the idea of alien implants, but doesn't address what Victor says about Dr Roger Leir's work. He also ignores other valid evidence Victor presents like the Washington invasion. He assumes UFO's fly from other planets at below the speed of light and are not interdimensional. This interaction between Stefan Molyneux and Victor is a warning of how knowing a lot about one subject has no bearing at all on how much a person knows about something else.

Monday 26 September 2016

Ben Emlyn-Jones on the Christopher Everard Show 2

I have been interviewed on the Christopher Everard Show on Truth Frequency Radio. See:
My fellow guest is James Fetzer and subjects discussed include: faking the moon landings, paranormal experiences with EVP, UFO's, crop circles and much much more. See here for my previous appearance on the Christopher Everard Show:

Sunday 25 September 2016

Another Good Mural in Oxford

A new mural has appeared on the side of a corner shop in Oxford. It can be found on a wall overlooking the junction of Magdalen Road and Catherine Street. I don't know who made it, but it might be possible to find out. Oxford and its environs has a great tradition in folk art, see background links below, and there will be official planning permission on record. The graffito depicts a lion sitting in a field of plants with circular blue blooms. In the background to the left on the peak of a hill is a dome-shaped building or rotunda. There are three brightly-lit windows on the facade. Above that is a yellow circle with a black outline; and there are lines underneath that are either movement trails or black liquid drips. Inside the circle are the letters SYD; this could be the artist's signature. Is the lion a depiction of Aslan? Aslan is a great lion who is the central character of The Chronicles of Narnia, a series of books by the Oxford-based author CS Lewis. This seven-book series is aimed at older children and young adults, but can be enjoyed by more mature readers as well. It contains some deeply intellectual and esoteric themes. The background structure reminds me of a scene in the prequel, The Magician's Nephew where the protagonists encounter an enchanted orchard on top of a hill surrounded by a high circular wall. As I say in the background links below, I love non-conformist public art. It brightens up the street and gets people thinking. I hope this particular masterpiece is left alone and not whitewashed like all the others I have endeavoured to preserve.

Saturday 24 September 2016

Tasers on St Helena

The dark side of St Helena's new international age is already manifesting despite the fact that the airport has still not yet fully opened, see background links below for more details. The St Helena Government has announced that the island's police are receiving training in how to use tasers, a supposedly "non-lethal" weapon. St Helena is part of the British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; and it has a unified police force consisting of just seventy officers. There are sixty-three on St Helena and six on Ascension Island. Tristan da Cunha has just one full-time officer with three special reserve assistants. Small and isolated settlements tend to have very low crime rates and St Helena seems to be no exception according to the UK Government's foreign travel advice page; this is despite worrying levels of poverty there. So why are tasers deemed necessary? The St Helena Government has reassured us that this weapon will not be routinely carried by officers on duty, but the option will be there to issue it with permission of a senior officer. However, the very fact this policing method has been introduced must sound strange to the Saints, I imagine. Tasers are far from "non-lethal" in practice. Only a few weeks ago the former Aston Villa footballer Dalian Atkinson was killed by one, see: He is just one of over a hundred people who have died under the electrodes of police tasers since its invention. It has also been revealed that the St Helena police are training with standard firearms too. Source: and: What's going on? Are the authorities on the island tacitly preparing for a change in society in which levels of antisocial and unlawful behaviour are predicted to rise?

Friday 23 September 2016

Richplanet Show about David Icke

Richard D Hall has produced a programme in his Richplanet TV series about David Icke and the notion that the ruling classes of the world are not really human and are in fact shape-shifting reptilians. He invites onto the show his regular collaborator Andrew Johnson, one of the few people in the conspirasphere he appears to trust, and they discuss David Icke together, see: David Icke is one of the most prominent figures in the Truth movement. He was originally a famous TV sports journalist until the early 1990's when he had a spiritual emergence crisis which turned his former life upside down. By the late 1990's he had reestablished himself as an author and lecturer on conspiratorial and spiritual matters. Richard and Andrew speak appreciatively about David's early years; and indeed what David said and did in those days was instrumental in my own process of becoming conspiratorially-aware. It was in 1999 and 2000 that David's pathway changed yet again when he first spoke openly about what he believed was the true nature of the Illuminati elite in his book The Biggest Secret. His ideas came from multiple sources, but the most important was a woman who goes by several names, but is most often known as Arizona Wilder. She approached David and told him that she was the subject of a mind control programme and a Satanic "mother goddess" who served the British Royal family. However there were major flaws in her testimony and I was active on the original David Icke Forum when the argument blew up between Ivan Fraser and his friends and the rest of the membership. I didn't believe Ivan at the time, but on reflection I think he was right, see: Ivan wrote for Dave Starbuck's Truthseeker website and Dave Starbuck has always resented David Icke because Icke has never credited him for first introducing him to conspiratorial ideas in 1993. The "man from Hull with the blue plastic bags" was Dave Starbuck, see: I think it's only fair that David should name Dave as his source, but he doesn't do that. The same can be said for Bill Cooper, who also never got on with David because David drew on a lot of his work anonymously. The good news is that I think David has come round and denounced his previous association with Arizona Wilder; but it's difficult to be sure because, as always, he changes his mind quietly and never admits it openly. You can't buy Revelations of a Mother Goddess on his website any more and you can only watch it on old second hand VHS tapes or online, see: By this stage in the programme Richard and Andrew were already hinting that the whole reptilian angle was a piece of disinformation. There's no doubt that there is a lot of disinformation when it comes to this subject, like there is many others, but does this mean the reptilians do not exist?

In the late 1990's David worked closely with a man called Brian Desborough. It was Brian who introduced him to Arizona Wilder. Richard and Andrew are suspicious of Desborough, however there is more to Brian Desborough than simply an enabler of David Icke. He is a researcher in his own right who deals with free energy, covert technology and secret science, a lot of the same areas of interest as myself, Richard and Andrew. He has written two excellent books, Blueprint for a Better World and They Cast No Shadows, and some blog articles, see: Another source of David's information on the reptilian agenda comes from Credo Mutwa, a Zulu shaman from South Africa who contacted David while he was on tour there are they recorded two long interviews, see: This introduces an important point: the reptilians are not a new idea; in fact the concept of reptilians in human form is a perennial one. It can be found all over the world in different cultures and dates back to ancient times. David is not even the first person to address the issue in the modern world. Cathy O'Brien says she saw the President of Mexico, Miguel de la Madrid, shape-shift in front of her. She dismissed this as another hallucination from her mind control, but was it? Richard criticized David's skills in interviewing and Richard and Andrew also make the point that Credo can turn off the charm at times, like he recently did to Michael Tellinger; but this does not discredit Credo's information necessarily. Another interesting thing about Credo Mutwa is that he says he underwent an alien abduction in 1959 that was very similar to that of Antonio Villas Boas two years earlier, see: Credo Mutwa has been around a long time. I've read some of his books, some of which he wrote in the 1960's. Lyall Watson carried out an interview with Credo for his 1982 book Lightning Bird, which was about the adventures of Adrian Boshier, a British man who went native in traditional African cultures. The legends of the Archons is very similar to that of the reptilians. Researchers like John Lash talk about it in much more detail than Icke. The idea of reptilians is far deeper and more complex than Richard and Andrew relate in the above episode of Richplanet TV. I recently hosted the REPCON conference in which a series of speakers discussed the subject for an entire day. Also listen to this HPANWO Radio interview with Chris Turner, organizer of REPCON and director of the film Don't Mention the Reptilians, see: A legitimate concern Richard and Andrew have is how reptilians are such a huge red pill to swallow that it might stick in some people's throats when it's mixed with other subjects. They play a clip from a recent BBC interview with David Icke on the This Week political TV talk show. The host, Andrew Neil, asks David about his views on 9/11 and other conspiracies, then manages to slip in the lizards in the hope of discrediting all the other things David talks about, see: I do realize how difficult this situation can be and you have to be sensitive when presenting alternative information to somebody who has never been exposed to it before. However, David did not raise the subject of the reptilians, Andrew Neil did. David was asked a direct question and he gave a direct answer. Was he supposed to lie and say "no"? The facts cannot be put aside for the sake of popularity. If the reptilians are real, then they're real. I understand Richard and Andrew's misgivings and if I were in a conversation with somebody about 9/11 I would not volunteer any information about the lizards; but if somebody asks me directly, I shall answer honestly. Then Richard and Andrew bring up a subject about which I completely share their reservations; David Icke's attitude to 9/11. David has been informed about the work of Dr Judy Wood. Andrew talked face-to-face about it with David at a one-to-one meeting in 2008. However David does not appear to have taken on board the seriousness of the situation and has instead fallen into 9/11 populism. He was on The Richie Allen Show and he said: "All we need to agree on about 9/11 is that it was created on purpose to provide the excuse for what has followed. That's all we need to agree on. We don't need to agree on whether this substance brought the towers down, or these energy weapons. That might be interesting, but we don't need to agree on that; we don't need to argue over it. We don't need to come into conflict over it, like children... Let's move on!" This is a big mistake. Knowing how 9/11 was carried out is essential to uncovering who did it and why. If we are led up a blind alley into false narratives about rigging the buildings with explosives or using thermite, then we'll become confused and doubtful. When we see these fables disproved we may even be drawn back into the official story... That's the idea I think. David must understand the need for clarity over the mechanism of the attacks and he must speak out against falsehood. It's not enough simply to agree it was an inside job and that's that. See Richard and Andrew's other dialogues on Richplanet TV for more details, and my own background links below. Ironically The Biggest Secret has an excellent chapter on the death of Princess Diana in which David shows a lot of respect for the need for evidence. The biggest piece of disinformation about the reptilians, in my view, comes from something not mentioned in the programme, but it's from a suspicious person who Richard has alerted us to before over the crop circle matter; Jon Ronson. In 2001 Ronson produced an utterly abysmal documentary about David Icke called The Lizards and the Jews which specifically avoided any of David's serious ideas and focused of a gaggle of foolish young people, the type who are today known as "social justice warriors", and their campaign to destroy David's reputation in Canada because they think when David says "lizards secretly rule the world", he's using code and he really means "Jews secretly rule the world". This is not true, yet Ronson dedicated the entire fifty-minute programme to that most stupid of questions, see: I think David means well, yet he has allowed himself to be misled, perhaps by collaborating with the wrong kind of people. In fact The People's Voice debacle is a sad example of how those who pretend to be his comrades in reality plan his downfall. Richard and Andrew have always operated independently, as do I. Perhaps David should just stick to his own thing from now on. However, there is a case to answer when it comes to the reptilians and David was right to bring that up. Thanks to Richard D Hall and Andrew Johnson for a most interesting discussion.

Thursday 22 September 2016

Obama in Antarctica

It seems there's something strange going on in Antarctica. The great south polar continent has always been a land of secrets, but this year the level of covert activities has broken through the pre-existing ceiling. There is no solid proof here, but there is a series of coincidences that is long enough to be noteworthy. In February a historic meeting took place between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church. This meeting was arranged "as a matter of urgency" and took place in Havana, Cuba. This is the first time the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have had any formal communication for over nine hundred and fifty years. This meeting was ostensibly to address the crisis caused by the persecution of Christians, of all denominations and sects, in the Middle East and across the world by "Mohammedans"- ISIS. However after this meeting, Patriarch Kirill did not take further action to protect his people; he instead jumped on a ship and headed for the last place on earth you'd expect, Antarctica. He landed at the Russian research base of Bellingshausen on King George Island just off the coast of the continent. He gave a mass in the famous Temple of the Holy Trinity, the most southerly Russian Orthodox church in the world. He then blessed the land and sea and visited a local penguin colony. He said: "Antarctica is the only place where there are no weapons, military activities or scientific researches aimed at creating new means of people’s destruction. That is some kind of an image of ideal mankind and a sign that people can live without borders, weapons, hostile rivalry; that people can feel as members of a single family." That sounds a bit Agenda 21 to me. Also what he said about military activity at the South Pole is either hopelessly naive or a lie. The Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia is not just a religious leader, he is very powerful politically as well. He is more on the level of the Pope than the Archbishop of Canterbury in authoritarian terms. At the moment he is highly supportive of President Vladimir Putin, calling him a "miracle of God". The visit of such a prominent figure in Russian society to the nation's south polar outpost is highly symbolic. Source:

There is no direct evidence that Barack Obama visited Antarctica, but it has been reported in an Argentine newspaper in March that the US President was in the middle of a state visit to Argentina in March of this year when he made an "unscheduled" visit to the south of the country, see: Was there time for him to cross the Drake Passage and visit Antarctica and be back again before too many people became suspicious? Patagonia is also rumoured to be a Nazi stronghold in the post-war years and there was a transport system between there and the German occupied Antarctic territory of New Swabia. Oddly enough just before World War II there was a scramble for presence on the Earth's southern continent. In the case of Germany I believe it was a refuge for Hitler and his henchmen after the end of the war. One of the priorities of the German Antarctic Expedition of 1938-39 was to generate accurate maps of the icecaps and mountains. What is the purpose of this new governmental focus on Antarctica? Is it because the Elite are planning a third world war? Source: I don't believe the earth is hollow, but there may well be large underground cavities we have yet to explore, especially under Antarctica, like Lake Vostok, see: At the same time Obama was allegedly in Antarctica, his Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Robert Clapper, paid a visit to Australia. The purpose of this visit is unknown, but it has been confirmed by the US Embassy in Australia, see: A lot of people in places of geopolitical power have been south of the equator lately. It seems an odd synchronicity that this information has come my way just a few days after I found out that the man I call "Jack of the Antarctic" has died, see: Thanks very much to my partner Susan (Ustane) for bringing this to my attention.

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Creepy Clowns Return

In 2014 several places experienced a very odd phenomenon; humanoid figures were spotted wandering the streets that looked rather like circus clowns. This began in Northampton, England and quickly spread. See background links at the bottom for details. A clown is a comic performer, usually male, wearing grotesque and colourful clothing, also distinctive makeup which exaggerate the facial features. They're usually associated with the circus and perform slapstick comedy acts. Psychologists theorize that clowns represent something very deep in our subconscious collective minds. Clowns can sometimes be malevolent adversaries as well as humourous protagonists; good examples of evil clowns are Pennywise in Stephen King's horror story It; as well as the Joker in the Batman franchise and Mr Jelly from the TV sitcom Psychoville. They go much further back in history than I thought; they can be found in the ancient world, in fact their origins are shrouded in mystery. In Jungian psychology clowns might represent an archetype, maybe that of the "trickster". What is fascinating is that people experiencing altered states of consciousness sometimes encounter beings that look and behave like clowns. Dr Rick Strassman is a research psychiatrist who in the early 1990's carried out an experiment that involved giving doses of the powerful psychedelic drug DMT to human volunteers. Over twenty years earlier Dr Sanislav Grof did the same with LSD, see: He reports that his subjects sometimes saw clowns. I strongly recommend Dr Strassman's book DMT- the Spirit Molecule for more details. Now the clowns are back, this time the outbreak is centred on the United States of America and began in South Carolina. In this new reemergence the clowns are exhibiting far more malevolent behaviour than previously. The first report came on the 30th of August from the town of Greenville in which a clown tried to lure a group of children into some woods. Since then more clowns have been spotted in Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky. In London, Kentucky a witnessed photographed a clown and published the picture on social media to warn others. Source: What's going on here? If this is a prank by students (Why do students always get the blame for this sort of thing?) then it is widespread and elaborate. It could be an unorganized meme, but then I'm surprised we've had no media interviews with the perpetrators. The connection to children in the South Carolina case is very worrying. Folklore is replete with tales of unearthly creatures who demand the lives of children. The fear of "blood libel" carried out by Jews against Christians was shown to be ungrounded, but could it have been inspired by a real primeval dread? The Cailleach of Irish mythology is a good example. It is described as a vicious old hag that snatched babies from cribs. This will most likely turn out to be a trick carried out by a group of completely normal humans, but it's too soon to rule out other possibilities. If beings from other worlds are appearing in our universe more often than they used to, why is this? Could it once again be a result of operations at CERN? See: The skeptic paranormal investigator Benjamin Radford has just written a book about bad clowns, see:

Tuesday 20 September 2016

New Nessie Photo

A new photograph has emerged purporting to be the Loch Ness Monster. The legendary beastie is said to lurk in the opaque waters of Britain's largest lake. It has been seen by people since ancient times, but after a major road was laid along the shores of Loch Ness in the early 20th century, the rate of sightings dramatically increased. There are numerous photographs and pieces of film footage of the Monster, some more credible than others. This latest one was taken by a man familiar with Scottish traditions because he works at a distillery warehouse, so he spends his occupational existence alongside barrels of whiskey. Ian Bremner is also a keen amateur photographer. He says he took a series of shots of Loch Ness and saw nothing unusual, but when he returned to his home in Invergordon and examined the photoes in more detail he spotted something strange. There was what looked like a lithe, grey serpentine creature slithering through the water. The picture has gone viral, see: Of course a storm of controversy has raged since the picture was published on Sunday. To be honest, I am dubious myself. Mr Bremner claims he never noticed the creature at the time he took the shot, however the image published has the alleged Nessie as its centrepiece. This means it must have been cropped from a larger image. Do we know that it was taken at Loch Ness at all? All we can see is a stretch of water. That could be in any lake, river or sea. There's no way to be sure without Mr Bremner showing us the original photograph. For all I can tell, he might have gone down to the harbour at Invergordon and taken it there. The front part of the subject looks like a seal to me. In fact this could easily be a picture of three seals swimming along and jumping out of the water. Despite my misgivings I'm sure the Loch Ness Monster exists. It's popularly portrayed as an aquatic reptile, but I think it's more likely to be some kind of fish. See background links below for more details. What counts in this case is the same as what counts for UFOlogy and ghost hunting. If Mr Bremner is presenting this as a photo of Nessie when he knows it is not then he is doing cryptozoology a great disservice. The signal to noise ratio is bad enough as it is without any extra noise. There's another problem. When writing this article I wanted to illustrate it with the picture in question, but when I tried to save it from Google Images it wouldn't work. Is it copyright protected? If so this might indicate the owner is carefully guarding his usage rights. Has he made a financial arrangement of some kind with the distributors?

Monday 19 September 2016

Jeremy Corbyn's Seat to be Abolished

"He can sit on the floor then!" some wag quipped when I first shared this story. The Boundary Commission for England has suddenly picked this time to declare that the Parliamentary seat of the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn might soon disappear in a forthcoming shake-up; this is a seat he has represented with dedication since winning it in 1983. The way the British government works is similar to many other democratic states. Each member of the House of Commons represents a geographic area of the country called a constituency. There are 650 of these constituencies in the UK, one for each Commons member; they all have about the same number of residents so some are bigger than others because of different population densities. I live in the Oxford East constituency and my MP is Andrew Smith. Sometimes these constituencies are changed for various reasons; usually their boundaries are shifted slightly. In the case of Corbyn, his constituency is listed for complete deletion. The Commission recommends that the political map of north London be completely reorganized before the 2020 general election. Two new constituencies are to be created: Finsbury Park and Stoke Newington, and Hackney Central. Corbyn's constituency, Islington North, will be abolished and its territory split between the new and remaining constituencies in the area. This will cause a very messy situation in which there will be a series of by-elections for several sitting MP's. Corbyn will have to re-stand for his seat (an odd phrase). He may even have to compete with two of his closest political allies, Diane Abbott and Emily Thornberry. He may also fall foul of Labour's all-women shortlist policy, a scheme he has supported; talk about being caught in your own net. Hopefully that will make him understand the destructiveness and injustice of so-called "positive discrimination", see: Source: I'm frankly suspicious of the timing of this shake-up. I know that the Boundaries Commissions are not politically partisan organizations. The Speaker of the House of Commons is the chair, but cannot vote at meetings; the members of the Commissions are never in political parties. However at the moment there is a large scale and underhand campaign to remove Jeremy Corbyn from government. I covered the early part of this melee in the background links below and was shocked at how venomous it became. This conflict has threatened to split the entire Labour Party in two with both sides blaming each other for the entire problem. The most common slogan is that Jeremy Corbyn is "unelectable!"; in which case why are his enemies working so hard to stop people voting for him? I know people who have tried to join the Labour Party recently and have been refused even though they qualify according to the rules. The reasons given are all the same and thousands of template replies have been sent to applicants: "You made a Tweet in support of the Green Party." This is clearly a generic excuse; it's unfalsifiable and unprovable. I don't agree with everything Jeremy Corbyn stands for, but I still admire him. My attitude to politics is that it is so ridden with liars, cowards, scumbags and fools that as soon as somebody comes along who has chosen to become a politician because they actually give a piece of excrement about anything, I find myself instinctively warming to them. Corbyn is one of these people. I think that's why I also can't help liking Donald Trump, see: I don't trust the Boundary Commission. I don't accept that their neutrality is impregnable and if they have been corrupted then this would not be the first time. On many occasions politicians have secretly fiddled the borders in order to advance themselves or kick down an opponent; it's called gerrymandering and it's highly unconstitutional and improper. Whatever you think of Jeremy Corbyn, this dirty trick against him cannot be justified. It needs to be exposed. To prove my commitment to fairness, I repeat the point for George Osborne, somebody I definitely do not admire, who is going through the same tribulation, see:

Saturday 17 September 2016

Ben Emlyn-Jones at ASSAP- Seriously Suspicious

I will be speaking at the ASSAP- Seriously Suspicious conference. The date of the event is Saturday the 26th of November 2016. The venue is: Goldsmiths College- University of London, 8 Lewisham Way, London SE14 6PP. The event runs from 10 AM until 6 PM. Tickets cost £10 at the time of writing, on an early bird rate. This price will rise to £20 after a period of time. If you're a student you can get in for free. My speech will be an abridged version of my one on Helen Duncan and the Witchcraft Trial. I anticipate that this will be an exceptional event because it mixes skeptics and "believers" like me. This will hopefully generate some interesting and entertaining debate. See here for details: and:

Friday 16 September 2016

I've got the Mandela Effect

The Mandela Effect is a recently identified phenomenon; in fact research into it can only be traced back to 2010 and the pioneering website of Fiona Broome. She became interested when she noticed people talking about how they remember things differently to how they actually are recorded in historical records. There is a common error of memory that psychologists call confabulation and everybody experiences it from time to time. You might recall somebody you knew many years ago and haven't seen since; and when you're shown a photograph of them from that same era, they don't resemble your mental image at all. The difference with the Mandela Effect is that large numbers of unconnected people are afflicted by the same misremembrance. The most obvious anomaly refers to Nelson Mandela, the political activist and former president of South Africa; hence the name of the effect. As far as I'm concerned, and most people are, Mandela actually died in 2013, indeed I wrote an obituary to him, see:; but a surprisingly large number of people say they remember Mandela dying in prison in 1986. They have no doubt that they saw news items on TV, newspaper articles and other information at the time, and they recall the incident in detail. If they are mistaken, why are they all mistaken in the same way? I only started looking into the matter in depth a few days ago when somebody wrote to me and told me how they used to watch the Looney Tunes cartoon shorts on TV when they were children. Indeed, I did too and I loved them; characters like Bugs Bunny, Road Runner and Porky Pig. I remember them very well. However I distinctly recall that they were called "Looney Toons", not "Tunes". This is a very clear recollection because the titles of the shorts were in a standardized style with the same theme music. I even made this observation as an adult when I watched the 1990's TV comedy Bottom in which one of the characters insults the other by calling him a "looney tune". This was many years before I gained a serious interest in the paranormal. After receiving this letter I went and double-checked. Sure enough, the series is called Looney Tunes. It ran for twenty-nine years, from 1930 to 69, and was always called Looney Tunes. I was astounded. Not only do I have a memory that I really shouldn't have, but other people have the same memory as well. This is just one example; see the website for many others: At some point a skeptic is going to yell "coincidence!" like they always do, but how realistic is that? (Skeptics themselves don't understand this endemic fallacy of theirs, see: There has to be more to the Mandela Effect than that. It could be that it is an artefact of the collective unconscious as theorized the psychologist Carl Jung. The same concept could be behind the "hundredth monkey effect", see: Another possibility is that people who experience the Mandela Effect are literally moving between different worlds, slipping into parallel universes within the "multiverse". If so, why has the Mandela Effect become more noticeable only within the last few years? Possibly because it is only now that it's being defined properly by Fiona Broome and others; but could it perhaps be also because the structure of our universe has physically changed? If so then what has caused that change? What force could be powerful enough to alter the very fabric of reality? To undermine the foundations of space-time causality?... Regular readers will guess where I'm going with this... The answer is, of course, CERN. See background links below for my detailed discussions about the Large Hadron Collider, what it is capable of and what its real purpose might be. Also Kev Baker has covered this in his radio shows, for example see: This is disturbing news. Does it mean that I can no longer be certain of my own past, at least from the point of view of whatever dimension I'm in? Still, I might as well look on the bright side. I might be lucky enough to slip into a universe in which Prof. Brian Cox was never born.

Thursday 15 September 2016

Hinkley Point C Approved

The government has given the go-ahead for the construction of a new nuclear power station to be built at the Hinkley Point site on the Somerset coast. The facility already contains two older power plants; one of them now closed. The new power station will consist of two reactors of Franco-Chinese design built by the French company EDF and their partners in China. Given the unimaginative name of Hinkley Point C, the new power station will generate 3,200 megawatts of power and, along with the new Sizewell C reactors, will contribute to thirteen percent of Britain's electricity supply. Since 2008 the government has been working to phase out the country's aging coal-fired power stations and replace them with renewables like solar and wind farms, gas-fired plants and nuclear power. Didcot B in Oxfordshire, near where I live, has recently been transformed into just such a gas-fired plant. Constructions like these justify increases in fracking and that's just one of the pitfalls of the UK authorities' new energy policy. Wind farms harm wildlife. Bats are particularly at risk, being blown into the blades of the turbines at night. The turbines spoil the natural look of wilderness areas, especially in Scotland. The risks of nuclear power are obvious; radioactive pollution, what to do with the waste and the catastrophic results of major accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl. To be fair, the latest nuclear reactors are far more advanced and much safer than the older plants that have done the most harm, but nothing is a hundred percent safe, and the consequences of a disaster are so terrible that I think the risk is not justified, however tiny the odds.

The construction of Hinkley Point C will be one of the biggest civil engineering projects in British history. It will generate 24,000 jobs, but the cost of the programme has not yet been assessed. It will be at least eighteen billion pounds and could be as high as twenty-nine billion. This makes it even more expensive than replacing Trident, see: At the moment there has been no final plan for the funding of Hinkley Point C. The government are reassuring us that the French and Chinese consortium will probably end up covering the costs, but I've a feeling Mr and Mrs Taxpayer are going to have to dip into their pockets at some point. Source: This gloomy and incompetent projection for energy generation is the only one we've got; and it stretches away into the foreseeable future. There are a few exceptions though; the new "ITER" research station is gradually taking shape in the south of France, but the development of hot nuclear fusion power is achingly slow, see: and: A few years ago Nexus magazine warned about the dirty tricks being employed by the nuclear power lobby, see: The driving force behind the justification for nuclear power and even, occasionally and unbelievably, fracking, is the fear of man-made climate change. Environmentalists have become split over this question with "new greens" like George Monbiot and Mark Lynas coming out in support of nuclear power, despite all its dangers and disadvantages, simply because it is Carbon Neutral™, see: Lynas has gone on to produce a pro-nuclear environmentalist propaganda film called Pandora's Promise. As regular readers know, I think that man-made climate change is not real, see: However even if it were real, there would still be no justification for today's energy policy. When we take into account the suppression of free energy technology these questions are exposed as a phoney bone of contention; see the background links below for more detail. There are methods of generating power that are safe, infinite, simple and cost almost nothing. They were first developed successfully over a century ago and inventors are coming up with new discoveries all the time. The authorities suppress these discoveries as soon as they appear at the same time that they force us to use dirty, expensive and damaging fossil fuels; either that or dangerous nuclear power. We need to expose this agenda as soon as possible before it's too late. We can at least save ourselves a lot of bother by revealing the truth before we invest a massive amount of time, resources and effort building the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.

Wednesday 14 September 2016

Hillary's Double

Hillary Clinton is front runner to become the next President of the United States of America; in fact I think she is the "Chosen One", see background links for details. Yet in recent weeks there has been some concern... maybe "concern" is the wrong word... interest regarding her health. This began in July when she appeared to suffer a seizure of some kind, as if she were afflicted by brain damage or epilepsy, see: Indeed we know that in 2012 she banged her head badly and developed a blood clot inside her brain. Some doctors said she is showing the early symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Then last week she came down with a terrible cough in the middle of a speech. She could hardly get a word out in over four minutes, and then she appears to spit out two large lumps of phlegm into a glass of water, see: The notion that Hillary might be ill was ridiculed by the mainstream and skeptic media as a conspiracy theory; however, events last Sunday have removed any lingering doubts... or hopes if you're that way inclined. Secretary Clinton was attending the 15th anniversary of 9/11 memorial event in New York City. She was wearing sunglasses even though the sunshine was not very bright. These could be medical glasses given to people to stop seizures. Then she appeared to become semi-conscious and lost her footing. A US Secret Service van pulled up and her minders helped her into it. Just before she climbed in she fainted and had to be carried. One of her shoes fell off and was left behind, almost in a weird parody of Cinderella, see: She was taken to her daughter's home nearby and later returned to the street recovered. One theory is that she suffered from heat exhaustion; however the weather was not very hot that day. Her doctor has since confirmed that she has come down with a mild case of pneumonia, but is responding well to treatment. However, it's obvious she is afflicted by much more serious and chronic illnesses than a wheezy chest. Mrs Clinton is sixty-eight years old and is planning to take on a very tough job. One only has to look at other US Presidents, like Obama, Clinton and George W Bush, before and after they were inaugurated, to see that their eight years in office prematurely aged them about twenty-five years. Hillary will probably not survive even a few weeks in the White House. She's also made some embarrassing blunders since the boost to her popularity at the Democratic National Convention. She gave an address in Reno, Nevada in which she described supporters of Donald Trump as "alt-right", which is actually the name for an internet-based political tendency. She said they are racists, conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites (sound familiar?). She named Alex Jones, Dr David Duke and several other people calling them and those who support them "deplorable!", see: This is political suicide. One thing no candidate for government ever does is slag off an entire sector of the electorate. Her rival Donald Trump has capitalized on her faux pas to the max, printing T-shirts with slogans like: "I'm one of the Deplorables! VOTE TRUMP!" Is this the end of Hillary's campaign? If she were anybody else, I'd say yes without hesitation; but this is "The Chosen One" we're talking about here. If Hillary Clinton is not healthy enough to stand for Presidential office, or if she even dies, a look-alike actress may well be brought in to pretend to be Hillary. I don't rule out the possibility that Hillary has been cloned and that the actress is waiting in the wings, at a secret government laboratory, and will look exactly like her. An alternative scenario is that Hillary will retire from politics and the Democratic Party will slip in an emergency candidate to face Trump, probably Joe Biden, the current Vice President. If either of these outcomes happen then the only chance Donald Trump has of staying alive is if his polling figures collapse.

Tuesday 13 September 2016

Sherlock- The Hounds of Baskerville

Sherlock Holmes is one of the most vivid and iconic fictional characters in literary history. The eccentric detective appeared in four novels and numerous short stories penned by the paranormal researcher Sir Arthur Conan Doyle between 1887 and 1927. At one point Doyle killed off Holmes and then used a plot device in which Holmes retrospectively faked his own death to bring him back to life. This was because his readers put so much pressure on him. The most famous Sherlock Holmes story is The Hound of the Baskervilles which was published in 1901. It is a murder mystery involving a legend of a supernatural man-eating dog that is reputed to haunt Dartmoor in Devon. The story has been adapted into numerous films and television programmes. Many are not set in the Victorian and Edwardian periods which the books emerged in, but are instead contemporary to the time when the adaptations are made; including what I consider the best which was released in 1939 and starred Basil Rathbone as the eponymous character. The latest adaptation of the story is also contemporary. Sherlock is a series made by the BBC and, despite being set in modern Britain, is carefully faithful to Doyle's template.

The Hounds of Baskerville is the second episode of the second season of Sherlock and is loosely based on The Hound of the Baskervilles. What's fascinating about it is that it includes conspiratorial factors in the plot. As in the book, a young man from Devon approaches Holmes and asks him to investigate a death on Dartmoor, possibly caused by a supernatural dog. When he was a child he witnessed his father being killed and eaten by a huge canine monster, much bigger than any other dog he'd ever seen. Since then he had suffered a mental breakdown and was undergoing therapy with a Dr Stapleton; the name of the villain in the novel, in the TV series she is a female psychiatrist and only plays a secondary role. The young man suspects that his father's death might be linked to a nearby secret government laboratory, similar to Porton Down, called Baskerville. Local people have heard rumours that the government is breeding huge genetically modified dogs covertly to be used in warfare. Holmes is famous for being extremely deductive and observant. He can work out a person's entire life story almost at the moment he meets them by cold-reading the tiniest detail. His brother Mycroft Holmes is also a top Westminster official, and so by impersonating him Holmes manages to blag his way inside Baskerville. Mycroft is both helper and obstacle because has also sent Inspector Lestrade to Devon to keep an eye on his errant brother. Holmes and Dr Watson soon discover the truth of what is going on. There are no real giant dogs in Baskerville, but there is an experiment to develop gas that induces confusion and terrifying hallucinations. The idea is to use this as a weapon of war to disorientate and demoralize enemy soldiers on a battlefield. This is being tested on Dartmoor and the young man's father was murdered by one of the scientists there because he was a test subject in the experimental programme and threatened to go public. The fictional project is codenamed H.O.U.N.D., the initials of the scientists who developed it; and it has real life counterparts, such as MK Ultra. Obviously Holmes and Watson eventually unmask the antagonist and solve the case. It's interesting that the BBC would bring this element into their latest adaptation; it would not be very difficult to recreate The Hound of the Baskervilles in its original storyline for the Sherlock series. The Hounds of Baskerville can be purchased here:

Monday 12 September 2016

Ben Emlyn-Jones at the East Anglia UFO Group Conference

I will be speaking at the East Anglia UFO Group Conference 2017. The date of the event is Sunday the 2nd of July next year. The venue is: the Memorial Hall, Woollards Lane, Great Shelford, Cambridgeshire, CB22 5LZ. The event runs from 10 AM until 5.30 PM. Other speakers are Gary Heseltine of UFO Truth magazine, David Hodrien of the Birmingham UFO Group and Tony Buckingham, chairman and chief investigator of the East Anglia UFO Group. More speakers may be added to the list. Tickets cost £20 at the time of writing, on an early bird rate. This price will rise to £25 after a period of time. If you're a student you can buy one for just £15. See here for details:
(UPDATE Feb 2017) Cancelled. Apologies.

Thursday 8 September 2016

Keith Vaz and the Child Abuse Files

There's a very amusing scene in the TV sitcom Blackadder the Third in which Baldrick, one of the characters, is running for Parliament and is asked whether he has a criminal record. He replies: "Absolutely not!" Blackadder protests: "Oh come on, Baldrick. You're going to be an MP for God's sake!" See: Many a true word is spoken in jest. Over the years, from a wide number of sources, I've come to the conclusion that there is no doubt that politicians are on average the most habitual criminals in the world. When it comes to vice, they are virtually in an endemic situation. The number of prostitutes I've heard of who service the government are almost an entire sector of the black market sex industry in itself. Basically, they're all at it! So why have the revelations about Keith Vaz suddenly become such a scandal? Keith Vaz is the Labour MP for Leicester East who has just resigned as chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee after a tabloid newspaper published a story about Mr Vaz having had paid sex with male prostitutes. He is also accused of buying these men drugs, see: Could it perhaps be because just a month earlier Keith Vaz made a public statement about how the Home Office had "lost" the dossier on Westminster paedophile allegations? See: A coincidence, you might say. Then is it also a coincidence that Simon Danczuk MP experienced a public media pillorying too, for having raunchy text conversations with a seventeen year old girl, see: Mr Danczuk is one of the loudest voices in Parliament supporting the children said to have been abused and is a good friend of the regular HPANWO Radio guest Brian Clare, see: Is this preventative blackmail? Are we seeing a warning to other politicians, that they must keep quiet about what they know otherwise their sexual excesses will be all over the front pages of the daily Murdochs? You might decide to condemn Mr Vaz and Mr Danczuk for their unprofessional and immoral behaviour... but remember, the men and women they liaised with were consenting adults. That's more than can be said for many of their colleagues as yet still at large.

Wednesday 7 September 2016

Truth Mobbed Again!

It's strange how things seem to come along in clusters, like three buses in a row. A few weeks ago I twice had to address two different people who had chosen to subject me to a personal attack on the internet within a month of each other, see: and: Now it has happened again, or at least I've been made aware of such an assault just now via a comment on one of my posts; I suspect the item goes back much further. Here is the document of concern: I have no idea who "Sharon Kilby" or "Sharon Zaki" is. I don't recall meeting anybody with that name. Their tirade against me begins: "Ben is someone in the so-called ‘alternative media’ who I least suspected of being co-intelpro..." What an original concept!... She (or he) then goes on a rant that fills up thirty-three standard PDF pages. The author has studied my every word meticulously and judges me ruthlessly over what could be minor errors of memory, or a human lack of understanding and nerve on my part. For example they write: "He is supposed to be an independent researcher... in the ‘alternative media’ so we might ask why he promoted the HG story for 2 years without even thinking of asking for proof that it was true." Because I made a mistake, Sharon! Thousands of us did! I actually explain that clearly in my publications on Hollie Greig; why didn't you acknowledge that seeing as you've analyzed everything I've said so closely? The author condemns me for my past involvement with the Hollie Greig Hoax Group, Belinda McKenzie, Ian R Crane and Sheva Burton in a form of "guilt by association". I do not apologize for working with these people; in fact the podcasts of interviews with some of them are still there on HPANWO Radio, see links column. Sharon accuses me of being a "liar", a "lying evil subversive", a protector of my "fellow paedo protecting shills", a "conspiraloon" serving my "satanic masters well", possibly a "high up freemason", a "deluded arrogant self-absorbed twat", "fucking idiot", "a thoroughly disgusting sub-human", "a weak cowardly immoral pretender", "lying little fucktard", "a lily-livered
fantasist" and a "treacherous rodent". They also wish that I would "rot in hell. Ben, seriously, get some help for your extreme egocentric and narcissistic behaviour." They misrepresent statements that I've made, such as: "Ben says: 'People have just stopped talking about it now, such as (David) Icke and (Richard D) Hall'. I respond: So that’s ok then! The fact that there is still no resolution is fine by him?" I never meant it like that and the only way somebody could interpret it as such would be if they were looking for ways to twist my words. There's also a "guilt by double association" involved because Sharon lambasts me for being friends with people who are friends with Brian Gerrish, Lou Collins, Sabine McNeil and others whom they disapprove of. They also attempt to discredit me by bringing up completely irrelevant details of my life, such as my interview with WalesOnline and how I got discharged from the Hospital Portering Service, see: They then scrutinize my views on the paranormal and UFO's. Sharon says: "How can we take Ben seriously as a so-called fighter against the NWO when he promotes this kind of nonsense?" In truth I explain carefully and logically why I think these phenomena are not nonsense at all. Does abandoning careful logic in favour of mindless rhetoric makes the Truth movement look more appealing in the author's view?... Sharon then goes on to attack Carla Buckle and smear me for supporting her brave stance against authority, see: They accuse me of promoting Freeman-on-the-Land "crap" without ever explaining why it is in fact "crap". The same goes for Cathi Morgan, see: At the very end of this work of literature, Sharon entreats me to save myself by turning to "God now and asking for the courage to be completely honest." The article is so full of red text and emboldened fonts that it looks like a very long and drawn out final demand. The website homepage begins with the words: Helping to halt the NWO, but the site itself says very little about halting the NWO. All it does is morbidly fixate over other individuals within the anti-NWO community. In the contents column you'll see that I am just one of half a dozen or more people who are given the red-letter treatment by "Sharon", see:

How can I possibly respond to this blustering incoherent cretin? I could hurl insults back at them... tempting! I could lock myself down for a fortnight carefully unpicking this entire indictment, but what would that achieve? Would "Sharon" reply calmly and logically in order to rebut my points one-by-one? Of course not. It would be completely pointless. The greater part of the document is simply noise. I've discussed this with a few other people and they understand what it's like when you encounter a verbally-aggressive person and there is absolutely no way to defend yourself verbally. It is utterly futile to tell them things like: "But that's not true/not fair because...". Everything you say to them, any word that could possibly come out of your mouth, will be turned into ammunition to be fired back at you. "Sharon" or whatever her or his name is, is not trying to make a rational argument; they are trying to produce a piece of violent rhetoric. It's the written equivalent of yelling abuse in somebody's ear. It doesn't matter to them whether what they've said is true or not, or fair or not. All that matters to them is that it is inflammatory and threatening. They hope to break down the reader's own will and coerce them into believing the author's word without question. One of the things that all Truth mobs have in common, whether their target is Kevin Annett, Darren Perks or Larry Warren, is: Sanctity of the Cause. You are either with the Truth mob... or you are with the target of its ire. If you are with the target you are utterly holy other; it's as simple as that. It's an interesting thought experiment to see if Truth mobs can be classified as cults. I believe that I have identified the Seven Signs of a Truth Mob™, see background links below. How closely do these match the warning signs as defined by cult analysts? Here's a twenty-point checklist I found on an anti-cult website:
1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
You want to try critically inquiring with "Sharon"? Good luck!
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
No, but just because Truth mobs don't usually have budgets. They are 100% voluntary efforts.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
Yes. Truth mobs will always wail portents of eternal woe unless their target is "stopped!"
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
Yes, see my own experiences in the background links below.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group or leader.
Only those presented by the other side; for instance see David Icke vs Sonia Poulton.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
No. Anybody can kiss arses and nod their head enough for most Truth mobs.
9. The group leader is always right.
10. The group leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
Yes. I had a telephone conversation with "XposeUFOTruth" before I saw through her, and she made it abundantly clear that she and she alone had "the goods" on Darren Perks. Truth mobs will always accuse outsiders of "not knowing what they're talking about!", even after referring everybody they can find to epic and intricately detailed  sources describing their agenda.
11. Members exhibit extreme obsessiveness regarding the group or leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
Yes. People who fall into Truth mobs never have energy or time to do anything else.
12. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused, as that person's involvement with the group or leader continues and deepens.
Yes, but Truth mobs don't have a God. Their energy instead comes from a devil figure, embodied by the target. However, Truth mobs tend to coalesce around a particular person, or a handful of people, who are the most vociferous and dedicated in the campaign against the target. They become an object of veneration and deference.
13. Whenever the group or leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
14. Members have uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group or leader in personal behaviour.
Not particularly, however Truth mobs do develop tribal customs and behavioural codes.
15. Dependency upon the group or leader for problem solving, solutions and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without the group and leader's involvement.
Yes, or at least certainly during Truth mob activities; which are so consuming of time and energy that this counts as almost everything.
16. Hyperactivity centered on the group or leader's agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.
Yes. Just see how much material Truth mobbers produce! The amount of attention they pay to their cause is breathtaking.
17. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humour.
18. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group or leader.
Yup! Just watch your Facebook friends list shrink when a Truth mob breaks out in the middle of your community and you refuse to get involved.
19. Anything the group or leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
Yes. This can include hacking, copyright attacks, flagging, doxing, threatening emails, abusive Tweets and messages, smearing and even criminal threats and slander.
20. Former followers are at best considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They cannot be trusted and personal contact is avoided.
Yes. There are members of the old Facebook groups who were subjected to Truth mobbing whom I've not spoken to since.
I ask readers to judge for themselves how closely this list resembles my Seven Signs™. I am not the only one who has been caught up in a Truth mob lately. In the background links at the bottom I describe how I've noticed the incidence of Truth movement infighting increase. Since those publications it seems to have expanded even more, if that were even possible. Right now an extremely public tussle has broken out between Max Igan and Ken O'Keefe, see: and: and: The signs of shill storm brewing are very manifest indeed: a copious amount of public attention, binary loyalties and supporting groups of either side, black vs white glorification and demonization etc. The dedication and obsession of Truth-mobbers and Shill Squad officers knows no ends. For instance there is a person on YouTube known only as "Deb C" who has become fanatically focused on the anti-NWO filmmaker Chris Everard. Just look at how many videos he or she has uploaded with his name in the title; they go back over two years: I wish I wasn't, and really should not be, surprised. I can almost hear the Illuminati laughing as they look down from their pyramid at their supposed enemies.